– Bilingual Lyrics Chinese/English

Lyrics & Translation

[English]

Hello everyone, I'm Huiqun from Business Weekly

For business insights, watch Business Weekly

This week, we want to talk with you about

the recent EVA Air flight attendant incident

At the end of September, an EVA Air flight attendant

worked while sick on a long-haul European flight

and unfortunately passed away after returning to Taiwan

After the news broke, many people criticized EVA Air

But after investigation,

the flight attendants' working hours and shift intervals

all complied with the Labor Standards Act

and the company did not deny employees' leave requests

So why did this unfortunate event still happen?

This might be something very relatable for many office workers

The company allows you to take leave,

but taking leave might have consequences

It turns out that in EVA Air's evaluation system,

any last-minute leave,

whether sick leave, personal leave, or paid leave,

will result in points being deducted

and you may be assigned

red-eye flights or more tiring schedules afterwards

So many people, fearing point deductions,

dare not ask for leave

This incident has brought renewed attention

to the issue of taking leave

in Taiwan's workplaces

Why is it so difficult to take leave?

Taking leave is clearly a legal right,

but company policies and atmospheres

make people feel like taking leave is a guilt

employees have leave but don’t dare to use it

Have you ever wanted to take leave

but had your supervisor question you?

Can you take leave freely and comfortably at your company?

After watching this video today, you will know

今天看完這支影片你會知道

one, why Taiwanese workers choose to come to work sick

and are afraid to ask for leave

the cost of these workplace unspoken rules to companies

is actually five times the cost of leave

two, it’s not that leave policies don’t exist,

but supervisors don’t trust employees to use them well

how to change toxic workplace culture

to make employees dare to take leave

three, treating employees well is the best ESG practice

what policies and cultures good companies use

to make a leave-friendly culture real

Have you experienced this:

feeling unwell or having a child suddenly sick with no one to care for them,

and hesitating whether to take leave?

Because you fear that taking last-minute leave

will be held against you by supervisors,

be disliked by colleagues, or hurt your evaluation.

After the EVA Air incident,

Business Weekly conducted a YouTube survey asking if people are afraid to take leave when sick.

Nearly 7,000 people participated.

是不是也不敢跟公司請假

有將近七千人參加

The top reason for not daring to take leave was

not finding someone to cover, accounting for 46%

second was

attendance being a key evaluation metric at 24%

third was being a burden to colleagues at 22%

第三名是給同事添麻煩有傷人和

占了 22%

This survey truthfully reflects

the unspoken rules of taking leave in Taiwan’s workplaces.

When supervisors say you can take leave

but you have to find your own replacement,

at first it sounds reasonable,

but on closer thought, it’s problematic.

Because arranging replacements is actually the supervisor’s responsibility.

When supervisors shift this responsibility

onto employees,

employees have to humble themselves to ask colleagues for help.

If no one can cover,

the work still needs to be done,

so employees push themselves to work even when sick.

This explains why the EVA Air flight attendant incident

resonated with many people.

In management science,

this phenomenon is called presenteeism,

where employees come to work despite poor physical or mental health,

resulting in false attendance

and noticeably reduced productivity.

Many bosses think that just being present at work

justifies paying the salary,

but the hidden losses from working while sick

are much greater than expected.

According to a 2024 report from a UK think tank,

the productivity loss from working while sick

is five times greater than the loss from taking leave.

Harvard Business Review estimates

that US companies lose over $150 billion annually from this alone.

In other words, when a person pushes themselves to work,

they seem to save one day of manpower for the company,

but actually slow down the whole team's efficiency

and greatly increase the chances of mistakes and accidents.

The disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

Why is this toxic presenteeism still so common?

The problem is not the employees but the organization.

First, there is a lack of backup planning.

Many companies don’t see leave

as a normal, expected occurrence,

but as a sudden exception,

resulting in tight manpower planning.

This is especially common in industries with shifts, like airlines, healthcare,

and manufacturing production lines.

The real problem is,

if one person takes leave,

the entire work may halt.

Is the problem really leave,

or is the organization’s manpower backup design too fragile?

Second, there is superficial performance orientation.

Some supervisors think

just showing up means effort.

They mistake visible efforts like clocking in and working late

for actual performance,

but true value

comes from people working focused and energized to produce better creativity and efficiency.

Third, supervisors themselves don’t take leave.

Have you met supervisors who never take leave?

When supervisors come to work sick,

rarely take leave,

and set an example of pushing through,

team members may think taking leave

is disliked and should be avoided.

Due to lack of psychological safety,

employees feel even less comfortable asking for leave.

