‘Made In Taiwan’ or ‘Made with Forced Labor’?
The fight is about whether migrant workers can speak out without losing their jobs, housing and right to stay.
By Girard Mariano Lopez
Bulatlat.com
TAIWAN — Despite its contested sovereignty status, Taiwan often prides itself as a democratic nation that abides by global human rights standards and international law.
But several Taiwan-based companies and industries are contesting the island’s self-claimed reputation as a safe working place for its 800,000 migrant workers, 150,000 of whom are Filipinos.
Such is the case with “Team Taiwan” company Taidoc Technology Corp., a prominent medtech company that exports blood sugar test kits and medical devices to the Philippines, as well as to Europe and North America. It has a reputation of being a key player in Taiwan’s response to SARS and the COVID-19 global pandemic.
While it insists on being seen as a humane employer, the ordeal that its estimated 100 migrant workers have gone through paints a much darker picture.
For months, Filipina migrant workers who make up two-thirds of Taidoc’s migrant workforce, have been fighting not only for better working and living conditions. They have also been fighting for the more fundamental right to be treated with dignity.
Their long list of complaints ranging from restrictive dormitory controls and pregnancy discrimination to high recruitment-related fees and retaliation against union leaders turned a workplace dispute into a broader test of how Taiwan protects some of its most vulnerable workers.
The dispute centers on the Taidoc Technology Labor Union (TTLU), a union formed by Filipino migrant workers last year over what members described as long-running grievances around management rules, fees and treatment of pregnant workers.
Taidoc denied wrongdoing, saying that its dormitory rules are standard safety measures and rejected accusations that it fired workers for being pregnant, imposed forced labor or charged improper contract-renewal fees.
The conflict escalated in February when union chair Elizabeth Basas was dismissed and six more union officials were fired days later. Union members said that the terminations were retaliation for protected labor activity and part of a wider campaign to break the union.
The Ministry of Labor said that it is investigating allegations that Taidoc interfered in union operations, with the New Taipei City labor bureau having fined the company NT$200,000 (P400,000) for violating an act regulating labor disputes.
Union members said that Filipina migrant workers at Taidoc were subject to intrusive dormitory controls, including roll calls and requirements to upload nightly photos to prove they were inside their housing facilities.
One of the most controversial policies was a “cleaning punishment” system where workers who were late to the dorm or failed to comply with minor rules could be made to clean production-line facilities for days without pay and outside regular working hours.
They also accused the company of imposing excessive rehiring and brokerage fees that deepened workers’ debt burdens.
According to Lennon Wang of the Taiwanese labor organization Serve the People Association, the company already shows five of the International Labor Organization’s 11 indicators of forced labor, namely restriction of movement, poor living conditions, intimidation and threats, debt pressure, and coercive fees and punishments.
Taidoc and its chairperson Chen Chao-wang have pushed back forcefully. The company said that disciplinary actions against union officials were based on workplace violations, including abuse of leave, disruption of order, and pressure on co-workers.
Chen also questioned the legitimacy of the union’s strike vote and accused outside labor activists of improperly influencing the dispute.
However, Taiwan’s Labor Union Act does not explicitly bar unions from appointing a non-employee as secretary-general, a key point in Taidoc’s criticism of outside involvement.
In a statement to the media, Taidoc said that the union hurt the company’s reputation and business operations as buyers and governments alike launched inquiries into the ongoing labor dispute.
As the battle intensified, the workers staged a series of protests, including demonstrations outside Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor and a “prayer strike” on Lunar New Year’s Eve, one of the most important family holidays in the Chinese-speaking world.
The symbolism was deliberate. While many in Taiwan gathered with family, the dismissed workers were publicly underscoring their isolation and precarity.
Some of the fired officials later stayed in a shelter run by a labor rights group.
The case has also drawn political attention. Taiwan People’s Party lawmaker Chiu Hui-ju described Taidoc as a “labor rights hell,” citing allegations of pregnancy-related dismissals, as well as compulsory labor through dormitory punishment rules and contract-renewal fees.
Other political groups like Taiwan’s Green Party called on authorities to freeze the company’s migrant-worker hiring quota and reinstate dismissed officials with pay.
New Taipei City labor officials said that Taidoc is now ineligible to receive a certificate of no labor law violations, a document needed when applying to recruit additional migrant workers, because of the ongoing dispute.
By March, the dispute widened further. While all union leaders were temporarily reinstated, the company released a letter on March 10 by the Migrant Workers Office under the Overseas Workers Welfare Association (OWWA)-Taipei seemingly absolving the company of any wrongdoing and accusing the union of stirring trouble within Taidoc.
Union members and allied groups took to the streets outside the Manila Economic and Cultural Office (MECO) in Taipei, accusing Philippine officials of siding with Taidoc management instead of defending Filipino workers.
Labor organizers said that the letter merely echoed company talking points and dismissed violations already recognized by Taiwanese authorities.
They also accused officials of failing to consult the union before issuing the letter, intensifying anger among workers who said that they asked for assistance from MECO just months prior but were ignored.
Beyond Taidoc
Labor advocates said that this dispute could shape how migrant-worker organizing is treated in Taiwan, especially in industries dependent on foreign labor.
For Basas and her fellow union members, the fight is about whether migrant workers can speak out without losing their jobs, housing and right to stay. In that sense, the dispute has become a referendum not only on one company’s conduct but also on the limits of labor rights in a country whose systems ensure migrant workers often bear the greatest risks.
Taiwan’s own National Development Council said that the island faces a shrinking labor force and is relying more heavily on international talent and workers to supplement labor supply. Migrant workers are therefore not peripheral to Taiwan’s economy. They are embedded in the factories, care systems, and supply chains that keep it running.
This also comes as Taiwan has reported one of its strongest economic performances in recent years, with official data showing real gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 8.68% mainly due to the global artificial intelligence (AI) boom.
Taidoc’s case exposes a contradiction at the heart of Taiwan’s economy as migrant workers are treated as essential to production while made vulnerable to dismissal, debt, deportation pressure, and employer control over housing and daily life.
Taiwan may officially score highly in international rankings concerning “human rights” and “freedom” but Filipino labor organizers in Taipei surmise that such concepts do not apply to migrant workers like Basas and her colleagues. (JDS, DAA)
The post ‘Made In Taiwan’ or ‘Made with Forced Labor’? appeared first on Bulatlat.
Leave a Comment