國內大專院校兼任助理僱傭關係認定之議題自2008年勞委會公告公部門各業臨時人員適用勞基法時已有爭論，直至近年台灣大學、政治大學等學校紛紛傳出因財務困窘而刪減研究生獎助學金，此一舉動不僅引起學生團體的抗議聲浪，甚至促成了台灣大學企業工會的成立，使得兼任助理之僱傭關係認定議題再次浮上檯面。 綜觀各種類型兼任助理的經費來源與管理規範，邁向頂尖大學計畫經費與科技部研究計畫經費皆是以執行計畫的人力需求為目的聘用兼任助理，校內對於教學助理與研究助理的管理辦法則多有指揮監督、懲處規範等人格從屬性規定。過去做為助學措施的研究生獎助學金，至今則演變為支應校內各式人力需求的經費，不僅幾乎沒有任何對於申請者財務或成績狀況的審核，更多有以學生之工作能力、工作表現做為挑選申請者與停發助學的標準，或者是以勞務對價計算助學金的報酬金額。因此本文透過公私法區分之理論與研究生助學金辦法之目的、條文綜合判斷，認定在助學金制度中，學校與兼任助理之間應屬私法關係。 另一方面，本文經由實際訪談兼任助理的勞動現況，可以發現許多的兼任助理在勞動現場，確實具有勞動法學所謂「從屬關係」之人格從屬性、經濟從屬性以及組織從屬性。因此，由規範與實務兩個層面的整理分析，本文認為兼任助理應與校方具有勞動關係的存在。據此，本文建議勞動主管機關應協同教育主管機關對於兼任助理做出通案性的僱傭關係認定，並建議未來校方應與兼任助理以書面方式簽訂勞動契約，使雙方權利義務關係明確化。而相關政府部門亦應修改兼任助理之經費來源規範，要求校方將兼任助理之勞健保與勞工退休金費用於計畫預算中編列，藉此降低對學校財務的衝擊，並使兼任助理獲取其應有之保障。 關鍵字：兼任助理、僱傭關係

本研究的目的在於以2014-2016年的兼任助理勞動權益運動作為案例，探討社會運動內部的具體訴求、行事風格、時勢判斷等差異，其背後是否反映了一些更根本的歧異。進而檢視兼任助理運動中有哪些路線與策略，各是反映著什麼樣對運動、群眾、國家的理解與想像。希望將往往消耗了參與者熱情的運動內部爭辯，轉化為比較積極、甚至可能有助於運動實踐的路線辯論。 本研究先回顧了19世紀末到20世紀初的歐洲社會主義路線辯論，以及1980年代末至1990年代初的台灣學生運動路線辯論，從中學習如何進行路線辯論。接著依據兼任助理運動的時程分期，以運動中的重大分歧為肌理，歸納成幾種對於運動不同的態度，再將抽象化、概念化。針對兼任助理運動的路線辯論，本研究透過訪談來呈現運動者的實作選擇、傾向特定實作的原因，及其背後對於運動的想像，並以「反資本主義──爭勞工權利」、「爭勞工權利──反資本主義」、「爭學生權利」、「爭生活權益」等四種路線進行詮釋性的對話。 「反資本主義──爭勞工權利」與「爭勞工權利──反資本主義」路線皆以「爭勞工權利」為短期目標，「反資本主義」為長期目標；前者會優先重視長期目標，後者較常為了短期目標而牴觸長期目標，或是因太投入而忘記長期目標。「爭學生權利」與「爭生活權益」路線從經驗出發，前者較在意抽象權利，而兩者皆希望改善學生助理的勞動待遇與生活條件，不會以抽象價值來排除特定運動手段以「實用性」為主要考量。 / Using the campaign of university part-time assistants for labor rights between 2014 and 2016 as a case, this thesis discusses to what extent do internal differences in concrete demands, style of work, judgement about objective situations and others inside a social movement reflect more fundamental differences. Furthermore, this thesis seeks to explore what kinds of lines and strategies there are in the part-time assistants’ campaign, and how they correspond to different understandings and imaginations of the movement, the masses, and the state. This analysis is done in the hope that internal disagreements can develop into more proactive and productive debates about political lines of a social movement. I start with exploring the elements and characters of political line debates by reviewing crucial debates in the European socialist movement in late 19th to early 20th century and in the Taiwanese student movement in the 1980s. Then, I divide the part-time assistants’ campaign into different periods. Major disagreements emerged in those periods are summarized into several different attitudes toward the movement. These are further abstracted and conceptualized into different lines inside the movement. I focus on choices on practical issues, reasons for such choices, and their imaginations of the movement as a whole in my interview with activists. Based on those differences, I divide the interviewees into four distinct tendencies: “anti-capitalist labor rights,” “labor-rights anti-capitalist,” “student rights,” and “rights in daily lives.” Those tendencies are engaged in intermittent dialogues with each other, and they become visible through proper interpretations. Both “anti-capitalist labor rights” and “labor-rights anti-capitalist” tendencies see the struggle for labor rights as short-term goals and the struggle against capitalism as the long-term objective. The latter, however, is more willing to sideline the long-term objective in exchange for gains in immediate short-term goals. The “student rights” and “rights in daily lives” tendencies base their activism on daily experiences of part-time student-workers. The former is more concerned with abstract political rights than the latter, but both see themselves as pragmatists in seeking to improve the labor and living conditions of their constituency. Besides, both “student rights” and “rights in daily lives” tendencies are not willing to exclude certain means for campaign based on abstract political principles.