Over time, the organization becomes

an overworked machine,

seemingly stable on the surface,

but close to breaking down.

Toxic presenteeism lets companies trade employees’ health

for superficial stability.

Like the EVA Air incident,

labor inspections showed everything was legal and compliant,

the company did not refuse leave requests,

but invisible pressure is hard to measure.

After this incident,

EVA Air announced relaxed leave policies for flight attendants.

The union said although there is still a gap from the ideal,

it is at least a first step toward reform.

Good managers don’t make employees push themselves to avoid leave,

but let employees confidently take leave.

When organizations allow rest,

they can truly sustain long-term success.

Do you feel pressure when you take leave,

afraid of leaving a bad impression on your boss?

Do you think Taiwan’s workplaces

overly rely on attendance

to measure performance?

Do you think truly dedicated people

are those who never take leave

or those who know when to rest?

Many companies say

their leave policies are sound,

with personal, sick, and paid leave.

But why do employees still hesitate to take leave?

The problem is not the policy

but the mindset of supervisors.

A China Airlines pilot told Business Weekly

that flight hours for flight attendants

are strictly regulated by the Aviation Act,

and sudden leave requests

can disrupt scheduling.

There have been cases of system abuse,

like taking sick leave last minute to avoid long-haul flights,

which makes scheduling difficult.

So EVA Air introduced point deductions

to discipline rule breakers,

linking attendance to performance,

originally to encourage attendance,

but over time it evolved into fear management.

104 Job Bank HR Manager Jiang Jin-Hua told Business Weekly

Taiwan doesn’t lack leave policies,

but supervisors don’t trust employees to use them properly.

She said supervisors’ real value

is not to monitor clock-in times,

but to flexibly interpret rules,

decide who needs rest or can provide support.

Simply put,

supervisors should become coordinators, not controllers.

What does this mean?

First, proactively understand employees’ conditions,

as supervisors are closest to staff,

they should watch for fatigue signals,

like increased leave frequency, falling efficiency,

or irritability,

which signal stress.

You might wonder if supervisors are too busy to babysit,

but good bosses don’t babysit,

they foster a culture where people feel safe to speak up.

Even if busy,

if someone notices a problem,

they dare to speak up,

so issues aren’t overlooked.

Supervisors can’t watch everyone,

but can ensure information flows freely.

As long as someone speaks,

the team won’t become indifferent.

Second, keep manpower flexible,

treat leave as normal daily operations.

Some foreign companies design emergency replacement plans,

like cross-functional support or backup systems,

not to reduce manpower,

but to let employees take leave without worry,

knowing the system won’t break down.

Then they dare to take leave.

Lastly, establish transparent rules and trust.

One reason the EVA incident caused controversy

was lack of transparency,

so employees chose to take less leave to be safer.

Good supervisors clarify policies,

explaining minimum team numbers needed and leave procedures,

letting everyone understand the reasons for leave approval or denial.

Some foreign companies link department leave rates

to manager evaluations,

if leave rates are too low,

it shows supervisors may be suppressing leave,

and the company intervenes.

Good supervisors don’t monitor attendance,

they create environments where employees dare to take leave.

Is taking leave understood

or mistrusted at your company?

If you were a supervisor,

how would you build a team

where people dare to take leave?

The accounting firm Ernst & Young

conducted an interesting study,

finding that when employees take 10 more hours of leave annually,

performance improves by 8%

and turnover decreases.

Meaning when employees dare to take leave,

companies actually profit more.

Taking leave is not just an HR issue,

it indicates corporate resilience.

Many foreign companies already recognize this,

redesigning policies

to make taking leave a normal part of operations,

not an exception.

German SAP offers

mental health leave,

where employees don’t need doctor’s notes,

just take time off when they need a break,

letting employees know it’s okay to speak up if unwell.

US Macy’s offers

volunteer leave,

letting employees engage in community service,

helping them leave the office to recharge.

The key of such policies

is not the leave names,

but the message behind,

that companies acknowledge employees’ states deserve care.

Some companies even enforce mandatory leave,

like LinkedIn,

which has company-wide shutdown weeks annually,

with no worry about finding replacements.

Taiwan has similar practices,

like AU Optronics’

golden week when all employees take leave,

encouraging supervisors to arrange team rest,

or linking leave rate to supervisor performance evaluation.

This mechanism shifts supervisors

from attendance monitors

to operation coordinators.

Some companies use technology to help,

such as US retail using AI scheduling,

predicting leave peaks and auto-adjusting manpower,

and Taiwan’s tech industry using

real-time, transparent leave info

and cross-department support platforms,

letting colleagues register availability,

reducing pressure on supervisors to find replacements,

and making employees more comfortable taking leave.

