Ministry of Labor! These measures are not sufficient, much less ahead of the times

Because electronics factories hire large amounts of migrant workers, and the migrant workers are housed together in crowded dormitories, it is difficult to maintain social distancing. When the pandemic broke out last year, migrant worker groups had already raised this issue and argued that migrant workers’ dormitories should be included in plans for epidemic prevention. But we have yet to see the MOL, the central labor authority, do anything, and after a year we are seeing outbreaks of infection inside factories and dormitories.

Currently, among the 710,000 migrant workers in Taiwan, almost 470,000 are factory workers who are forced to live in the dormitories that their employers or brokers provide. In the better ones, maybe 4 to 8 people share a room, in some 10 people share a room. In 2018, Vietnamese migrant workers at a factory in Xizhi protested because they were crowded into dormitories with several dozen, even up to over 100 people in a single room. The living spaces for migrant workers are cramped and crowded, they must share bathrooms, it is difficult to maintain social distancing, and the potential for mass outbreaks of disease is a constant threat.

In the past year, the MOL’s measures to prevent the spread of the epidemic among migrant workers have been minimal. They have only offered some bilingual basic information and quarantine for entering migrant workers. They have not done a full investigation of migrant workers’ living conditions, or increased outreach to get accurate information into migrant workers’ social networks. Don’t tell us what they’ve done is “ahead of the times,” it is the bare minimum and may not be enough.

Ministry of Labor! Close the stable door after the horses have fled, don’t be the weak link

Migrant workers have long been marginalized by discriminatory government policies, the problems they have faced have tended to be dealt with with repressive measures. For instance, a fisherman without an onshore residence who was taking a shower beside the harbor was fined for not wearing a mask; the pandemic has been used as a reason to restrict the movement of migrant workers and to take away their days off; “runaway” migrant workers who have been infected because they are taking care of infected patients have been criticized for “running loose on the streets spreading the virus,” and migrant workers have been seen collectively as a “crack in the wall” of epidemic prevention.

Now, the MOL has proposed that until the Level 3 alert ends, migrant workers in Taiwan should not be allowed to change employers.

Also, the recent outbreaks of COVID among migrant workers are due to the overcrowding in their factories and dormitories, but the MOL has expressed no intention of solving the longstanding problems of migrant worker’s work environment, or proposed any concrete, long-term plans to improve those conditions. To the contrary, they have responded by further restricting migrant workers’ labor rights. On top of this, these policies which have such a big impact do not come with detailed explanations, and information in other languages has not been quickly provided.

When there is no bilingual or detailed information, the mass of migrant workers can only feel panicked and helpless; they worry that their dormitories are crowded and they must still go to work, how can they guarantee their safety? Some migrant workers also worry that even if they can finally get permission to change employers after waiting many months, their new employer might not be able to hire them. And other migrant workers, not knowing how long the pandemic crisis will continue, worry about how they will be able to pay for daily expenses and send money to their families during the period while they are waiting to change employers and receive no income at all. We are also concerned about the workers who are quarantined at this time – will they be able to receive adequate information? Will someone explain to them the current procedures, and what the next arrangements will be? When they are in quarantine, if they have questions, or they don’t have what they require for daily life, will there be friendly, bilingual workers whom they can ask, who can help them meet their needs?

Only with a general review of migrant workers epidemic prevention can we be one island sharing the same fate

Over the past year, migrant workers’ groups have made suggestions for epidemic prevention policies regarding migrant workers, including: information on epidemic prevention should be translated quickly; the identification system for buying masks should be friendly for migrant workers; runaway migrant workers should be treated with a policy of “don’t drive away, don’t punish, restore legal status”; the problem of migrant workers’ overcrowded dormitories should be dealt with, etc.. But the MOL has turned a deaf ear to most of these suggestions.

After the outbreak among migrant workers last year at the so-called “Medical Center” (an agency subcontracted by brokers), the MOL called a meeting on March 3, 2021 to “research and discuss migrant workers’ living environment safety and sanitation rules,” and came to the conclusion that “the government should create a centralized program and provide room and board for newly arrived migrant workers.” (At present, no concrete action has been taken.) We believe, providing migrant workers with suitable public services is not only the government’s responsibility, it is what will aid most in setting the proper direction for epidemic prevention.

On June 4 at a press conference at the Central Epidemic Command Center, Director Chen Shih-chung said that he would do his best to do a “big investigation” of migrant workers throughout Taiwan. We want to offer a few suggestions.

