Rethinking the Global Governance of Migrant Domestic Workers: The Heterodox Case of Informal Filipina Workers in China

Yiran Zhang
{"title":"Rethinking the Global Governance of Migrant Domestic Workers: The Heterodox Case of Informal Filipina Workers in China","authors":"Yiran Zhang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3750241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article uses an ethnographic case study to challenge the conventional wisdom in international labor law that formality – including formal contracts and special migration programs – always produces better jobs for transnational migrant workers than informality. Interviews with informal Filipina domestic workers in China – often visa overstayers working outside any legally recognized labor migration program – revealed that, despite working without formal status, they earned higher wages and enjoyed more favorable working conditions relative to other Asian labor markets for migrant domestic workers. National regimes of immigration law, which shape the negotiation, formation, and enforcement of the labor contract between the foreign worker and the domestic employer, explain this paradox. Typical labor migration programs (e.g. Singapore’s) tie the worker's immigration status to a specific labor contract, the breach of which results in prompt deportation. In contrast, such connections between workplace strategies and immigration law measures are more uncertain and leave more room for parties to negotiate in the informal Chinese market. These contingencies between immigration law enforcement and job status ironically enable workers to renegotiate both the employer and the structure of their jobs after arrival, which significantly enhances their bargaining power inside and outside the workplace household. This Article conducts a cross-jurisdiction comparison between a formal program in Singapore and the informal market in China and makes a compelling argument for using a comparative-bargaining-power framework to evaluate how contracts and background rules distribute power and risk among parties in the global care chain. This approach joins the emerging scholarly critiques of the International Labor Organization's almost exclusive focus on formalization to advance migrant workers' conditions.","PeriodicalId":288236,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Theoretical Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law (Topic)","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Theoretical Perspectives on Employment & Labor Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3750241","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article uses an ethnographic case study to challenge the conventional wisdom in international labor law that formality – including formal contracts and special migration programs – always produces better jobs for transnational migrant workers than informality. Interviews with informal Filipina domestic workers in China – often visa overstayers working outside any legally recognized labor migration program – revealed that, despite working without formal status, they earned higher wages and enjoyed more favorable working conditions relative to other Asian labor markets for migrant domestic workers. National regimes of immigration law, which shape the negotiation, formation, and enforcement of the labor contract between the foreign worker and the domestic employer, explain this paradox. Typical labor migration programs (e.g. Singapore’s) tie the worker's immigration status to a specific labor contract, the breach of which results in prompt deportation. In contrast, such connections between workplace strategies and immigration law measures are more uncertain and leave more room for parties to negotiate in the informal Chinese market. These contingencies between immigration law enforcement and job status ironically enable workers to renegotiate both the employer and the structure of their jobs after arrival, which significantly enhances their bargaining power inside and outside the workplace household. This Article conducts a cross-jurisdiction comparison between a formal program in Singapore and the informal market in China and makes a compelling argument for using a comparative-bargaining-power framework to evaluate how contracts and background rules distribute power and risk among parties in the global care chain. This approach joins the emerging scholarly critiques of the International Labor Organization's almost exclusive focus on formalization to advance migrant workers' conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对外来家庭佣工全球治理的再思考:以中国非正统菲律宾劳工为例
本文使用一个民族志案例研究来挑战国际劳动法中的传统观点,即正式形式——包括正式合同和特殊移民计划——总是比非正式形式为跨国移民工人创造更好的工作。对在中国的非正式菲律宾家庭佣工的采访显示,尽管没有正式身份,但相对于其他亚洲劳动力市场的移民家庭佣工来说,他们的工资更高,工作条件也更有利。菲律宾家庭佣工通常是在任何法律认可的劳工移民计划之外工作的签证逾期留留者。国家移民法制度决定了外国工人和国内雇主之间劳动合同的谈判、形成和执行,解释了这一悖论。典型的劳工移民计划(如新加坡)将工人的移民身份与特定的劳动合同联系起来,违反该合同将立即被驱逐出境。相比之下,工作场所策略和移民法措施之间的这种联系更不确定,给各方在非正式的中国市场上谈判留下了更多的空间。具有讽刺意味的是,移民执法和工作状态之间的这些偶然事件使工人能够在到达后重新谈判雇主和他们的工作结构,这大大提高了他们在工作场所家庭内外的议价能力。本文对新加坡的正式项目和中国的非正式市场进行了跨司法管辖区的比较,并对使用比较议价能力框架来评估合同和背景规则如何在全球护理链中各方之间分配权力和风险提出了令人信服的论点。这种方法加入了对国际劳工组织几乎完全专注于改善移民工人条件的正规化的新兴学术批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EU Employment Dynamics: The Pandemic Years and Beyond Evaluation of the Practice of Industrial Democracy Across Jurisdictions A Miser’s Rule of Reason: Student Athlete Compensation and the Alston Antitrust Case #MeToo, Sexual Harassment and Accountability: Considering the Role of Restorative Approaches Rethinking the Global Governance of Migrant Domestic Workers: The Heterodox Case of Informal Filipina Workers in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1