立法院在民國98年三讀通過「勞資爭議處理法」修正案，其中第53條第1項後半段增列「權利事項之勞資爭議，不得罷工」之規定。此一立法誠然符合通說的主張，卻嚴重背離國情。蓋通說係來自德國理論，該國工會力量強大，足以與資方分庭抗禮，締結團體協約之風自是盛行。我國則反是，工會積弱不振，團體協約也因此幾乎不見諸實務。此種工會結構亦導致權利事項之爭議為數遠高於調整事項之爭議，將罷工之對象侷限於後者自會在結果上扼殺工運生機。筆者曾經為文自法社會學觀點指出此一問題，但卻未能引發同行迴響，這顯示欠缺論爭文化的嚴重現象。勞工為了規避相關要求，往往在罷工之前佯裝雙方存有調整事項之爭議。究其實，勞委會一度有意在勞爭法草案中放棄增列新規定，但終究無法改變其後行政院院會與立法院內之發展。

The Legislative Yuan (Congress) of Taiwan passed in 2009 the Act for Settlement of Labor Disputes (ASLD) which regulates that strikes are not allowed when right disputes are concerned. Although the majority of our labor law scholars agree with this new regulation, it is wrong and unrealistic. Nearly all Taiwanese trade unions are badly organized and therefore unable to be the counterparts of the employers. It is accordingly quite unusual that they in comparison to the Western unions dare to strike for wage raise in terms of the interest disputes. Strikes would be here undertaken merely by workers whose rights are severely violated, e. g. when the employer has not paid them wages for months. Such disputes may, however, only be settled by the procedures of mediation, arbitration or decision on unfair labor practices in accordance with the named Act or judged by a civil court. Unfortunately, these are either less helpful or time-wasting. The new regulation is in fact a imitation of the German model. It is well-known that their trade unions are omnipotent and resort easily to a strike action when a compromise can’t be reached regarding the interests disputes. Due to all these differences, it is unwise to adopt the mentioned model which is actually not free from criticisms even in Germany. The author had presented his thesis long before the new regulation was passed but found astonishingly no echo from his colleagues. The related article was indeed deemed as nonexistent. This reveals another serious topic regarding the discourse culture of the law research community in Taiwan.