1.Re-assess and re-organize our epidemic prevention capacity to respond to future situations

After this mass outbreak, we should re-evaluate: Do we have enough quarantine hotels and collective quarantine centers? Migrant workers who come to Taiwan are away from home and have no resources here. It isn’t possible for these 710,000 people to quarantine in separate single rooms, and their employers may not be able to provide adequate space for quarantining. If a larger-scale outbreak of disease within the migrant worker community occurs, are our public resources (collective quarantine centers and quarantine hotels) adequate to deal with it? We must make a thorough re-assessment and re-organization based on concrete data; only then can we be prepared to face future grave situations.

2.The ban on changing employers is having a big impact, desperate times call for desperate coordinated measures

On June 5, the MOL completely banned migrant workers from changing employers. This policy has had a huge impact on workers’ rights, especially in negotiating employer/employee disputes, which do not decrease just because of the pandemic situation, and the period of employment contracts will not be extended because of the pandemic. For migrant workers, changing employers is always a last resort. If their work at a place is going smoothly, they won’t want to change anything. At this time when the MOL is facing the grave pandemic situation, their first instinct is to resort to restricting workers’ rights. We think that they should at least have a set of appropriate and coordinated measures:

(1) In factories when there is no epidemic, if a worker complains because their employer breaks the law, or if their contract period ends, MOL must still permit them to be transferred. Help arrange for them to go to an appropriate shelter place, and when all necessary epidemic prevention precautions can be followed, transfer them to their new employer.
(2) Due to the limitations of this policy, migrant workers changing employers is not common, the number of those who do is very small. Therefore, we believe that where all necessary epidemic prevention precautions can be followed, those who already have documentation of termination of the employment relationship (ie, permission to change employers) should still be allowed to be hired by new employers.
(3) Mgrant workers in Taiwan have been excluded from employment insurance. They get no compensation during the time when they are unemployed. If the MOL completely bans migrant workers from starting with new employers, we think that those workers who have already received permission to transfer employers should receive financial relief.

3.Guarantee migrant workers’ rights, and that the right to employment of workers who are infected or quarantined is not violated

In the factories that are affected by COVID, it’s possible that migrant workers may be forced to terminate their contracts. Even though it is now “forbidden to change employers,” migrant workers may still face forced deportation, or be forced to take unpaid leave and not receive their basic salary. The MOL should take concrete measures to ensure that during the pandemic period, migrant workers’ rights are not violated.

There was a migrant worker who was quarantined, whose broker demanded money from him, and he didn’t receive the 1000NT per day epidemic subsidy either. The MOL should guarantee that migrant workers who contract COVID or are quarantined should not have any extra fees imposed on them while they are in quarantine or in hospital, and they should be helped to apply for any subsidies for which they are eligible. The most important thing is, the MOL must guarantee that those migrant workers who contract COVID or are quarantined cannot be fired or deported because of that.

4.Put family member caretakers and migrant domestic caretakers onto the list of categories eligible for publicly funded vaccination

At present, there are 11 major categories of people who are eligible for publicly funded vaccination. The 5th category is “Patients, caretakers and employees, home-visit service workers, and social workers in long-term care facilities (nursing homes, health maintenance centers, day care centers, social work centers, etc.).” The reason given for prioritizing these groups getting publicly funded vaccination is “to maintain the running of the institutional and social welfare care system.”

In Taiwan today, aside from the long term care system made up of the “nursing homes, health maintenance centers, day care centers, social welfare, etc. long-term care institutions,” we have around 60% of patients needing long-term care who rely heavily on “family member caretakers” and “migrant domestic caretakers.” Their regular work is the same as that of caretakers in “long-term care facilities such as nursing homes, maintenance centers, daycare centers, and social welfare centers, etc.” The only difference is that the site where they do their caretaking is usually inside private homes. But they still have to go outside to do shopping, get prescriptions filled, take their patients to the doctor, etc., and the patients they take care of are usually those who “if they get infected are likely to have serious complications or to die.”

Even in ordinary times our resources for long-term care are insufficient. What worries us is that, if a “family member caretaker” or “migrant domestic caretaker” gets infected, who can quickly take over their caretaking responsibilities? Therefore, we suggest that the CECC, which has the important goal of “maintaining the running of institutions and the social welfare care system” should consider adding “family member caretakers” and “foreign domestic caretakers” into the categories of people prioritized for publicly funded vaccination, in order to prevent caretakers from becoming infected and causing a gap in healthcare to occur.