These incentives

are ways companies signal internally and externally

that they are good employers who care.

Of course, allowing leave increases operational costs,

with more manpower and scheduling effort,

which some bosses see as a loss,

but balancing employee care with cost control

is a key ESG issue.

ESG consultants say

true sustainability isn’t just energy saving,

but creating healthy work environments where people feel safe to take leave.

If companies invest more in employee health,

using policies, culture, and technology

to support leave,

they not only build trustful employer brands

in a labor shortage era,

but also display deeper sustainable abilities.

Does your company make you feel

that taking leave is a right or a courage?

If your company helps you arrange leave proactively,

would you want to stay longer?

Would you choose a high-paying, high-pressure job you can’t leave,

or a company where you can take leave without worry?

If you are interested in today’s content,

please check the links in the info area

for more detailed reports.

If you have any thoughts,

feel free to leave a comment.

We have now enabled a Super Thanks feature,

and greatly appreciate your support.

Your support motivates us to improve.

I am Huiqun from Business Weekly,

for business insights, watch Business Weekly,

see you next episode, bye-bye.

確實會增加營運成本

企業要多預留人力

花時間協調排班

很多老闆會想這樣不是虧了嗎

但在照顧員工與控制支出之間的拿捏

其實就是最關鍵的 ESG 課題

就有 ESG 顧問跟我們說

真正的永續不只是節能減碳

而是讓人能健康工作 安心請假

企業若願意為了員工的健康多花成本

活用制度 文化 科技

去支持大家可以請假

不只是在缺工時代

打造出更有信任感的雇主品牌

也展現出更深層的永續能力

你的公司是讓你覺得

請假是權利還是勇氣

如果你的公司主動幫你排假

你會不會更想留下來

你會選擇高薪 壓力大 走不了的公司

還是能安心請假的企業

大家如果對今天的內容有興趣

都可以參考資訊欄裡面的連結

有更詳盡的報導

如果你對今天的影片有任何想法

都歡迎留言告訴我們

我們現在也開啟了超級感謝的功能

我們很需要大家的支持

最後最後很謝謝上次

超級感謝的朋友們

你們的支持是我們進步的最大動力

我是商周的惠群

懂商業看商周

我們下集見 Bye bye

[Chinese]

