aipei. In the wake of the August 21st uprising by Thai construction workers in Taiwan’s southern city of Kaohsiung, the plight of foreign labor has briefly taken center-stage in Taiwanese politics. Initially, Taiwan’s mainstream media treated this incident as an insurrection perpetrated by reckless foreigners. However, after a list of 16 demands was issued via concerned labor organizations, the spotlight was thrust onto issues of true import to foreign workers, as well as to Taiwan’s labor movement at large.

Taiwan’s foreign laborers often endure a variety of particularly harsh conditions that are no longer encountered by the majority of the local labor force. Taiwan’s labor movement made significant gains in the late 80’s. Nonetheless, a docile, imported labor force, paired with rapid capital flight stifled the movement’s progress by the mid 90’s.

Under the current procedures for the recruitment, and management of foreign labor in Taiwan, the Labor Standards Law can be sidestepped, and in some cases totally ignored. For example, employers who wish to circumvent jobsite injury laws need only to neglect to file visa papers for that worker. Already meager pay is further cut through management fees, and other “services”. “Undesirable” workers are often removed without notice through mid-night Gestapo-style dormitory raids followed by immediate deportation.

The 1728 Thai workers employed by the Kaohsiung Rapid Transit Company (KRTC) are not an exceptional case. Although they were employed by the KRTC, their residence, transport, and management was, by contract, the responsibility of Hua Pan, a foreign labor management firm. The general consensus is that foreign labor employed at public works projects “have it better” than the rest, enjoying better working conditions and even planned recreational activities. Apparently, everything is relative.

According to KRTC’s books, the monthly unit cost per worker paid to Hua Pan by the KRTC is US$843, a reasonable salary, for a Taiwanese worker (who makes on average less than $1000/month). This unit cost includes the worker’s base pay, $453; the employer’s share of the worker’s insurance, $21; the employer’s share of the health insurance, $22; the employment maintenance fees, $86; KRTC’s administrative fee, $43, and Hua Pan’s management fee, $220. However, as recent investigation has exposed, in reality KRTC only pays $582 to each worker, with an estimated unaccounted $485,000 every month. Subtracting the fees covered by workers-dorm fees, $72; and management fees, $29-workers end up with $200-315 per month, but because of unexplained pay cuts, workers cannot rely on overtime hours to increase their salaries. Overtime is only paid up to the 46th hour. Many workers who work up to 100 hours per week receive no additional compensation.

$86-143 is allotted every month for daily expenses. When this is exhausted, special currency is issued for use only in the dormitory’s commissary. According to workers, the selection in the commissary is limited, and prices are inflated to anywhere from 120% to 150% of market prices.

The dormitory provided to these workers is sweaty, poorly ventilated, and reportedly managed like a “military institution”, or a “concentration camp”. The space allotted to each worker, about 1.56 square meters, is only two thirds of the space given to inmates in Taiwan’s prisons. Complaints by individual workers have revealed that beatings are not uncommon, and that dormitory management has even used stun guns for disciplinary measures.

According to workers, appeals had been made since August of last year for improved conditions, without avail.

At about 9:30pm on Sunday, August 21st, tensions erupted from the five-story Gangshan dormitory into rain soaked streets. Workers clashed with the dormitory management, trashing parts of the building, and setting fire to the dormitory management’s office. Soon more than 300 workers were in the streets rioting with stones, clubs and gas bombs in protest of their conditions.

The following day after the uproar died down, the Thai workers issued a series of demands, which included the right to use tobacco, alcohol, and cell phones inside the dormitory; the dismissal of two members of the dormitory staff; pay for overtime work; and cash instead of tokens for spending money. Increased media attention led to swift action to address these grievances. However, the continued response of the Counsel of Labor Affairs to the demands of foreign labor organizations over recent weeks will be crucial to the fate of foreign labor in Taiwan.

Since the early 90’s, when the number of foreign workers began to skyrocket, the issue of foreign labor has been a political taboo. When politicians or editorials mention foreign labor, they consistently portray it as a necessary evil to which the Taiwanese business community is forced to turn on account of the unfortunate inadequacies of Taiwan’s labor market. The once growing Taiwanese middle class is characterized as “lazy”, “over-educated”, “too picky [about work conditions]”, and quite unwilling to consent to the kind of work that “will allow Taiwan’s economy to continue to grow”. In the jargon of neo-liberal economics, Taiwan has lost her “labor flexibility”. However, this uprising by Thai workers has put the conditions faced by Taiwan’s foreign labor into perspective.

A major issue, which has until now been confined to Taiwan’s alternative media, is the role of private agencies in the recruitment and employment of Taiwan’s foreign labor. Demands made by various foreign labor organizations include: national direction of the employment of foreign labor via diplomatic relations, simplification of the application process, the right to change employers, and the elimination of a maximum number of years of employment. Essentially, these demands illustrate the necessity for the recruitment and management of foreign labor in Taiwan to move into the public sector. A transition from what is a veritable maze of kickbacks and middlemen, to a system that might benefit all of the parties involved-most significantly the Taiwanese public-is an important stepping stone for Taiwan’s labor movement. However, a meaningful change is not easily brought about when politicians and editorials continually propagate the mythical importance foreign labor plays in Taiwan’s economy.

In the highly competitive low-tech manufacturing sector, the argument for foreign labor has cruel, but undeniable relevance. The Taiwanese labor force has long been reluctant to accept the sweatshop conditions and feeble wages necessary to compete with Southeast Asian and Mainland Chinese labor markets. A short-term solution to the discrepancy in labor cost throughout Asia has been to import low-cost foreign labor. This benefits industry that does not have the means to relocate overseas. However, with regard to public works projects where firms have access only to locally situated labor, and where expenditure on these projects is further justified as fiscal stimulus, the use of foreign labor is an excessive indulgence of construction firms, and foreign labor agencies-if not outright graft.

As with most public works projects, especially projects like the high-speed train that will span the island, the benefits derived directly from the completed project pale in comparison with the economic stimulus that is brought about through government spending. This government consumption can have far reaching benefits as the funds for a particular project are spent and re-spent, increasing demand throughout the economy. The use of unskilled foreign labor in government projects stifles the benefits of fiscal spending because large portions of this investment flow overseas through workers’ wages, agencies’ fees, and kickbacks, without significant return (not unlike military purchases).

Taiwan’s latest wave of awareness concerning foreign labor is a positive change-attention has spread from the so-called “necessity” of low-cost labor to the conditions of these workers. Yet there remains a consensus among political, and editorial commentary that foreign labor is a cornerstone of Taiwan’s economy. When a given policy is no longer economically viable for politicians, middlemen, and Taiwanese companies, it will soon loose its political attractiveness. If the recruitment of foreign labor is brought into the public sector, reducing the direct benefits to those who actively support it, unskilled foreign labor in public works projects will phase itself out. The Taiwanese labor movement has made strides in past weeks with regard to foreign labor, but if it truly wants to protect its interests, it must begin to question the role of foreign labor in Taiwan.

---