Employers Push Back Against Zero-Fee System, as Migrant Workers Demonstrate for Time Off

English

Photo Credit: Heeheemalu/WikiCommons/CC BY-SA 4.0

MIGRANT WORKERS demonstrated last Sunday against working conditions that have them, in many cases, working 24 hours, seven days a week.

This is especially the case for migrant workers who live with families, taking care of the elderly. At best, such migrant workers only have Sundays off. The remainder of the time is devoted to taking care of elderly family members, irrespective of hours, and even if their rest periods are interrupted. To this extent, migrant workers criticized not only how they are denied the fundamental right to time off, but how they are sometimes denied access to medical services.

Civil society advocates for migrant workers are, broadly speaking, calling for the inclusion of migrant workers into long-term care systems, which would serve as their employer, rather than under the current system, in which families are employers. Consequently, the Labor Standards Act would apply to migrant workers, who would then work in shifts, rather than the under the current system, in which the same worker works around the clock. The current system was criticized as declining the quality of care, given the exhaustion of the caregiver.

Under this new system, families would become service users, rather than employers. This, too, would change how labor disputes are addressed. But the government was criticized, in that while there has been budget devoted to long-term care services, this mostly goes to centers that care for those with moderate to mild disabilities. Instead, use of long-term care facilities by those with severe disabilities has declined.

Even as attempts are made to advocate for the rights of migrant workers, it is also clear that employers have begun to push back against attempts to change the migrant work system in Taiwan.

A petition by employers’ groups against a proposal by the government that would require them to cover the recruitment costs and assorted fees for migrant workers has reached the threshhold that requires a government response. Though the move would be toward a “zero-fee” system, employers’ groups claim that this is passing costs onto small-to-medium sized enterprises, as well as individuals with disabilities, in that they would have to pay 100,000 NT to 200,000 NT per migrant worker.

It proves difficult changing the system, when employers’ groups command the vote, and migrant workers cannot vote. As a result, politicians will always be incentivized to benefit employers versus migrants, while allowing for the exploitation of migrants in Taiwanese society to continue.

To this extent, it is clear that xenophobia against migrants is on the rise, as observed in racist backlash against the prospect of Indian migrant workers, as well as protests by right-wing political groups such as the Taiwan Solidarity Party that depict migrants as taking jobs away from Taiwanese–never mind that migrants take on the so-called “3D”–dirty, dangerous, and demeaning–jobs that Taiwanese do not want to take on.

It may not be surprising, then, that much of the pressure on Taiwan to implement a “zero-fee” system has been external, with international companies calling on Taiwan to provide for ethical supply chains. Despite the current government’s moves toward shifts in labor policy for migrants, it would not be surprising if it backed down in the face of opposition either.