外籍專業人士引進及聘僱審查機制之探討

• Main Authors: 薛鑑忠, Shiue, Jain Joag
• Language: 中文
• Published: 國立政治大學
• Subjects: 外籍專業人士; 引進政策; 經濟需求檢測; 審查機制; Foreign Professionals; Policy on Introduction; Economic Needs Test; Review Mechanism
• Online Access: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cdrfb3/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&i=sid=%22G0101921305%22.

近年來我國人才失衡的問題日益嚴重，我國除有人才外流的問題外，近10年來我國引進白領專業外國人始終維持在2.5萬至2.75萬人左右，為何有些國家可以持續引進外籍專業人士，而我國卻呈現停滯的現象？為瞭解我國外籍專業人士引進及聘僱審查機制之現況、執行成效及相關問題，本研究透過文獻探討、次級資料分析、比較分析及深度訪談等方法，針對我國、美國、新加坡及韓國等四個國家之引進政策、引進規定(經濟需求檢測機制)、引進現況及審查機制等構面進行分析及比較。 本研究分為六章，第一章說明研究動機與目的、研究方法、研究範圍與限制、分析架構及研究流程等，第二章探討專業人士跨國遷徙概況與趨勢，第三章分析與比較我國與美國、新加坡及韓國等國家引進政策及法規，第四章分析與比較我國與美國、新加坡及韓國等國家引進現況及審查機制，第五章針對政府機關、雇主、外籍專業人士、代辦外籍專業人士聘僱許可公司、資方團體及勞方團體等6類不同利害關係人進行深度訪談，藉以發現問題，第六章為結論與建議，並提出具體建議方案，以強化我國引進外籍專業人士的優勢。 本研究主要發現，(一)我國引進外籍專業人士係補充國內專業人士的不足，進而達成提升國家競爭力、穩定或促進本勞就業及提升所得、並具有經驗傳承等政策目的，且我國引進政策是較藍領外籍勞工政策更為寬鬆，而現階段我國外籍專業人士符合引進目的。但是政策過於強調法規鬆綁，鬆綁同時可能忽略引進目的。(二)現階段就業服務法對於工作的定義，主要以外國人有無提供勞務為認定依據，但隨著跨國境訓練或實習等邊做邊學態樣日益增加的趨勢，現行工作的定義可能無法兼顧實務上的需求。(三)不同利害關係人一致認為引進外籍專業人士應具備一定學歷及雇主資本額、營業額等規範沒有限制性；但是在二年相關工作經驗及薪資等規範上，政府機關、雇主及外國人呈現二極化的看法，故我國經濟需求檢測機制對於引進中高階以上人才不具限制性，而學歷、雇主資本額及營業額對於引進中階人才不具限制性。(四)美國、新加坡及韓國引進外籍專業人士的經濟需求檢測機制主要以薪資標準為基準，經由薪資比較後發現，我國薪資標準的設定已接近於市場薪資，但從國際定價來看卻有偏低的問題。(五)臺灣引進外籍勞動力的模式為雙軌制(藍白領外國人)，如此引進模式，導致我國引進外籍專業人士的資格條件，必須同時要兼顧高階及中階人才的適用，故引進政策呈現二極化的評價，顯然我國雙軌制模式，無法滿足不同層級需求。(六)不同利害關係人一致認為我國引進外籍專業人士偏低的原因，是薪資待遇不具誘因。以新加坡為例，其引進服務業藍領外籍勞工每月薪資至少應達新加坡幣1,600元以上，折合新臺幣約3.8萬元，該薪資標準已等同我國僑外畢業生留臺從事專業工作的薪資標準，雖然政府積極推動引進人才方案，但是臺灣薪資待遇不改善將嚴重阻礙我國引進外籍專業人士或留用僑外畢業生。(七)外籍專業人士在我國的工作期間不長久，而且移民我國的意願不高，倘若我國引進模式不修正，將不利外籍專業人士與移民政策的結合。(八)我國審查機制透明度及效率大體上符合需求，相對缺乏彈性，而且國際上對於審查機制已朝向彈性化的方向，我國的制度將不利推動彈性化的審查。 最後，針對本研究發現提出具體建議，包含(一)我國引進外籍勞動力模式建議比照新加坡模式修正為三軌制，在現行雙軌制中間增列中階技術工作，並根據不同層級引進的政策設定經濟需求檢測機制。(二)修正工作的定義，建議增列其提供勞務的目的性及準則等規範，以符合實務需要。(三)適度修正我國經濟需求檢測機制，包括工作內容取消行職業規範，二年相關工作經驗規定，刪除「相關」二字或修正為一定工作年資，以及應按年度調整薪資標準，且比照美國採管理職及非管理職區分薪資標準；此外，假如我國政策開放引進中階技術工作者，應比照美國及新加坡訂定配額上限，以避免衝擊國內技術勞工就業機會。(四)面對人口老化及少子女化造成勞動力不足的問題，適度開放移民是一條未來不得不面對的道路，外籍專業人士與移民政策的結合應整體規劃，並適度向民眾說明引進開發中國家之專技人士的必要性。(五)為提高審查程序的透明度及服務品質，應建立動態查詢系統，並加強承辦同仁的教育訓練。 === The issue of imbalanced talent resources in Taiwan is a downward spiral in recent years. Not only Taiwanese talents are leaving Taiwan for better job opportunity. But the number of white-collar foreign professionals working in Taiwan has remained at 25,000 to 27,500, far from a large number, in the past decade. Why is Taiwan experiencing stagnation of labor market while other countries continue to attract foreign experts and professionals for work？ To better understand the current status of introduction of foreign professionals to work in Taiwan, the existing employment review mechanism, how it is being implemented and relevant issues, this study conducts analysis and comparison of the policies on introduction, requirements on introduction (economic needs test system), current status of introduction and review mechanism in Taiwan, the United States of America, Singapore and Korea. The study method includes document research, secondary data analysis, comparative analysis and in-depth interviews. Major discoveries of this study are: (1) the foreign professionals currently working in Taiwan are consistent with the purpose of introduction, but the policies are tilted in favor of a lenient treatment, with the possibility of the purpose of introduction being overlooked; (2) the current definition of work may not satisfy the needs in the real world; (3) Taiwan’s economic needs test system does not have restrictions on introduction of medium- to senior-level talents, and requirements on education level, employer’s capital amount and revenues impose no restrictions on medium-level talents; (4) while the salary standards in Taiwan are catching up with market standards, Taiwan’s salary level is at the lower end of the international pricing spectrum; (5) Taiwan’s parallel mode for introduction of foreign labor force cannot satisfy the needs for foreign workers at different levels; (6) despite of the government’s efforts to promote introduction of talents, Taiwan’s low salary standards are likely to become a huge obstacle in attracting foreign professionals to Taiwan or keeping overseas Chinese or foreign students in Taiwan when they graduate; (7) given the fact that the period of stay of foreign professionals for work is relatively short, if the mode of instruction remains unchanged, a successful combination of the policy on employment of foreign professionals and the policy on immigration may be compromised; and (8) transparency and efficiency of Taiwan’s review mechanism generally coincides with the needs, but the system relatively lacks flexibility; and many countries around the world have moved toward becoming more flexible to the review mechanism, and Taiwan’s mechanism may hamper the promotion of a flexible examination. Last but not least, the discoveries of this study have prompted the following concrete suggestions: (1) switch Taiwan’s mode for introduction of foreign workers to triple-track mode as in Singapore, and establish economic needs test system based on policies for introduction of foreign workers at different levels; (2) modify the definition of work and add regulations on the purpose of service provision and guidelines to meet the needs in the real world; (3) moderately revise Taiwan’s economic needs test system, including job description, requirement of two-year experiences in related work, adjustment of salary standards, etc.; (4) combine the policy on employment of foreign professionals and the policy on immigration from a big picture perspective, and educate the public about necessity of introduction of professionals and experts from the developing countries; and (5) establish an inquiry system that constantly updates information and strengthen the education and training of relevant staff.