5.Plan for government-run dormitories to replace broker’s dormitories which cannot be managed

The recent outbreaks of COVID in electronics factories in Miaoli are the result of ignoring the problem of migrant worker living conditions for a long time. Food and lodging fees are deducted from migrant workers’ salaries every month, yet they are not provided with a decent living environment. Before the pandemic, many migrant workers died because their living spaces were not separated from the factory. After the outbreak of COVID, migrant workers continued to live in environments that are tiny, cramped, crowded spaces. Because it didn’t directly impact the health of the wider Taiwan society, it kept on being ignored.

The MOL announced, starting June 4, they will start on-site inspections of migrant worker dormitories housing over 100 people, in cooperation with local governments. We want to ask, after the on-site inspections, will the standards for which dormitories need improvement still be the “Foreigners’ Life and Care Services Plan”? Is there still no regulation for how many people per room? Each person should have at least 3.6 square meters (including clothes closet)? According to the “Foreigners’ Life and Care Services Plan,” toilets and showers are only regulated “in principle” – during the pandemic, how will those “in principle” regulations be enforced? Also, migrant workers have already told us that they are worried because there are currently 10 people per room in their dormitories, or 100, and they continue to work without any splitting of shifts or regulation of the flow of people. Should these workers’ complaints not be dealt with just because “this factory hasn’t had any COVID cases yet” or “there are less than 100 people per room”? As each county and city government is dealing with the current Level 3 situation, shouldn’t they also all be requiring adjustments to dormitories?

In the past the MOL has always delayed dealing with the problems of migrant workers’ boarding, claiming that it would place more burdens on employers. The recent outbreak has brought these long-standing problems to light. On July 20, 2020, the MOL held a meeting to respond to the demand for dormitories to be separated from factory workspaces. Even the brokers all agreed that “the government should establish government-run dormitories.” In the long term, aside from the urgent step of “thoroughly investigating migrant workers’ dormitory environments,” formal plans should be made for the establishment of not-for-profit government-run dormitories. Only then will the government be shouldering its responsibilities and be truly “ahead of the times.”

。。。。。

A crisis can be an opportunity for transformation. But only if the MOL and local labor bureaus stop taking the path of least resistance when facing problems such as: the temporary housing for migrant workers when they first arrive in Taiwan is terrible (including simplified health checks, the National Immigration Agency’s procedure for new arrivals), the living spaces for migrant factory workers are not good, the labor conditions for migrant workers working in private homes are poor, there aren’t enough bilingual government employees, etc..

If the COVID crisis requires a “general review of migrant workers throughout Taiwan,” aside from taking related urgent measures, if the MOL fails to take this opportunity to comprehensively investigate and plan, or even takes more regressive measures (for example, they tried to ban migrant domestic workers from switching to other categories of employment), then the MOL will not only have to bear the responsibility for policies that discriminate against migrant workers, their laziness and dereliction of duty will bring on the next (predictable) disaster!


Signatory groups to this petition:
台灣移工聯盟：海星國際移工服務中心 (Stella Maris)
平安基金會所屬勞工關懷中心（LCC）
天主教會新竹教區移民移工服務中心（Hsinchu Migrants and Immigrants Service Center, HMISC）
天主教希望職工中心 （Hope Workers Center, HWC）
天主教台灣明愛會（Caritas Taiwan）
台灣國際勞工協會（Taiwan International Workers Association, TIWA）
桃園市家庭看護工職業工會 （Domestic Caretaker Union, DCU）
台灣國際移民培力協會 （Taiwan International Migrants Mission, TIMM）
桃園市產業總工會（TaoYuan Confederation Trade Union, TYCTU）
台灣汽車貨運暨倉儲業產業工會（Taiwan Logistics Industrial Union）

勞動部！部署不足 遑論超前

因電子廠聘僱大量移工，移工居住在集合式宿舍，住宿環境狹小，難以維持社交距離。於去年疫情爆發時，移工團體已多次提出，移工住宿及防疫問題應納入整體防疫考量，卻未見移工主管機關勞動部積極作為，廠內及宿舍群聚感染於一年後終於爆發。

