Upload
tobias-franklin
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A multi-scalar comparison of responses to abuse against domestic
migrant workers in Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei
Andre LaliberteUniversity of Ottawa, School of political studies
Presented at the ILO 4th RDW ConferenceGeneva, Swizerland
July 9, 2015
Research designMost similar conditions
Large urbanized area; Importance of wealthy middle classesSignificant number of migrant domestic workersIncreasing demand for care-givers service since
1990sKey differences
Political and legal regimes/rule of lawLevels of governments: the focus of this research
Funding for the research: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada partnership grant on ‘Gender, Migration, and the Work of Care in the Asia-Pacific’ (File No: 895-2012-1021), under the direction of Ito Peng, PI.
Shanghai special municipality
6,340 km2
24.5 million
Taiwan
36,193 km2
23.7 million
Hong Kong special administration region
1,104 km2
7.2 million
Levels of governmentHigher tier of government: greater state capacities Taiwan (Republic of China): top tier
Central level of government, 4 lower levels belowSovereignty except for universal recognition at the UN
Hong Kong special administrative region: hybridOne country two systems: large degree of autonomyFull responsibility except for defense and foreign
affairs Shanghai special municipality: second-tier
Mayor’s power equivalent to that of provincial governor
Implementation of decisions made at the center
Migrant Domestic workersin local labor force
Taiwan (ROC Ministry of Labor, April 2015)
Foreign (223,072) and local (?) caregiversForeign (+ 577,811)/local workers (11.599m)
Hong Kong (HKSAR Labor Department, April 2015)
Foreign (+ 320,000) and local (?) domestic helpersForeign (FDH+SLS?)/ Local (3.907m) workers
ShanghaiDomestic helpers, nannies, housekeepers (+ 490,000 (est.
2014, Insight Magazine))Local Migrants from other provinces (39% of Shanghai’s
total population (est. 2010, Shanghai Bureau of Statistics)/local labor force (Data from Shanghai Human Resources and Social Security
unavailable)
Origins of FDW in ROC and HKSAR,MDW in Shanghai
Taiwan (MOL, 2015) Indonesia 179,270 Philipines 25,595 Others 20,172
Hong Kong (LD, 2015)
Philipines 166,743 Indonesia 140,720 (98 % of total)
Shanghai: (Shanghai Bureau of Statistics, 2011)
Anhui 29 %; Jiangsu 17 %; Henan 9 %; Sichuan 7%79 % from rural area
Main forms of abuse faced by domestic workers
In all cases: Vulnerability to employers’ abuse because domestic workers are
excluded from labor legislation: their work is not considered laborBrokers, placement agencies ask for fees ‘training’, placement, etc.Lack of oversight
In Taiwan and Hong Kong:Live-in requirements leads to lack of privacy, 24 hrs workdays Right to choose place of work curtailed by employers
Taiwan:Restrictions on type of employment allowed
Hong Kong: ‘2 weeks rule’: expulsion even if employer was faulty
ShanghaiLimited possibility for media to report on cases of abuse
Variety of sources of abuseTaiwan and Hong Kong
Abusive employersPlacement agencies in sending and receiving countriesComplicit governments guilty by omissionPoliticians have other priorities and/or populist politiciansPopular biases against ‘alien’ migrant workers’ moralityOutright patriarchal attitudes that look down on work
traditionally performed by womenShanghai
Same as aboveAdditional difficulty of the obstacles imposed on civil
society mobilization
All is not lost!NGOs supporting migrant domestic workersTaiwan
Awakening Foundation, TIWAProtestant and Catholic church-based NGO, Garden of
HopeHong Kong
Lawyers offering pro bono services, HKCTU and other unions: FADWU, UNIFIL-HK, etcChurch-related NGO: Open Door, Helpers for Domestic
Helpers, Pathfinders, Mission for Migrant WorkersShanghai
ForNGOs, Little Bird Hotline, Youdao GONGOs: YMCA, All-China Federation of Women
Limited success in attempts at redress in Taiwan
Civil society initiativesInitiatives from churches and related organizations on a
quotidian basisMigrant empowerment network in Taiwan (MENT 台灣移工聯盟 ): Petition declaring support for legislative protection of domestic caretakers and house workers
Weak government responseDomestic Worker Protection Act promoted in 2003, passed
in Spring of 2015, but in a watered-down versionROC MOL last week refusesdto grant pay raise to foreign
domestic workers because their employers offer them housing
Taiwan’s lack of diplomatic recognition complicates possibility of reaching agreement with sending countries
Tepid government responses to attempts at redress in Hong Kong
Vigorous civil society initiativesImportance of litigationMilitancy of Hong Kong trade unions movementsConstant activism and emergency relief provided by
churches and affiliated associations2015 Roundtables on foreign domestic workers involved
NGO, local and foreign politicians and shamed authorities to act
Main obstacles caused by the status of the HKSARLimitations imposed by the limitation to the sovereignty of
Hong Kong serve as a convenient excuse for inaction on the welfare of foreign domestic helper/workers
Populist politicians who are otherwise unpopular play on nativist sentiments
Heroic and unheard of attempts at redress in Shanghai
A few brave civil society initiativesForNGO: brave initiative but limited resourcesOthers have to ceased activities: current context of China
is not conducive to mobilization by grass-root NGOMain challenges:
An oligopolistic group of powerful employment agencies with official support through a licensing system that coexist with an unfettered and unregulated market of small agencies
Blurred boundaries between some NGO and government: Church-related organizations such as YMCA are part of the state-sponsored official church and CCP United Front
Lack of media attention limits popular awareness
Does level of government make a difference?
A conundrum of comparative politics: dissimilar conditions that have led to a similar outcomeSimilarities in outcomes that trump differences in level of
government and differences in political regimesSimilarities of interests among brokers and agencies appear
more determining than political differencesSimilarities in choices made by different governments for an
approach to social policy that favors a minimal welfare state likely to be a crucial independent variable
Research strategy will seek to test the latter hypothesisProcess tracing of the public discourse that seek to
naturalize policies premised on the necessity to deliver care with live-in-caregivers, not in publicly-funded institutions