阅读理解

Get back to work, or we’ll hire permanent replacements to take your jobs! That’s what management at Robert Bosch, a German multinational firm with 270,000 employees worldwide, told union members who exercised their right to strike in December 2005.

Bosch’s message might come as a surprise to anyone who reads the company’s website, which promises “respect and support” for international labor standards, especially International Labor Organization (ILO) norms on workers’ freedom of association. Bosch’s threat directly contravened an ILO standard that says threatening or using permanent replacements to break a strike violates workers’ freedom of association. Bosch’s threat also ran counter to labor practices at home in Germany and throughout Europe, where permanent replacements are prohibited or, in the case of Germany, simply unheard of. No employer has ever tried using them there.

The 2005 strike wasn’t taking place in Europe, however, but at Bosch’s packaging equipment plant in New Richmond, Wisconsin, where the company was demanding wage cuts and higher health- insurance payments. Bosch acted legally under U.S. labor law, which uniquely allows employers to permanently replace workers who strike. Most other countries permit only temporary replacements. Some prohibit replacements altogether. Faced with permanent replacement, the Wisconsin workers returned quickly on management’s terms.

If Robert Bosch lived up to its commitment to ILO standards, it would not have exploited weak U.S. labor laws to play the permanent-replacement card. This difference between rhetoric and action is the heart of a new report by Human Rights Watch, which I authored, on violations of workers’ freedom of association in the United States by European multinational firms. The report shows how European corporations claiming commitment to international labor standards have a blind spot when it comes to workers’ rights in the United States.

单选题 Which or the following is TRUE about Bosch?

A、 Bosch doesn’t practice what it preaches.
B、 Bosch violates both domestic and international practices.
C、 Bosch is the first employer to try permanent replacements.
D、 A and C

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】根据文章大意可知： Bosch公司的官方网页上承诺“尊重和支持”国际劳工标准，特别是国际劳工组织（ ILO）关于工人结社自由的规范，但实际上该公司却威胁要永久更换参与罢工的工人，显然言行不一。 A选项正确。 Bosch公司的威胁也与德国国内和整个欧洲的劳工惯例背道而驰，在那里，永久更换工人是被禁止的，在德国，更换工人这种说法根本没听说过，没有雇主曾尝试这么做。因此， Bosch公司是第一个尝试永久替换工人的企业。 C选项正确。故选D。

单选题 Which of the following is NOT true?

A、 America adopted different labor laws concerning labor replacement.
B、 Employees were striking at Bosch’s plant in the U.S.
C、 Bosch was taking advantage of U.S. labor laws.
D、 European corporations lack insightful understanding of workers’ rights in the U.S.

【正确答案】 D

【答案解析】根据文章内容可知： Bosch公司根据美国劳动法合法行事，该法律允许雇主永久替换罢工的工人。其他的大多数国家只允许临时替换。有些国家干脆禁止更换。如果Bosch公司履行其对劳工组织标准的承诺，那它就不会利用疲弱的美国劳动法来打永久更换工人的牌。表明Bosch公司在利用美国工人法的规定，美国的劳动合同法与其他国家的也不一样。欧洲公司对国际劳工标准作出了承诺，但当谈到美国工人权利问题时，这些公司却常常有盲点，这并不是说欧洲公司对美国的工人权利缺乏深入的了解，而是说他们会利用美国法律规定的不同来为自己谋利益，故选D。