Several commentators have recently suggested that the demand by labor organizations for the government to ban “dispatched laborers” is contradictory. I have a different view.
First, in a 2008 book, entitled Stuffed and Starved: The Hidden Battle for the World Food System, Raj Patel likens the global food system to an hourglass, with producers and consumers at the top and bottom respectively. The neck of the hourglass is where the power of the production-marketing system is concentrated. This controls purchase price in the place of production and market prices.
Workers producing commodities or services and consumers are at opposite ends of the hourglass. However, this idea ignores the production and marketing systems that control food prices and the power structure that controls workers’ wages.
Second, labor dispatching is a triangular relationship. Workers sign employment contracts with agencies that send them to work at companies or government agencies. Agencies sign a business contract with the company or government agency and charge a service fee. The main reason for hiring dispatched labor is to reduce labor costs and avoid responsibilities regulated by labor legislation.
There is a great difference between dispatch labor and regular workers contracted on a temporary basis at government agencies. Although contract workers are not regular civil servants, the agencies are responsible for their insurance and their safety and health in the workplace.
However, because dispatched workers have not signed a contract with the government agency, any occupational hazards and labor disputes are unrelated to that agency. In addition, since a government agency can change dispatch agencies every year, such workers are always considered new employees. The claim that if the government does not hire dispatch labor, taxpayers will pay for more civil servants with higher pay, better benefits and job security is misleading, because the government could still hire them as temporary contract workers.
Then there is the claim that, due to the nature of the bureaucracy, with its high salaries and excellent welfare provisions, efficiency and productivity are inevitably bad and, therefore, taxpayers are taken advantage of. This idea is used to question the call for the government to ban dispatch labor, but it is not a convincing argument. How can an “outsider” with no job security or labor rights have a sense of belonging and identify with the job?
Improving the administrative efficiency of the government is certainly an important issue, but improving the quality of manpower available to the government should begin with promotions and assessments. Other than lowering the cost of labor, how is the use of dispatch labor intended to improve problems inherent in the existing human resources system and enhance government efficiency?
In terms of workplace safety and health, a number of international studies suggest job insecurity, lack of democratic participation and unequal workers’ rights are key factors leading to labor fatigue in the workplace. Recently, the government has used dispatch labor as a solution to the structural unemployment problem. In an effort to reduce labor costs, it has hired many temporary dispatch workers.
In my opinion, by encouraging the employment of dispatch workers, listing labor dispatch as a key sector for future development and hiring many of these workers, the government has become a major cause of employment instability that could well lead to the deterioration of working conditions, safety and health.
Cheng Ya-wen is an associate professor at the Institute of Health Policy and Management at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath