Do you understand what the word discrimination means?
You are saying that you are welcoming one group of workers over another.
Just to further my point , here is a case of where @tando was talking about. Where the employee specified they will only accept aboriginal workers because of positive discrimination laws
That the "welcome aboriginal " box isn’t necessarily related to positive discrimination. Same as the "welcome foreigner " box. It’s an opportunity for employers to discriminate the workers they would prefer.
It’s all pretty simple. Imagine in the States if a job ad had a “welcome native Americans” or "welcome foreigners " box that employers could decide to check. How could you not say that it was a tool for discriminatory employment practices
I
This isn’t the States.
That was my point. We are not in Kansas anymore and employers get away with blatant racial discrimination on public job ads. We are on the same page
As an addendum, the majority of jobs that welcome aboriginals, outside of those that clearly pertain to positive discrimination laws, are lower end positions.
OK, I will break it down. On 104:
- Most higher level jobs in the 接受身份 section only have 上班族 checked. This means that the employer had the option to additionally tick the aboriginal or foreigner box, but chose, for whatever reason to not do that.
- You have jobs that are specifically recruiting aboriginals. These jobs will only have the aboriginal box checked and will specifically mention in the job ad that they are only recruiting aboriginals. These ads are related to the laws that @tando was referring to.
- You have lower level jobs that have many boxes checked, including aboriginals, 上班族 and other workers.
That is pretty much my experience of using 104 for years. I find it very hard to see any justification for these practices or there not to be some level of underlying discrimination. It’s literally a mechanism for employers to discriminate the workers that they would welcome.
So you’re saying that if these companies encounter a “上班族” person who is also an aboriginal for example, they will not hire them? I’m not convinced based on the wording of these ads alone.
Anyway, here’s what I’m saying. Is it legal for a company to say “we will only take foreigners from certain countries” when they could legally accept people from other countries? Can you see that this is a different question from the one above, which requires a specific answer? This will potentially have an effect on how we treat advertisements here so it’s not a purely academic question to me. Whether Taiwanese companies generally do one thing or another is irrelevant to the answer.
1 Like
You are not convinced that aboriginals suffer discrimination in the workplace? Why do you think that positive discrimination acts have been brought in? It’s to combat the underlying discrimination such as that found on 104.
Of course if an outstanding aboriginal turned up for the job they could be considered. But my point is that the company has already made a specific decision to stipulate that they welcome one group over another.
I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that the jobs that do specify they will accept aboriginals, tend to be the lower tier ones.
Companies give no advantage to aboriginals for this kind of jobs. They choose the best applicant regardless aboriginal or not.
those are special positions to meet the law. Applicants should be aboriginals.
companies give some advantage to aboriginals, because there are some financial incentives to employers from government for hiring them.
I don’t think that is a negative discrimination against aboriginals.
Of course it’s a different question. I only mentioned the case of the aboriginals to show how far away Taiwanese employment practices are from Western ones. Something can be illegal and still common. That was all I was trying to say before the derailment into supporting discrimination on 104
Well you are wrong
Do employers not employ aboriginals due to their discrimination or due to the lack of required qualifications of socally disadvantaged aboriginals?
I’m not saying there is no discrimination against aboriginals. There are affirmative laws because they are at a disadvantaged position and their employment conditions should be improved. Though, I don’t think the “welcome aboriginals box” is a negative discrimination system.
@OrangeOrganics what comes up if you click on the “relevant laws/regulations” link at the job site?
I suspect the explanation they would give publicly is along the lines of “this is intended for affirmative action only, and when the aboriginal box is not selected, that definitely doesn’t mean aboriginals are not welcome. We do not condone racism bla bla bla.” 
I also suspect they know many employers do discriminate against aboriginals and enjoy having the ambiguous-looking aboriginal box.
Bottom line, there definitely is a form of (what Americans would call) affirmative action for aboriginals, as stated in the law linked to above (possibly the same one linked to at the job site).
As for the ESA, we should note Art. 1:
The Act is enacted to promote employment of nationals with a view to enhance social and economic development. Matters not prescribed in the Act shall be governed by other statutes.
