外籍家庭看護工的勞動權與我國長期照顧制度發展之關聯

台灣長期以來將移工視為「暫時性」、「補充性」的勞動力人口，並制定了許多規範限制與剝奪移工原先應擁有的權利，然而這些政策背後隱含著政府預設移工為源源不絕的勞動力，無論再差的勞動條件都會有人願意接受，或政府只要開發新的勞動力輸出國就能不斷地輸入廉價勞工。然而，疫情的突然爆發，導致跨國遷移不易，從國外引進移工的難度與成本增加，而國內的照顧需求仍在持續增加中，使得國內的外籍家庭看護工市場興起了搶工浪潮。本文目的在釐清形塑移工定位之主要行為者雇主、仲介與政府針對疫情缺工所採取之相關措施為何？同時探討我國現今將移工視為「補充性」和「暫時性」的勞動力是否為過時的政策設計？這樣的政策設計對於我國長照制度發展的影響為何？保障外籍家庭看護工之勞動權是否為合適的對策？研究發現在疫情之下，從國外引進外籍家庭看護工確實不易，雇主多半只能從國內承接，但國內轉出的看護工有限，導致國內的外籍家庭看護工市場相當混亂，其中出現了兩個現象：「買工費」與「外籍家庭看護工坐地喊價」，前者是指外籍家庭看護工成了國內市場上的稀有商品，雇主若要聘僱轉出的看護移工就必須先支付買工費；後者則是指有些外籍家庭看護工確實會有向雇主喊價或挑病人的情況，若無法達到她的要求時，便會以怠工或逃跑的方式要求轉出，所以許多雇主會選擇主動加薪以避免移工轉出或返國。不過，這些問題的源頭並不能全歸咎於外籍家庭看護工，其根本原因在於我國的長照人力配置是依循著「雙軌化」的方式運作，一條是政府的長照制度，另一條則是市場機制的外籍家庭看護工，前者的勞動條件受我國法規保障，後者則被排除在外，這種弔詭的雙軌化的長照人員配置雖然能夠短暫的解決國內的長照需求，卻有礙於我國公共照顧體系的發展。本文認為若我國要推行永續的長照制度，就不該只保障我國人民的權利，與我們同生活在台灣的外籍家庭看護工其權利亦同重要，將她們納入長照人力和改由機構聘僱都是可嘗試的辦法。此外，為使我國長照制度與外籍家庭看護工制度更加完善，本文提出幾項政策建議：提供外籍家庭看護工在職訓練的機會；「移工家庭共照支持服務」不因僅限台北市，而是能夠擴展到其他縣市；勞動部與衛福部應建立跨部會溝通與協調的共同行動；受照顧者的類型多元，關心重症家庭的需求並增加夜間照顧服務；將外籍家庭看護工納入長照體系，以機構聘僱取代家庭聘僱制度。

關鍵字

外籍家庭看護工；長期照顧； COVID-19

並列摘要

For a long time, migrant workers are regarded as a "temporary" and "supplemental" labor force in Taiwan. The government establishes many foreign labor policies to restrict and deprive labor rights of foreign care workers. However, these policies assume that foreign care workers are sufficient resources of labor force. Therefore, no matter how poor the labor standards are, someone is willing to accept them, or as long as government develops new labor-sending countries, we will get enough labor force. But, with the sudden outbreak of covid-19, international migration is no longer a simple thing. The difficulty and cost of introducing migrant workers from abroad have increased, but the domestic demand for care is still increasing, which has led to the rise of a wave of need for foreign care workers in Taiwan. This article mainly clarifies the relevant measures taken by employers, agencies, and the government, the main actors in shaping the positioning of migrant workers, in response to the lack of work due to the epidemic. Is it an out-of-date policy to regard migrant workers as "temporary" and "supplemental" labor force? What are the impacts of such a policy on the development of the long-term care system in Taiwan? Is it an appropriate way to protect the labor rights of foreign care workers? This study found that it is indeed difficult to introduce foreign care workers from abroad. Many employers can only hire them from the domestic market, but the number of foreign care workers transferred from the domestic market is limited, a big challenge to families in need. Two phenomena have emerged:" extra expenses " and "foreign care workers raise the price". The former is that foreign care workers have become a rare commodity in the domestic market. If someone wants to hire foreign care workers, they must pay extra expenses; The latter is that some foreign care workers indeed raise the price or pick care receivers. If you can't meet her demands, she will choose sabotage or run away. Therefore, many employers will raise wages to avoid their leaving. This study holds that the major challenge lies upon the fact that our long-term care human resources policy is a double-track system. One is the public system, and the other is the market mechanism system. Although a double-track system can temporarily solve domestic demands, it hurts the public system. If we want to establish a sustainable long-term care system, the most important thing is that we need to protect the basic working rights of foreign care workers. We can either integrate them into the public long-term care system or forbid household to be their employers. Finally, this study suggests that government needs to provide on-the-job training for foreign care workers; Other cities should follow the program of Taipei - "You Hire Me, I Take Care of You"; the Ministry of Labor should communicate and coordinate in joint action with the Ministry of Health and welfare; There are many types of care receivers, so we should strive to develop different care models; Integrate them into the public long-term care system and forbid household to be their employers.

並列關鍵字

Foreign care workers ； Long-term care ； COVID-19

參考文獻

曾嬿芬，2004，〈引進外籍勞工的國族政治〉，《台灣社會學刊》，32：1-58。

Ayalon, Liat .2009. “Family and Family-like Interactions in Households with Round- the-clock Paid Foreign Cares in Israel”. Aging and Society 29(5):671-686.

Google Scholar

Boris, E. & Parreñas, R.2010. “ Introduction.” In Boris & Parreñas (eds.) Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care . California:Stanford University Press.

Google Scholar

De la Luz Iberra, Maria.2010. “ My Reward Is Not Money: Deep Alliances and End-of-Life Care among Mexicana Workers and Their Wards.” In Boris & Parrenas (eds.) Intimate Labors: Cultures, Technologies, and the Politics of Care.

Google Scholar

England, P. & Folbre, N.2003. “Contracting of Care.” In Marianne, A.F., and Julie, A. N. Feminist Economics Today . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar

主題瀏覽