公賣局私有化過程中的產業遺產保存 －台北建國啤酒廠工人的工作權保存經驗

Abstract

本碩士論文以建國啤酒廠為例，探討其面臨關廠時，從產業遺產保存與工人爭取工作權兩種因應策略來分析其意義，並分析私有化對前述二者的影響，以期能更深入地瞭解建啤保存案例的社會階級理論涵意，作為未來工人自覺力量發展及產業文化保存者在投入產業遺產保存策略的參考。 在1994年，台灣政府為了再次加入世界關稅暨貿易總協定（GATT，簡稱世貿），為回應資本主義全球化下，世貿所提出的市場開放等私有化訴求，原屬公營的台灣菸酒公賣局在市場開放後的獲利大幅下滑，選擇將公營企業民營化以因應新的開放市場，其下建國啤酒廠在 2000年起即面臨關廠、併廠、裁員的危機。 當時，公賣局的建國啤酒廠工人，在面臨關廠下所採取的兩種抵抗策略，其一是「產業遺產保存」， 在樂山文教基金會等文化界人士協助下，透過將誕生於1919年的建國啤酒廠房，以產業遺產的生產線活保存方式：將廠房指定為古蹟。其二是 「工作權的保障」，亦即工人在喪失工作權時，透過抗爭、協商等方式以爭取工作權保障。而建啤工人結合兩者，以生產線持續生產以保障工人的工作權。 然而，私有化過程中，以利潤為導向的新私人資本不僅改變了國家透過減少獲利以保障建啤工人的政策；而且私營資本更吸納產業保存的方法，做為其提高獲利依據，但工人的工作權卻漸被私營資本排除。 究竟，產業遺產保存是否能抵擋私有化的壓力，是否足以保存整體工人、及勞動過程？以及產業工人參與產業保存的目的，在保存過程扮演的角色為何？基於以上推論，探討「產業遺產活保存」及「保障整體勞動過程」兩種論述，何者能同時保存工作權及機具廠房等生產因素？ 最後探討產業文化「活」保存論述的基本假設，必須建立在保有工作權的基礎上，才能維持階級的生活，即「活的」階級意識，以作為勞動文化的根本基礎。

This thesis attempts to explore the meaning of industry's heritage and the right of working by focusing on the example of the workers’struggle of Jianguo Brewery while it was planed to be closed. The thesis will analyze the impact of privatization on the industry’s heritage and the right of working, in order to grasp deeper the theoretical implication of class through the case of industrial heritage of Jianguo Brewery. Furthermore, the study may provide the helpful reference for the future development of workers’ self-conscious power and activists of industry’s heritage. In 1994, in order to re-joint into the GATT(later WTO), Taiwan government complied with request of WTO on the policy of opening market and privatization as the trend of gobalization. Thus, the profit of previously national bureau, Taiwan Tobacco and Wine Board, drop hugely after the market was opened, and the bureau was forced to became an enterprise and turn to privatization so as to meet the challenge of free market. It is under this situation that Jianguo Brewery faced the crises of closing the factory, merging into other factory, as well as the layoff of workers. At that time, the workers of Jianguo Brewery of Taiwan Tobacco and Wine Board took two strategies for their struggle. The first one was to preserve the industrial heritage, helped by Le-Shan Cultural and Educational Foundation and some other people of cultural activities. It is to preserve the factory building which was built in 1919 so as to preserve the production line on the site of industrial heritage; in other words, to designate the factory of Jianguo Brewery as the cultural relics. The second one is to protect the right of working, i.e., while workers lose their jobs, they could struggle for their job through the struggle and negotiation. And the workers of Jianguo Brewery combined these two strategies to struggle for the production line in order to protect their right of working. However, in the process of privatization, while profit as the guideline, the new private capital changed the policy of preserving the jobs for workers as the primary concern even which may lead to decreasing the profit. Furthermore, the private capital even adopts the method of preserving the industrial heritage so as to increase the profit. Yet, workers’ right of working is thus precluded. After all, could the preservation of industrial heritage resist to the pressure of privatization? Could it preserve the workers jobs totally and their complete labor process? And what kind of role that the workers will play who have participated into the activities of preserving the industrial heritage? Based on the above argument, the discussion of the two discourses of “living preservation of industrial heritage”and“preservation of the complete labor process“, one may ask which one could both protect the right of working and preserve the factory and machines, the productive factors, at the same time? Finally, the basic presumption of inquiring into the living preservation of industrial culture has to be based on the protection of the right of working. Only in this situation, we may preserve working-class daily life, the living class-consciousness, which is the real basis of workers’ culture.