If we ignore that part, it may seem based on Art. 5 (as quoted by Tempo) that discrimination in favor of aboriginals is illegal, but Art. 1 paves the way for the other law, and even without Art. 1 they could probably cite the constitution and international standards to justify it.
Anti-discrimination legislation can work if it’s enforced. The state can take an active role, e.g. in Australia they have this trick of sending undercover inspectors posing as customers, one aboriginal and one white, not quite at the same time but close, and if the rental or whatever is not available for the aboriginal customer (“oh there’s been a mistake, it’s gone”) but miraculously is available for the white customer, then wham, you’re busted, here’s the fine you need to pay, have a nice day. Obviously there’s a limit to how often they can repeat that and expect it to work, as people can find subtler ways of discriminating, but if you spread the word that the fine is real, it at least acts as a deterrent.
In Taiwan they do have committees here and there to deal with human rights issues, but judging by how enthusiastic the labor authorities are about using their enforcement powers in general (not very), I can understand the cynicism here.
If the state doesn’t use its enforcement power (or the law doesn’t prescribe any), then the individual needs to sue, proving not only that an act of illegal discrimination occurred but also a cause and effect relationship between that act and the harm suffered by the individual. 
Getting back to the original question about nationalities eligible for English teaching jobs, yes the government recognizes many other countries as officially English speaking (yes to the Philippines etc., no to the Netherlands etc.), so if the requirement is presented as “we need to know your nationality to know whether or not you meet the government’s work permit criteria” then obviously they’re wrong, as we have discussed in other threads.
Now theoretically, if they present it as “we need to know your accent because we promise our customers North American/British/Antipodean/Filipino/whatever English” then that sounds reasonable, and if they use the government’s own logic then whatever passport you carry, that’s where you’ve always lived and always will live, except for the brief anomaly that is your sojourn in Taiwan. Obviously, the world is far more complex than that, many people don’t have the accent one expects to hear based on their nationality even if they have always lived in one place, and so on, but it’s not so difficult to imagine that form of discrimination being found legal in Taiwan.
I would love to hear from anyone who’s filed a discrimination complaint.
“Welcome” here doesn’t mean “welcome”, it means “will accept applications from”. But that’s just a first filter – the second one is that resume with the photograph on it.
Sure, should have wrote “accept”. But that doesn’t change my point.
I am willing to concede that that the aboriginal box was added because of affirmative action laws. However, at the same time, this doesn’t seem to be how it’s mainly utilized
Back home, a few years ago, I found an ad for English teacher that specifically demand a Caucasian as the main requirement for applying. Can you imagine what that could make to our civilized forum reader?
TBH, everybody have preferential to a group or another. Try apply a job in the US, when you are a foreigner? Or apply a job in EU when you have no EU nationality?
Only some more implied in hiding it… others not so implied.
1 Like
I think, and I may be wrong, that there is a quota system in place whereby companies are “encouraged” to hire a certain number of indigenous and handicapped Taiwanese. If you don’t you lose some sort of tax break. Anyone who’s ever translated corporate sustainability reports in Taiwan will have seen these sections wherein a company claims to be a diverse employer because they have hired 3 indigenous employees and 2 handicapped. Therefore these two groups have a vested interest in declaring their status as it gives you priority in hiring, all other conditions being equal.
Hey Orange, could it be that young Indigenous job seekers have a lowered self-esteem and thus, self exclude themselves from jobs? The practice of putting a picture on your resume here eliminates anyone not pretty/handsome enough for the employer and photoshop can’t eliminate a naturally good tan. That’s not to say there isn’t a shitload of dumbasses who shamelessly will point at a guy 5x his size and say, “blackie blackie person”. I think having that extra box gives the good employers a chance to show that they don’t discriminate, unlike their neighbours.
Sure, I don’t have a problem with the that reasoning for the aboriginal box being there.
But there are other mechanisms on 104 to state that the job is specifically for aboriginals(such as stating it in the job title, which is normal practice).
My point is, that it’s used in a discriminatory way. There is no reason to have aboriginal in the 接受身份 section. There could be another section to specify that you want to make an aboriginal affirmative action hire.