受地方限定的工廠：中國大陸內遷台資製造業勞動體制之變遷

A Place-Bound Factory: Changing Labor Regimes in Taiwanese Manufacturers to Inland China

過去在廣東模式的發展下，中國大陸沿海地區的外資企業—尤其是台資工廠，主要是以進城的長距離遷移農民工作為生產的主體，這些企業或工廠常使用高壓的方式進行工廠管理。雖然近來在管理方式上有某種程度的改變，但整體上仍維持「移工」勞動體制（migrant labor regime）的特徵。然而，這種刻板印象並無法充分解釋晚近，特別是 2008 年以後前往內陸布局設廠的台資工廠在勞動管理上的實際運作情形。本文試圖從全球生產網絡（GPNs）與 Michael Burawoy 對勞動體制的觀點出發，探討台資製造業廠在遷移到內陸後所發生的勞動體制的變遷及其與在地社會的關係。研究資料是 2011 至 2015 年間，研究者多次拜訪已遷移內陸的台資工廠進行田野研究所蒐集而來。這些資料主要包括田野觀察及 163 份與當地勞工、管理者及地方官員深入訪談的記錄。本研究發現（1）台資工廠在地理空間上的移動會促使不同行動尺度的農民工重新組合。內陸台資廠的員工大量替換為本地居民，員工的「移工」屬性因而大幅下滑；（2）台資廠遷往內陸後，勞工對工廠生產勞動的依賴度、勞動的價值觀、勞工的社會關係等，都產生相當程度的變異。內陸作為一地理尺度，具體地影響著遷移當地的台資工廠的運作；（3）遷移內陸的台資工廠，在勞動管理關係上，呈現出一個深受勞工所處（農村）社會網絡與地方（農村）經濟生活所影響的勞動體制。從鑲嵌的角度來看，這是一種領域性的鑲嵌型態，在此鑲嵌型態下的台資工廠，將無可避免地成為一個「受地方限定的」工廠。 Past studies on the labor regimes of foreign companies in Southern China show that there was a prevalent and coercive workplace discipline, particularly within Taiwanese factories. Even though certain changes were foundin new labor management studies, labor control in these factories was still dominant, possessing the characteristics of a “migrant labor regime.” This kind of labor management, however, failed to reflect the reality of the workplace within inland Taiwanese factories. This paper employs theories from Global Production Networks, as well as Michael Burawoy’s perspective regarding the factory regime, to explore the changing labor regimes of Taiwanese factories in inland China. Empirical material for this paper was generated from two phases of fieldwork, in which 163 in-depth interviews were conducted from 2011 to 2015 with Chinese employees and Taiwanese managers, as well as other researchrelated interviewees. It is argued that a re-combination of “two scales of action” towards rural migrant workers in inland Taiwanese factories developed as these factories moved from coastal to inland China. Instead of the past recruitment practices of long-distance migration laborers moving to coastal areas, factories mostly recruited inland employees (so-called local workers) from nearby villages and towns. These local workers showed, in many aspects, less similar characteristics to those of migrant workers in Southern China, including their conditions of dependence, moral values, and social relationships. “Inland,” from this viewpoint, not only is a geographic term; it also functioned as a geographic scale, having an enormous impact on the labor regime of migrated Taiwanese factories. Factories located inland were forced to respond to workers’ systematic needs, including those related to familial reproduction, seasonal farming, and community. Moreover, adjustments to the labor regime of inland Taiwanese factories brought them to become “territorially” embedded in workers’ localized networks and inland rural economies. Factories thus became place-bound.

Past studies on the labor regimes of foreign companies in Southern China show that there was a prevalent and coercive workplace discipline, particularly within Taiwanese factories. Even though certain changes were foundin new labor management studies, labor control in these factories was still dominant, possessing the characteristics of a “migrant labor regime.” This kind of labor management, however, failed to reflect the reality of the workplace within inland Taiwanese factories. This paper employs theories from Global Production Networks, as well as Michael Burawoy’s perspective regarding the factory regime, to explore the changing labor regimes of Taiwanese factories in inland China. Empirical material for this paper was generated from two phases of fieldwork, in which 163 in-depth interviews were conducted from 2011 to 2015 with Chinese employees and Taiwanese managers, as well as other researchrelated interviewees. It is argued that a re-combination of “two scales of action” towards rural migrant workers in inland Taiwanese factories developed as these factories moved from coastal to inland China. Instead of the past recruitment practices of long-distance migration laborers moving to coastal areas, factories mostly recruited inland employees (so-called local workers) from nearby villages and towns. These local workers showed, in many aspects, less similar characteristics to those of migrant workers in Southern China, including their conditions of dependence, moral values, and social relationships. “Inland,” from this viewpoint, not only is a geographic term; it also functioned as a geographic scale, having an enormous impact on the labor regime of migrated Taiwanese factories. Factories located inland were forced to respond to workers’ systematic needs, including those related to familial reproduction, seasonal farming, and community. Moreover, adjustments to the labor regime of inland Taiwanese factories brought them to become “territorially” embedded in workers’ localized networks and inland rural economies. Factories thus became place-bound.