|
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
種族就業優惠性差別待遇制度之檢討——以原住民就業優惠措施為中心
|
|
|
| 作者 |
 |
謝茵絜 |
| 學校系所 |
|
臺灣大學法律學研究所 |
| 地點 |
|
全臺 全部
|
| 研究內容 |
|
[ 摘要 ]
種族優惠性差別待遇此一政策引起許多的爭論，而多數對於種族優惠性差別待遇的討論均集中在平等概念與司法審查標準的採擇上，本文則希望進一步說明優惠性差別待遇具體手段的審查與形成的問題。由於就業領域中落實優惠性差別待遇有各種不同的方法，透過台灣、美國法上所涉及的種族就業優惠措施的整理後，發現「人口比例代表制度」在種族就業優惠措施的使用上成為主要的作法，本文也將以「比例代表制」做為檢討的重心，並且尋找出妥適的優惠規範方式。
而本文對於種族優惠性差別待遇的基礎理論上，預設以反壓迫原則來解讀種族平等的要求，並且以中度審查標準來審視種族就業優惠的各項措施。進一步在手段的檢討上，將運用資格、數額設計、非受益者權益、時間等四項限制，來說明侵害程度以及手段、目的關連性的問題；此外，藉由優惠性差別待遇中的補償理論與多元理論等正當性基礎，重新看待人口比例代表制度成為主要優惠措施下的各項問題。本文認為種族就業優惠措施必須要仔細考量相關就業市場的因素、勞動力的需求以及保留各個公司評估種族平等目標達成的可能性，否則將會造成更嚴重的歧視問題，並且也無法真正打擊種族上的就業歧視。
在將前述的內容置於我國目前原住民就業優惠措施的檢討上，本文認為，我國的規範過於簡化優惠措施的實施方式，忽略了不同就業市場應該考量的各項因素，且規範的拘束力以及實施主體的方式也不恰當，這些問題甚至造成部分法規有違憲之嫌。就業領域上的種族優惠性差別待遇應該採取更具針對性的具體手段設計，強調個案性、脈絡性的優惠措施，仔細衡量相關就業市場的人力組成、工作本質的限制以及個別機構的需求等，這些考量將有助於引導國家與私人設計妥適的優惠具體手段，進而降低種族優惠性差別待遇這項制度的爭議性。
[ 英文摘要 ]
Race-based affirmative action has raised many debates, and many discussions focus on the concept of equality and the standards of judicial review. In this thesis, I want to talk about how to review and form the means of affirmative action. By sorting the law of affirmative action in Taiwan and United States, I found “racially proportionately represented practices” has been the main way of realizing affirmative action. Therefore, I will focus on it in my thesis and look for better means to achieve the same goal.
First, among the fundamental theories of affirmative action, I read the concept of equality as Anti-caste or Anti-subjugation principle. Further, when analyzing the means of affirmative action, I identify four important guiding principles (i.e. qualification, percentage, non-beneficiary and time restrictions) from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions to find out what is the less restrictive means and the relation between the means and goals. Besides, through remedy rationale and diversity rationale to view “racially proportionately represented practices”, there will be some problems in itself. My proposition is that forming a race-based affirmative action in employment has to consider relevant factors such as the job markets, the need and supply of labor forces, and retain the possibilities to measure various companies to achieve the goal of racial equality.
As for the affirmative action in employment in Taiwan, I think our regulations are over-simplified and ignore different factors of labor markets relating to affirmative action in employment. Further, the binding force of the regulations and the body of enforcement both are not appropriate, and these problems even cause unconstitutional criticisms. Race- based affirmative action in employment should adopt more targeted practices and emphasize case-by-case approaches. Carefully measuring work force of relevant labor pool and different needs of job performance will help to form a proper affirmative action in employment and decrease the controversies of affirmative action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
