公務體系男性主導職場之性別考選制度的反思
——以調查人員考選制度為中心

自從我國公務體系男性主導職場之考選制度陸續取消性別限制後，用人機關因女性錄取人數逐漸增加造成實務運作困難的反彈聲浪不絕於耳，考選制度遂進行幾度具有性別意義之修正，惟迄今坊間仍不時有人主張，該等職場男女應考人應適用相同的體能測驗標準。本文研析調查人員考選制度，爬梳規範面法理制度的環境趨力及實務界各方團體的互動折衝，說明調查人員考選制度的變遷背景，再透過簡要的數字統計，呈現調查人員考選制度幾次變遷所隱含之性別意義，藉此建構更理想的性別考選制度。儘管多元考試方法及職能考選方式時常作為國家考試制度提升考選效度的解方，惟均未見與性別限制相關討論，然而若性別因素確實係某些特定工作任務之核心職能，關於是否實施性別限制的問題即無從迴避。本文透過訪談調查局內部具實務工作經驗之各外勤單位主管及職員，剖析調查局外勤工作任務中，產生性別分工之原因及理由，再進一步分析是否得以通過性別平等審查原則及就業歧視理論之檢核。本文肯定性別本質及先天生理差異之存在，因此調查特考無須實施不分性別的體能測驗標準，而調查局也確實存在部分須為性別考量的業務工作，其中緝毒工作尤有必要以男性為主力。本文依據訪談結果，推估調查局外勤單位理想總男女比例，在當前調查特考以8大專業類組進用人才的前提下，提出從調查工作組、法律實務組或財經實務組等男女應考人數較為相當的考試類組，採取男女錄取各半或男性至少錄取半數以上措施，動態調整新進人員或外勤工作人數性別比例的構想，惟將國家考試實施性別限制議題，從書面或紙本的研究論述，推展到制度的變革實踐，仍須各界共同努力，本文最後提出幾點研究研議，僅供後續研究者參考。

關鍵字

男性主導職場；國家考試；性別限制；性別平等；性別歧視；就業歧視；人才招募

並列摘要

Over the past few years, there is an opinion that the increasing number of female member in male-dominated workplace in the public sector has led to practical difficulties which result from the cancellation of gender restriction in examinations. Consequently, some related regulations have been amended several times. However, some people claimed that workplace equality should also be applied on physical test—that is, the exactly same standard on both sex. To construct a better gender examination and recruitment policy in male-dominated workplace in the public sector, this study focus on MJIB investigator’s examination and recruitment, analyzing from institutional, practical and statistical dimension. Although it is widely accepted that more competent people can be selected through diversified examination and competence-based test, there is no discussion about gender restriction. Indeed, gender is the core competence of some specific task; therefore, the argument of implementing gender restriction is inevitable. To explore the reasons of gender division of labor in MJIB, this article interviewed several supervisors and members in the field and analyzed those reasons by the principle of gender equality and the theory of employment discrimination. The standard of physical fitness should not be identical in both gender because of the existence of physiological differences; nevertheless, there are some missions should take gender into concerns such as drug enforcement. The ideal gender ratio of MJIB is estimated to 6 to 4 from the interview. The best method to approach the percentage is to establish gender restrictions of acceptance rate—both gender in half or male more than half—in the test group of investigate task force, legal affairs division and financial affairs division. To conclude, it is difficult to put research study into practice, and therefore a few recommendations were indicated for follow-up research.