海外华工劳动保护:法律框架与司法实践

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Aaron Halegua, Xiaohui Ban
{"title":"海外华工劳动保护:法律框架与司法实践","authors":"Aaron Halegua, Xiaohui Ban","doi":"10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The launch of China’s Belt and Road Initiative has brought attention to the dispatch of Chinese workers overseas. These vulnerable migrants are often charged high fees in China only to suffer wage abuses and work injuries abroad, where obtaining relief is often impossible. But what laws or regulations within China protect these workers, and how effective are they? This study takes an initial step towards answering those unexplored questions by analysing over 100 Chinese court decisions. While, for much of the China’s history, overseas workers were primarily seconded abroad by Chinese employers, a clear preference has emerged for sending workers through intermediary agencies that can charge fees and execute ‘service’ contracts. Nonetheless, the courts generally provide some relief to aggrieved workers who are dispatched through formal channels. However, a large number of workers go abroad through informal brokers. When disputes arise in these cases, judicial practice becomes very inconsistent. Ironically, workers sometimes fare better because the courts adopt a ‘strict liability’ approach that punishes the unregistered broker, ordering them to pay all compensation or refund all fees. But some judges punish the worker who entrusted an unregistered broker or worked abroad on a tourist visa. And other courts simply treat the matter as a contract or tort dispute. While aggrieved overseas workers who litigate in court face mixed results, this article also discusses why many workers never make it to the courthouse door. The conclusion offers proposals to enhance protections for overseas workers and discusses why it is important that China do so.","PeriodicalId":42366,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"8 1","pages":"304-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Labour Protections for Overseas Chinese Workers: Legal Framework and Judicial Practice\",\"authors\":\"Aaron Halegua, Xiaohui Ban\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The launch of China’s Belt and Road Initiative has brought attention to the dispatch of Chinese workers overseas. These vulnerable migrants are often charged high fees in China only to suffer wage abuses and work injuries abroad, where obtaining relief is often impossible. But what laws or regulations within China protect these workers, and how effective are they? This study takes an initial step towards answering those unexplored questions by analysing over 100 Chinese court decisions. While, for much of the China’s history, overseas workers were primarily seconded abroad by Chinese employers, a clear preference has emerged for sending workers through intermediary agencies that can charge fees and execute ‘service’ contracts. Nonetheless, the courts generally provide some relief to aggrieved workers who are dispatched through formal channels. However, a large number of workers go abroad through informal brokers. When disputes arise in these cases, judicial practice becomes very inconsistent. Ironically, workers sometimes fare better because the courts adopt a ‘strict liability’ approach that punishes the unregistered broker, ordering them to pay all compensation or refund all fees. But some judges punish the worker who entrusted an unregistered broker or worked abroad on a tourist visa. And other courts simply treat the matter as a contract or tort dispute. While aggrieved overseas workers who litigate in court face mixed results, this article also discusses why many workers never make it to the courthouse door. The conclusion offers proposals to enhance protections for overseas workers and discusses why it is important that China do so.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"304-330\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxaa024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

中国“一带一路”倡议的提出引起了人们对中国工人海外派遣的关注。这些易受伤害的移民在中国往往被收取高额费用,但在国外却遭受工资虐待和工伤,而在国外,获得救济往往是不可能的。但是,中国有哪些法律法规保护这些工人?这些法律法规的效果如何?本研究通过分析100多个中国法院的判决,为回答这些未被探索的问题迈出了第一步。虽然在中国历史上的大部分时间里,外派工人主要是由中国雇主借调到国外的,但现在已经出现了一种明显的倾向,即通过中介机构派遣工人,这些中介机构可以收取费用并执行“服务”合同。尽管如此,法院通常会对通过正式渠道派遣的受害工人提供一些救济。然而,大量的工人通过非正式经纪人出国。当这些案件发生纠纷时,司法实践变得非常不一致。具有讽刺意味的是,工人有时会过得更好,因为法院采取了“严格责任”的方式,惩罚未注册的经纪人,命令他们支付所有赔偿金或退还所有费用。但一些法官惩罚那些委托未注册经纪人或持旅游签证在国外工作的工人。而其他法院则简单地将此事视为合同或侵权纠纷。虽然委屈的海外工人在法庭上提起诉讼面临着不同的结果,但本文也讨论了为什么许多工人从来没有走到法院门口。结论提出了加强对海外工人保护的建议,并讨论了中国这样做的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Labour Protections for Overseas Chinese Workers: Legal Framework and Judicial Practice
The launch of China’s Belt and Road Initiative has brought attention to the dispatch of Chinese workers overseas. These vulnerable migrants are often charged high fees in China only to suffer wage abuses and work injuries abroad, where obtaining relief is often impossible. But what laws or regulations within China protect these workers, and how effective are they? This study takes an initial step towards answering those unexplored questions by analysing over 100 Chinese court decisions. While, for much of the China’s history, overseas workers were primarily seconded abroad by Chinese employers, a clear preference has emerged for sending workers through intermediary agencies that can charge fees and execute ‘service’ contracts. Nonetheless, the courts generally provide some relief to aggrieved workers who are dispatched through formal channels. However, a large number of workers go abroad through informal brokers. When disputes arise in these cases, judicial practice becomes very inconsistent. Ironically, workers sometimes fare better because the courts adopt a ‘strict liability’ approach that punishes the unregistered broker, ordering them to pay all compensation or refund all fees. But some judges punish the worker who entrusted an unregistered broker or worked abroad on a tourist visa. And other courts simply treat the matter as a contract or tort dispute. While aggrieved overseas workers who litigate in court face mixed results, this article also discusses why many workers never make it to the courthouse door. The conclusion offers proposals to enhance protections for overseas workers and discusses why it is important that China do so.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (CJCL) is an independent, peer-reviewed, general comparative law journal published under the auspices of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL) and in association with the Silk Road Institute for International and Comparative Law (SRIICL) at Xi’an Jiaotong University, PR China. CJCL aims to provide a leading international forum for comparative studies on all disciplines of law, including cross-disciplinary legal studies. It gives preference to articles addressing issues of fundamental and lasting importance in the field of comparative law.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信