一例一休，爭權利？討恩惠？：政治經濟學批判的觀點

Dispute on Newly Amended Five-Day Workweek, A Right Claim? Or Asking a Favor? : Perspective from the Critique of Political Economy

勞動基準法將週工時縮減為40小時，同時刪除7 天國定假日的修法，引爆一連串勞資間激烈的鬥爭。這場被稱之為一例一休的政策爭議，雙方的攻防仍僅止於表象經濟層面的拉鋸：資方以修法後增加成本、降低企業競爭力、不利企業投資及失業擴大等說詞反對，勞方則以台灣不能再繼續停留在長工時低薪化的勞動力市場以為抗衡。然而追溯台灣工時法制的演變，我們發現1929年工廠法開始到後來的勞動基準法至今，在這長達90 年的歷史中，工時的規範持續惡化，早年加班作為正常法定工時是特殊例外，但今日作為特殊例外的加班反倒變成了常態。這個事實造就了台灣年總工時高居世界長工時排行榜的前四名！過勞成為台灣職場普遍的噩夢。從政治經濟學批判的觀點，本文試圖跳脫表象上的爭議，進入背後的本質問題，那就是工時所涉及的理論層面，值得我們細究。本文特別針對兩部分深入討論：勞基法所定之正常工時乃對應到工資的合理性，亦即勞工的正常法定工時之工資，必須能支持勞工及其家庭生活所需，否則法定工時的規範即無意義。其次延長工時（加班）所涵攝的理論意涵有兩層面：其一，加班象徵的是資本對勞動的超級剝削；其二，加班會縮短勞動力的使用年限，因而加成給付是對勞動生涯縮減的補償，故足額的加成給付是權利，而非恩惠! 從這兩層面理論意涵來省思目前一例一休的修法方向，顯然行政部門偏好的彈性，放在台灣目前職場的脈絡底下，將會是更大的災難！

The amendment of labor standard law with regard to reduction of working hours and elimination of 7 national holidays has been generating fierce labor dispute. However, the discourse and reasoning of both labor and capital is largely limited to economic rationale, which is superficial and unable to clarify the nature of the struggle. A serious review on working hours' legislation over the past 90 years points to the fact that working hours rule is loosening in terms of overtime restriction and flexi-time application. Overtime used to be an exception of normal working hours. But today overtime is widely adopted and applied in various industries. This very fact explained why Taiwan remained one of the highest working hours' societies. Overwork due to long working hours becomes a new threat and a nightmare in the workplace in this island. This paper aims to address the nature and its theoretical underpinning of the dispute from the perspective of the critique of political economy. The first theoretical argument is the concept of so call ＂normal＂ working hours refers to a wage level that can support the living of workers and their family beyond subsistence. That means workers do not have to rely on overtime to earn a living. The second argument is overtime has two theoretical implications. One implication is that overtime indicates the super exploitation of capital over labor. The other is overtime will inappropriately shorten the length of working years. Therefore, overtime rate has to be doubly compensated, which is labor's right, not a favor from capital. From the theoretical perspective, it is clear that the flexibility favored by the government will bring forth even more disasters to workers who have been overworked and underpaid for at least two decades.