目前台灣七十一萬移工中，將近四十七萬的產業移工，被迫居住於雇主或仲介提供的宿舍，比較好的可能四到八人一間，更有十幾人一間。或甚至如2018年，某汐止工廠的越南勞工，因不堪一間宿舍擠了幾十人甚至上百人的情況而集體抗議。移工居住的宿舍空間狹小、共用衛浴，難以保持社交距離，一直存在著群聚感染的隱憂。

過去一年，勞動部針對移工的防疫作為，僅有最基本的雙語資訊翻譯、入境移工隔離檢疫，而沒有全面體檢移工住宿環境，或是強化防疫資訊進入移工社群等，不要說超前，可能連基本部署都不夠。

勞動部！亡羊應補牢 莫當豬隊友

移工長期因政策歧視處於社會邊緣，遭遇問題都傾向被從嚴認定及處理，如日前無岸上住所的漁工於漁港邊洗澡未戴口罩被開罰；疫情期間以防疫為由被限制行動、取消休假；逃逸移工因照顧病患染疫卻遭批「帶著病毒滿街跑」，或是將移工無差別視為防疫漏洞。

如今，勞動部提出三級警報解除前，暫時禁止全台移工轉換雇主。

然而，此次移工染疫是因為宿舍環境及工作場所群聚，卻未見勞動部有意解決移工長期勞動環境問題，提出具體、長遠的改善作法，反而以限制移工勞動權益來回應。而且影響如此重大的政策，卻沒有相關的細節或配套說明，更沒有即時的雙語翻譯。

在沒有雙語，且細節不足的情況下，除了導致眾多移工驚惶無措，擔心自己所在的宿舍人數眾多、仍需上班，如何得以保障自身安全？也有移工擔心，即便等了好幾個月才等到了轉換許可，是否也無法被新雇主承接？更有移工擔心疫情不知要維持多久，沒有任何收入的停止轉換期間，如何應付日常開銷及家裡的經濟負擔？而我們也擔心，此刻正被隔離的移工們，是否可以得到充分的訊息？是否有人向其說明目前正在進行哪個程序，接下來將會如何安排？在被隔離的狀況下，如果有疑問，或不足的日常生活所需，可否有足夠且移工友善的雙語人員，可以被詢問、可以提供其日常基本需求？

移工防疫總檢討才能同島一命

過去一年，移工團體多次提出移工防疫政策建議，包括：防疫資訊應有即時雙語、實名制口罩購買應友善移工、逃逸移工應「不驅離、不處分、重新給予合法身份」、移工宿舍環境問題……等，然而大部分的意見，勞動部都置若罔聞。

在去年「醫管中心」的移工感染事件爆發後，勞動部才在2021年3月3日召開「研商移工住宿環境安全衛生規範」的會議，並且做成「政府應集中規劃並提供抵台住宿空間」之結論。（目前尚未有具體作為）我們認為，由政府提供移工適當的公共服務，不只是政府應負起的責任，也是最有助於防疫的正確方向。

6月4日，陳時中部長在指揮中心的記者會中表示，會盡快針對全台移工「大檢討」。我們也在此提出幾點建議：

第一、重新盤整防疫量能，應對未來情勢。

此次群聚感染事件發生後，我們應該重新檢視，防疫旅館或集中檢疫所的數量是否足夠？來台的移工都是無根基的異鄉人，這七十一萬人不可能擁有一人一室的隔離條件，而其雇主也未必能夠自備足夠的隔離空間，假使移工社群有更大規模的感染發生，我們的公共資源（集中檢疫所與防疫旅館）有沒有足夠的量能承接？這些問題需要具體的盤整計算，才能應對未來可能更嚴峻的情況。

第二、禁止轉換影響重大，非常時期須有非常配套。

勞動部在6月5日全面禁止移工轉換雇主，此項政策影響勞工權益重大，尤其「勞資爭議」並不會因為疫情而減少，「聘僱期滿」也不會因為疫情而遞延。對於移工來說，轉換雇主往往是不得不的選擇，如果在一個地方工作得順遂，他們或許寧可都不要轉換。此時勞動部面對嚴峻疫情，直覺地祭出了限制移工的措施，我們認為至少要有相應的配套：

1. 在沒有疫情的工廠，如果勞工因為雇主違反法令而申訴，或是聘僱期滿，仍應同意其轉出，協助安排至妥善的處所安置，並在防疫作為完善的狀況下，安排轉換至新雇主。

2. 因為原本政策的限制，移工轉換雇主本非常態，僅僅佔非常小的比例。因此，我們認為在防疫作為完善的情況下，目前已經有廢聘函（即轉換許可）的移工，仍應可以被新雇主承接。

