The new sample contracts between migrant workers and Taiwanese brokers proposed by the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) will institutionalize and strengthen the broker system in Taiwan and limits the rights of migrant workers. It legalizes the monthly brokers’ fees in the guise of service fees paid by the migrants’ even if such fees are for their management and additional fees imposed by the brokers whose legality in the past was questionable.
It also violates the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Article 7 of Private Employment Agencies Convention, C181, 1997 and other pertinent ILO standards protecting migrant workers. In said article it stipulates that private employment agencies shall not charge directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any fees or costs to workers. Other ILO standards state that migrant workers are entitled to receive assistance and advice from competent authorities (not private entities) given if possible in the mother tongue of the persons concerned free of charge. The proposed contract by the CLA relegates this task to Taiwanese brokers and is part of the payment for services rendered to them.
At the same time the contract makes the brokers the sole representatives of the migrant workers in any labor and legal disputes even if the former represents primarily the employers interests and negates the right of the latter to choose his/her legal representatives. One big problem of household service workers is their limited or no days off as these are forced upon them by placement agencies who are partners of the brokers by making them sign a side agreement waving this inherent right. This violates the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which guarantees the right of every individual to a day off.
It also delegates to the broker the sole authority to apply for the reentry visa of the migrant worker negating the right of the worker to be rehired directly by the employer through the Special Hiring Program in Taiwan (SHTP).
For Filipino migrant workers, the proposed contract runs counter to some important provisions of the new sample employment contract put forward by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). These are the following:
Free transportation to the site of employment and in the following cases, free return transportation to the point of origin: a). expiration of the contract; b). termination of the contract by the employer without just cause; c). if the employee is unable to continue to work due to work connected or work aggravated injury or illness; d). force majeure; and e). in such other cases when contract of employment is terminated through no fault of the employee.
Free food or compensatory allowance of US$ _____________, free suitable housing.
These new proposed contracts should be exposed for what it is and opposed by the migrant workers and their advocates and even by the governments of migrant sending countries. It will further limit the rights of migrant workers while giving almost absolute power to the brokers and to the employers whom they represent.
One of our major arguments against the broker system is that why should the migrant workers pay for the monthly brokers service fees if the primary task of the broker is to manage the migrants for the employers. Should not the employers be the ones to pay for its management expenses? And why should employers of domestic workers need a broker to manage the latter who work in homes? Are employers of such not capable of doing this?
And based on the experiences of migrant workers especially if they have disputes with their employers, the brokers would always represent the interests of the employers and not those of the workers even if they pay for their monthly service fees.
Other than these the proposed contract between brokers and migrant workers would legalize and increase the fees that the latter have to pay the former. These include the following:
1. Additional expenses such as inland transit or lodging once the broker fetches the migrant worker from the airport and sends the latter to the designated worksite upon arrival.
2. Now the Alien Residence Certificate (ARC) should be paid by the worker based on the contract.
3. The broker should assist the worker for application of passport if this is lost or validity is required even if the migrants can do this by themselves.
4. The broker will assist the migrant for income tax declaration and refund process and related expenses shall be paid by the worker again even if the migrants can do this by themselves.
5. Vacationing, finished contract and if the migrants terminate the contract migrant workers will have to pay for the tickets (round trip and one way) even if this should be paid by the employer based on the original employment contract signed in the sending country.
As stated in the beginning, the new proposed sample contracts would strengthen the broker system by making more powerful the control of the brokers over the migrants and by imposing on them payment of the management fee guised as brokers’ service fees. It would also increase the fees exacted over the migrants by the brokers. In effect it would trample on the labor and human rights of migrant workers.
Migrant workers and their advocates should oppose this new scheme. Even governments of labor sending countries should publicly make a position against this and not meekly rely on so-called diplomatic means to resolve this. We should learn from the struggle of the migrant workers from Formosa Plastics Company from 2005 – 2006. After 4 successive strikes in different periods they were able to get rid of the brokers’ fees and other concessions from their broker and employer.
Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants
