Advertisement

May 20, 2013

Recent Developments in Collective Salary Negotiation in China

As a result of discussions around China’s pending Draft Salary Regulation, collective salary negotiation has once again become a hot topic.

There have been several well-known, recent cases relating to collective salary negotiation.  In 2010 one Japanese-invested car company raised its Chinese employees’ salaries by 35 percent after experiencing a strike that lasted more than two weeks and interrupted almost all of its manufacturing in China.  In 2011 it was reported that French supermarket Carrefour had not raised employees’ salaries for 12 consecutive years.  This drew considerable attention from the local government in Shanghai and Carrefour was forced to raise wages by 8 percent after a Government-led collective negotiation with the employees.

In addition, trade unions at different levels have been very active in urging employers to sign collectively bargained contracts that include salary increase as the main content.  Furthermore, additional rules relating to the collective negotiation process have been issued to provide guidelines regarding collective negotiation for enterprises that do not have trade unions.  The future for collective salary negotiation looks bright, but is that really the case?

To read the full article, click here

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

The Corporate Group advises on gaining entry and doing business in China, such as establishing corporate structures, including joint ventures, wholly owned subsidiaries, representative offices and newly permitted umbrella companies. They advise on the legal issues concerning international syndicate loans, private equity investment, equipment leasing, project financing, joint ventures, establishment and financing for high-tech companies, technology licensing, international arbitration and litigation, and other commercial business areas.

86 21 6105 0500

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.