3. 在台移工被排除在就業保險的保障之外，失業期間沒有任何失業給付，如果勞動部全面禁止移工被新雇主承接，我們認為已經獲得轉換許可者，應有相關之紓困補助。

第三、保障移工權益，並確保染疫或被隔離的移工工作權不受損害。

受到疫情影響的工廠，有可能會造成移工被迫解約，即便目前「禁止轉換」，移工也以可能被迫返國，或是被迫放無薪假卻領不到基本工資。勞動部應該有具體作為，確保移工在疫情期間的權益不受損害。

過去曾有被隔離的移工被仲介要求收取費用，而且也沒有獲得每日1000元的防疫補償。勞動部應確保染疫移工或被隔離的移工，在治療或隔離期間，沒有被收取額外的費用，並且協助領取相關的防疫補償。最重要的是，勞動部必須確保這些染疫或被隔離的移工，不會因此被雇主解雇、遣返。

第四、家庭照顧者及外籍家庭看護工納入公費疫苗接種名單。

目前公費疫苗接種名單共有11大類，第五順位的「安養、養護、日間照顧、社福等長期照護機構受照顧者、照顧者及工作人員、居服員、社工人員」，優先施打公費疫苗的理由是「維持機構及社福照護系統運作」。

目前台灣長照除上述的「安養、養護、日間照顧、社福等長照機構」外，我們有約六成的長照需求，是高度仰賴「家庭照顧者」與「外籍家庭看護工」，他們平常的工作，其實便是「安養、養護、日間照顧、社福等長照機構」的照顧者的工作。差別只在於，他們的照顧場域大部分是在家戶內，但他們也仍常常需要外出採購、取藥、陪伴回診等，而他們所照顧的失能者，通常都是「感染後容易產生嚴重併發症或導致死亡」的人。

我們憂心的是，一旦「家庭照顧者」或「外籍家庭看護工」染疫，承平時期便已匱乏的長照資源，有無條件緊急地接住這些人的照顧需求？因此，我們建議指揮中心，在「維持機構及社福照護系統運作」的重要目標之下，應考慮也讓「家庭照顧者」與「外籍家庭看護工」納入公費接種的族群當中，避免照顧者染疫、形成「照顧空窗期」的狀況發生。

第五、規劃以公辦宿舍取代無法管理的仲介宿舍。

此次苗栗電子廠爆發群聚染，是長期忽視移工住宿問題的後果，移工每月薪資被扣除膳宿費用，卻無法被提供適當（decent）的住宿環境。疫情前，就因為廠住不分造成多起移工的死亡案件；疫情爆發後，移工持續居住在環境悶熱狹小的空間，因為沒有直接影響台灣社會的健康，也一直未受重視。

勞動部始表示，6月4日起會與地方政府開始對100人以上的移工宿舍進行訪視。我們想問，訪視後，認為需要改善標準，仍是「生照計劃書」嗎？沒有規定多少1間？每人空間，含衣物櫃，3.6平方公尺（約1.1坪）？廁所、浴室在生照計劃書裡，都僅是「原則」，疫情期間，這原則會被如何要求呢？另外，已經有移工表示，他們擔心目前自己的宿舍數是十人一間、上百人一間，且還是繼續未分流、未減班地上下班，這些移工的申訴，會因為廠裡「尚未染疫」、「不到100人」而不被即時處裡嗎？各縣市政府應對目前3級的疫情，是不是就應該一律地要求對宿舍進行調整呢？

過往勞動部面對移工居住問題，都以將增加雇主負擔為由拖延處理，而這次爆發群聚，正是突顯了原本就存在的問題。2020年7月20日，勞動部回應「廠住分離」的會議上，連仲介都同意「政府部門應設立公辦的宿舍」。長遠的來說，非以營利為目的的公辦宿舍，在「全面清查移工宿舍環境」的應急措施之外，更應被正式地面對與規劃，才是扛起政府責任、具體的超前部署。

危機可能是轉機——前提是，勞動部及地方勞政機關，不再繼續以得過且過的心態面對問題，例如：抵台時的臨時住宿空間惡劣（含簡化體檢、移民署報到手續）、產業移工的住宿空間不佳、家務移工的勞動條件低落，甚至最基本的雙語人員不足[1]……等等問題。

