【臺灣人權學刊】勞動三權的昨日今生：兼淺談台灣罷工行動的若干爭議
2020-06-30
| 期刊名：【臺灣人權學刊】勞動三權的昨日今生：兼淺談台灣罷工行動的若干爭議 |
| 卷數：5卷3期 |
| 出版時間：2020年6月 |
| 作者：劉梅君 |
| 出版者：東吳大學張佛泉人權研究中心 |
| I S S N：2224-6622 |
| 中文摘要：台灣成為資本主義社會的歷史不算長，復又經歷近四十年的戒嚴時期、期間經濟快速成長、中小企業林立，這些均不利於台灣工人階級意識的出現，戒嚴令使得大陸時期定訂頒布的《工會法》、《團體協商法》及《勞資爭議處理法》幾乎形同虛設；1987年解嚴前成立的工會，絕大多數自主性有限，因而難以成為捍衛勞工的集體性組織。解嚴提供了自主性工會發展的空間及工人集體行動的機會，但政黨因素之故，自主工會的發展亦受限制，工人集體行動能量也無從累積成為具有階級意識的組織，因而工運持續處在低迷的狀況。2016年華航空服員罷工事件，讓人誤以為工運的春天來臨了，詎料三年後長榮空服員罷工卻備極艱辛，過去罷工現場常見的資方威嚇／打壓、輿論的指責及勞方內部雜音的困擾再度浮上檯面。長榮空服員罷工的經歷及結局，對於熟悉西方先進國家工運歷史者而言，可謂一點都不意外，因為歐美國家的工人集體行動，也是歷經兩、三百年的艱難奮鬥才取得了今日的集體勞動權利（團結權、協商權及爭議權），歐洲的啟蒙思想與資本主義的發展，提供了工人階級意識覺醒的養分與環境，這些成熟資本主義國家及資方也從無數的工人集體行動中記取教訓，因而發展出集體勞動法體制來引導工人的集體行動並使之有序，避免造成社會動盪與經濟發展受阻。台灣目前尚未走到這一步，特別是資方團體仍無法理解勞動三法對於產業秩序所能發揮的積極作用，錯失了善用工會及團體協商的機制來避免集體爭議行動的出現。本文也順帶簡要討論了兩次空服員罷工所引發的幾項爭論，分別是「禁搭便車條款」、「不當勞動行為」、「罷工預告期」及職業工會罷工究竟是否是「外力介入」的疑義。國內學術界對這些爭論有不少討論，其中也引用他國法制經驗作為討論基礎，本文以為他山之石的借鏡是必要，但也須回到不同國家集體勞動法體制發展的脈絡來審慎思量，以避免見樹不見林對台灣工人集體行動所造成的更大衝擊！ |
| 英文摘要：The class consciousness of Taiwanese workers is underdeveloped due to the short history of capitalism in Taiwan, the imposition of martial law for 38 years, rapid economic development and a large number of small-scale enterprises. Worse still, martial law disabled three collective labor laws, namely the Trade Union Law, Collective Bargaining Law and Labor Dispute Law. Therefore, few unions were autonomous before 1987, and thus could not function as a voice to protect workers. Collective action was viewed with hostility by both employers and society. The outbreak and rapid success of the China Airlines flight attendants' strike in 2016 was a great boost to unionists, who were soon upset three years later when a strike by flight attendants at Eva Air was harshly suppressed by their employer. This was no surprise to those who knew the history of labor in advanced capitalist countries where workers have experienced a long history of suppression, crackdown, harassment and even bloodshed. Therefore, the institutionalization of collective labor rights is a hard-won achievement by the workers themselves. Since then, collective action by laborers has to a certain extent been channeled and regulated as well as respected by society. Taiwan has not yet moved to a stage where employers are able to realize the value of laborers' collective rights and their importance to business competitiveness and sustainability. This article also discusses four issues relevant to the flight attendants' strike, namely no free-riding clauses, unfair labor practices, strike notices and ＂outside force interventions＂. There is no lack of discussion of these issues among academics who draw on laws as well as practices from other countries which policymakers may take into consideration when devising future laws. To that end, it is crucial to remember that the regime of collective labor laws differs among countries, each of which has its own social and political development. |
| 年份：2020 |