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