如果透過疫情危機要做的「全台移工大檢討」，除了應急的相關措施外，勞動部未能藉此機會，對上述問題做通盤檢討、全盤規劃，甚至開倒車（如先前禁止家務移工跨行轉換），那麼勞動部不但在歧視移工的政策作為上應當負責，更會因為怠惰、瀆職，而可預期地將釀成下一次的災害！

共同連署團體（增加中）：

台灣移工聯盟：海星國際移工服務中心 (Stella Maris)、平安基金會所屬勞工關懷中心（PCT. Peace Foundation Labor and Migrant Workers Concern Centre, LCC）、天主教會新竹教區移民移工服務中心（Hsinchu Migrants and Immigrants Service Center, HMISC）、天主教希望職工中心 （Hope Workers Center, HWC）、天主教台灣明愛會（Caritas Taiwan）、台灣國際勞工協會（Taiwan International Workers Association, TIWA）

桃園市家庭看護工職業工會 （Domestic Caretaker Union, DCU）
台灣國際移民培力協會 （Taiwan International Migrants Mission, TIMM）
桃園市產業總工會（TaoYuan Confederation Trade Union, TYCTU）
台灣汽車貨運暨倉儲業產業工會Taiwan Logistics Industrial Union

[1] 目前全台移工人數為，印尼籍255,038人、菲律賓籍149,699人、越南籍249,044人、泰國籍59,665人。而政府部門的雙語人員（含1955專線），僅有印尼語45人、菲律賓語11人、越南語50人、泰語26人。

記者會時間：2020/11/05 上午10點

記者會地點：衛福部疾病管制署（台北市中正區林森南路6號）

新聞聯絡人：台灣移工聯盟 新竹教區移民移工服務中心 劉曉櫻 0978 362 906

在兩公約已國內法化十幾年的今日，衛福部仍維持剝奪人權的荒謬法令，剝奪移工為自己健康發聲的權力，連申請TB都治計畫都需要得到雇主的同意。

台灣移工聯盟將在11/5，在疾管署門口召開記者會，要求疾管署立即修正不當法令，保障在台七十多萬移工的人權！

歡迎媒體採訪！

note：TB  結核菌

近日，因為印尼政府欲對其印勞輸入國施行「零付費」方案，導致印籍家務移工的雇主，擔心本由家務移工單方承擔的高額仲介相關費用，會「轉嫁」到雇主身上，因此雇主團體「台灣國際勞工暨雇主和諧促進會」於10/21下午號召了上百位雇主到印尼經貿辦事處抗議。新聞畫面上的「雇主」，大部分是身心障礙人士，更看到不少印尼看護在雇主們陳抗時隨侍在側…

我們認同雇主們行使陳抗的權利，我們理解障礙者雇主們走上街頭，是因為長期以來台灣政府將照護責任推給個別家戶，台灣的社會福利網經歷長照十年、長照1.0、到現在的2.0，都仍遠遠不足，所以「長工時、低工資」的家庭看護移工便成為障礙者們「唯一的依靠」。

但，當台灣國際勞工暨雇主和諧促進會成員Jenny喊出「你們不夠專業，而且你們的品質很差，我們忍受你們也夠了。我們希望我們的政府，能夠多開發其他的國家（引進移工）」，對推著雇主上街爭取權利的印籍看護工如此漫罵，實在令人不忍卒睹，更有違「和諧促進會」之名。

把所有費用強加雇主身上，當然有問題，但正如印尼移工們所提出的疑問(註1)：「長期以來，在台灣的家務工沒有任何勞動法令保障，即便工作24小時，月薪仍只有低於基本工資的17000元，雖然有七休一，但雇主只要花567元就可以買下我們的假日，也因此有許多人都是全年無休。在這樣的勞動條件之下，家務工來台後的前幾個月還要被扣款6000-9000元，以支付印尼的仲介費(註2)，而且工作期間每月還要被扣（台灣）仲介服務費。」難道減輕家務工被強加的不當債務負擔，是不應該的嗎？

我們該問的是：印尼政府的「零付費/費用讓輸入國雇主負擔」政策，正視問題的根源了嗎？

根據號召本次抗議之協會發佈之新聞稿所述，該筆費用包含：來台機票、護照、體檢、安置、訓練等相關費⽤，目前台灣仲介已報價約7~10萬元，將會加重雇主負擔，犧牲被照顧者的權益。但事實上這些費用中有絕大部分是需要繳交給仲介的費用，也就是說，「高額的仲介費」才是造成負擔真正的原因。過去30年來，這筆費用皆由移工單方承擔；加上無論是檯面上的法定服務費，或是檯面下的違法仲介費、買工費、借貸……等等，台灣仲介透過各式各樣的名目收費，剝削龐大的利益，在國內早已不是新聞，在國際間更是惡名昭彰。

所以，如印尼移工們所質疑(註3)：「目前印尼政府對正式和非正式工人(註4)的仲介費都已有規定，然而我們也都知道，正式的工人在進仲介公司報名的時候，就會被要求一筆高達45條到60條(註5)的超收費用。這已是一個公開的秘密，而印尼政府從來沒有解決的方法。我們擔心，「零付費」政策實行之後，家務工來台後不需再每月被扣仲介費，但會不會變成跟正式的工人一樣，一到仲介公司報名就要被超收(註6)？印尼的仲介公司超收的問題，就跟台灣的買工費問題一樣，政府都知道，卻沒有嘗試解決，放任私人仲介制度剝削移工，這才是最大的問題。」

根據30年來的經驗，印尼政府這回的「零付費/費用讓輸入國雇主負擔」政策，不但雇主擔心仲介費用轉嫁，移工同樣也擔心其變相為長期以來睜眼瞎說的「私人借貸」。

印尼政府一意孤行  台灣政府順勢避重就輕

台灣勞動部對於陳抗，始終維持「隔山觀虎鬥」的被動消極處理態度。「弱弱相殘」總是不斷發生在家庭類移工與雇主身上，獲利的永遠是仲介業者。這次事件政府依然只有檢討印尼政府片面發佈消息，對於台灣殘破的長照制度，以及放任剝削的私人仲介制度，所導致長照雇主及勞方再度被迫弱弱相殘、彼此對立，毫無任何的檢討與對策。

甚至比照2015年，各國政府要求提高家務移工薪資時一樣(註7)，繼續要再為雇主找尋其他廉價勞動力，一路以來便是「勞動部＝人口販運部」。

台灣政府靠著使用廉價的勞動力，填補了長照殘破的人力缺口，省下龐大的照顧成本；印尼政府則靠著輸出廉價勞動力，解決國內就業機會不足問題，並賺取了龐大的外匯。台、印雙方政府引進、輸出移工30年來，推卸責任、便宜行事，才造就了如今底層勞雇雙方弱弱相殘的局面。

30年來台印雙方政府，已從廉價跨國勞動力得到太多好處，是時候該做點事情了。

我們認為，首要應該做的是「政府對政府直接聘僱，廢除私人仲介制度」。由政府負起責任協助雙方直接聘僱之手續，提供欲出國工作之勞工公開透明之文件辦理流程及規費內容，協助勞工媒合工作，進行相關職前訓練，改善移工被大幅收取不當費用的現況，讓移工能安心出國工作；後續結合長照喘息服務等，使雇主享有完善的照顧系統，移工亦能有更良好的勞動條件。

面對問題，才能真正解決問題。政府必須溯本清源，唯有勞雇雙方共同支持廢除私人仲介制度，讓雙邊政府擔起服務人民的責任，這筆不公不義的高額仲介費才能徹底從移工制度中消失。

註1：https://www.facebook.com/IPIT.tw/posts/4588523821217850 

註2：所謂「印尼的仲介費」，即「國外仲介費」，其實都必須繳給台灣仲介「一杯羹」。請參考：「檯面上是每月新台幣1,500到1,800元的服務費，檯面下還有一筆來自海外仲介的回扣。以引註一、進一名越南工人為例，越南仲介給的回扣金額約4,000美元；部分台灣仲介扣掉給雇主的回扣1,000美元後，自己留下3,000美元，約新台幣10萬元。」https://www.twreporter.org/……/migrant-workers-zero…… 

註3：同註1。

註4：在印尼的脈絡，「正式工」表示適用勞基法的工人；「非正式工」表示，不適用勞基法的工人，即家庭看護工。

註5：1條約等於100萬印尼盾，約100美金，台幣3000元，正式工人的仲介費高達13~18萬。

註6：請參考：「所以，雖說是零收費，但實際上多數仲介公司的做法，會先讓移工在國外先支付全額仲介費，來台灣之後，這筆費用再分3年逐年返還給移工。」（引文自註2）

註7： https://www.civilmedia.tw/archives/28249

圖片取自2015/03/21 公民行動影音資料庫資料 （同註7）