Shopping at Giant Foods: Chinese American Supermarkets in Northern California

7 / Chinese Management and Labor Unions

7 / Chinese Management and Labor Unions t h e o p e r a t i o n o f c h i n e s e a m e r i c a n grocery stores and supermarkets was in many ways different from and yet similar to that of their competitors. Management of personnel was definitely different, which often invoked reproaches from competitors and labor unions. But to the employers , their management was nothing out of the ordinary, but a standard modus operandi that came from the old country. Because entrepreneurship in America, like in China, was highly competitive, utilizing traditional Chinese management practices made sense to them. Earlier Chinese American entrepreneurs used these practices for decades with successful results. It is worthwhile, therefore, to examine the method of management, and to also examine the organizations that were determined to restrain it, the labor unions. The bane of Chinese American employers and management was the labor unions. Labor unions began in earnest to sign up Chinese American employees after the war because of the increasing prominence of their employers’ supermarkets. The unions’ demands for higher wages and bene- fits cut into the high profit margins of the supermarkets, but more aggravating to the employers was the enforcement of labor rules that curtailed their control. Before the imposition of union labor rules, employers basically ran their stores in a paternalistic manner. But as the labor unions began enrolling more employees and supplanting the role of employers to provide for them, employees began to become less compliant with traditional Chinese management. Likewise, the labor unions helped erode the solidarity between employers and employees. They vigilantly made sure management complied with the labor rules and wages stipulated in the contracts. Consequently , there was always tension between the management and labor unions. 132 chinese management Very few studies have been completed about Chinese American enterprises; therefore,informationabouttheirmanagementpracticesissparse.Apartfrom Paul Siu’s The Chinese Laundryman, treatment of the subject has tended to be cursory, general, or celebratory. However, there have been some studies on various types and sizes of enterprises in China and Asia that described the characteristics of traditional Chinese management. From the findings in those studies, it becomes apparent that early Chinese American employers closely followed these traditional methods in management. Basically, they practiced paternalism, the fundamental system that permeates the traditional Chinese way of life. It was natural that early grocery store and supermarket employers , who were not far removed from the old country, used the paternalistic method. Combined with ethnic solidarity and good timing, it helped produce good profits. But its practice became less and less efficacious for employers as the standards of operating supermarkets, which their competitors implemented, rapidly advanced and as the character of their core personnel, Chinese Americans, changed. Employers who did not modify old ways or adopt new ways of management lost their competitiveness. It is worth noting that most studies pointed to traditional institutions and practices as factors that contributed largely to the success and failure of the enterprises. In “The Institutional Foundations of Chinese Business: The Family Firm in Taiwan,” Gary Hamilton and Kao Cheng-shu make four points. First, personal relationships and social rules were at the heart of Chinese business activity, just as Westerners regarded laws as appropriate in their business environments. But not everyone adhered strictly to rules. Just like many Westerners who broke, circumvented, or ignored laws, many Chinese did the same with relationships and rules. The most important point was that this institutional framework existed, forming the basis for activity and evaluation. Second, businesses of all sizes operated in the same institutional environment and were subject to the same framework of rules and relationships. The ubiquitous family firm, for example, was based on organizing principles that owners regarded as legitimate. These principles could not be ignored if owners wanted to succeed in business or any other activity. Not all Chinese businesses, however, were organized exactly the same way because principles only provided a base from which variations could be used. Third, “the family firm is not a type of organization doomed to be replaced by more modern organizational types. Instead, in the Chinese context, participants use close relaChinese Management and Labor Unions • 133 tional bonds as organizational principles to create and manage large, modern firms.” Thus, the archetypal family firm was highly adaptable and flexible in all levels of business activity. Fourth, Hamilton and Kao found that the personal relationships and the ensuing networks...