大家好我是商周的惠群

懂商業看商周

這個禮拜我們想跟你聊聊

最近長榮空服員事件

九月底一位長榮空服員

抱病執勤歐洲長程航班

沒想到回台後不幸病逝

消息曝光之後很多人出來罵長榮

但經過調查

空服員工時和輪班間隔

都符合《勞基法》的規定

公司也沒有拒絕員工的請假

為什麼還是發生了遺憾的事呢

這背後可能是上班族很有感的一件事

那就是公司准你請假

但請了可能會有後果

原來在長榮的考核制度裡面

只要臨時請假

不管你請的是病假 事假還是特休

都會被扣點

之後可能會被排到

紅眼航班等比較吃力的班表

讓很多人因為怕被扣點

不敢請假

這起事件讓外界開始重新關注

在台灣職場

請假這件事

為什麼這麼難

請假明明是法律保障的權利

但公司的制度跟氣氛

卻讓人覺得請假是一種罪過

讓員工有假卻不敢請

你也有想要請假

卻被主管關心過的經驗嗎

你的公司可以讓你毫無顧忌

安心的請假嗎

今天看完這支影片你會知道

一 為什麼台灣人寧願抱病上班

也不敢請假

這種職場潛規則對企業的代價

竟然是請假的五倍

二 不是沒有請假制度

而是主管不相信員工會善用制度

怎麼改變有毒的職場文化

讓員工敢請假

三 善待員工就是最好的 ESG

好企業用哪些制度 文化

讓請假文化成真

你有沒有過這樣的經驗

身體不舒服或小孩臨時生病沒人顧

猶豫著到底要不要請假

因為你怕臨時請假

會被主管記在心裡

被同事討厭甚至影響考績

長榮事件發生之後

商周曾在 YouTube 做過一個調查

問大家你生病了

是不是也不敢跟公司請假

有將近七千人參加

結果顯示第一名不敢請的原因是

找不到其它人可以代班占了 46%

第二名是

出勤被列為重要考核指標

有 24%

第三名是給同事添麻煩有傷人和

占了 22%

這個調查很真實的反應出

台灣職場的請假潛規則

當主管對員工說你要請假可以

但要自己找人代班

這句話乍聽之下好像很合理

但你仔細想一想其實不大對勁

因為安排代班本來就是主管的責任

當主管把這個責任

往下丟給員工的時候

員工就得拉下臉拜託同事

如果找不到人幫忙

事情又還是得完成

最後就變成明明身體不行

還是硬撐著上班

這也是為什麼長榮空服員事件

引發許多人共鳴的原因

在管理學當中

這種現象被稱為出勤主義

也就是員工即使身心狀況不佳

還是選擇來上班

但實際上卻是假性出勤

效率明顯下降

很多老闆會以為人到了公司

付出的薪水才值得

但其實抱病上班的隱形損失

比你以為的要大很多

根據英國智庫 2024 年的報告

員工帶病上班造成的生產力損失

是請假的五倍

《哈佛商業評論》更估算

美國企業光因此

每年的損失就超過了 1500 億美元

換句話說一個人硬撐著上班

看似幫公司省下了一天的人力

實際上卻讓整個團隊的效率變慢

甚至讓錯誤 意外發生的風險

倍數增加

明明弊大於利

為什麼有毒的出勤主義

還是這麼普遍

問題不在員工而在於組織

第一點是缺乏備援的思維

很多公司其實沒有把請假

當作是會發生的正常狀況

而是突發的例外狀況

導致人力的規劃

總是抓得剛剛好

這在需要輪班的航空業 醫療業

或製造業生產線

特別容易發生

但真正的問題是

如果一個人請假

就可能讓整個工作都停擺

問題真的出在請假上嗎

還是組織的人力 備援設計太脆弱呢

第二是表面的績效導向

有些主管覺得

人有出現就等於努力

把打卡 加班到很晚這些看得見的努力

誤認為是績效

但真正能創造價值的

其實是那些需要靠人在專注 有精神下

才可以發揮得更好的創意效率

第三是主管自己都不請假

你有沒有遇過從來不請假的主管

如果主管自己都帶病上班

很少請假

以硬撐作為榜樣

團隊成員可能就以為請假

是主管不喜歡要避免的行為

缺乏對請假的心理安全感

就更不敢請了

久而久之組織就變成

一台過度運轉的機器

表面看似穩定

其實早就快要當機了

壞的出勤主義讓企業用員工的健康

去換表面上的穩定

就像長榮事件

勞檢結果一切都合法合規

公司並沒有拒絕員工請假

但實際上的隱形壓力

代價卻難以估計

這一次的事件後

長榮也宣布放寬空服員請假的制度

工會表示雖然與理想有落差

但至少是改革的第一步

真正會管理的主管

不會讓員工撐著不請假

而是讓員工敢放心請假

當組織願意讓人去休息

它才能真正走得長遠

你請假的時候會覺得壓力很大

怕在老闆心中留下不好的印象嗎

你覺得台灣職場

是不是真的太習慣用出勤

來衡量一個人的績效

你覺得真正敬業的人

是堅持不請假

還是懂得該休息時就休息的人

很多公司都會說

我們請假制度很完善

生理假 病假 特休都有

但為什麼員工還是不敢請

原因不在制度

而是在於主管的心態

就有一位國航機師就跟《商周》透露

空服員的飛行時數

受到《航空法》嚴格的管制

一但有人臨時請假

調度就可能會亂掉

過去也發生過有人濫用制度

例如為了不飛長程的班次

臨時請病假

造成調班困難

所以才漸漸長出各種扣點制度

來約束破壞規則的人

把全勤跟績效掛勾

初衷其實是鼓勵出勤

可是長期下來

卻演變成一種恐懼管理

104 人力銀行人資協理江錦樺

就跟《商周》說

台灣不是沒有請假制度

而是主管不相信員工會善用制度

她提醒主管的真正價值

不是盯員工幾點上下班算出勤率

而是能在規則之間找到彈性

判斷誰需要休息 誰可以支援

簡單來說

主管要學會從監控者

變成協調者

這是什麼意思

首先要主動掌握部屬的狀況

主管是最接近員工的人

應該主動觀察疲勞信號

例如請假的頻率變高 效率下降

情緒變得易怒等等的

這些都是壓力的警訊

你可能會想問主管這麼忙

難道要當保母嗎

其實好的老闆不需要當保母

而是創造敢說的團隊文化

就算今天老闆再忙

只要團隊有人發現誰狀況不對

都敢主動提醒

問題就不會被忽略

主管沒辦法顧到每個人

但至少可以確保資訊的流通

只要有人願意說

這個團隊就不會變冷漠

再來是預留人力的彈性

把請假當成正常的日常來規劃

像有一些外商就設計了

臨時替補的方案

例如跨職能支援 代理制度

目的都不是降低人力

而是讓員工能放心請假

當大家知道自己請假

不會造成系統停擺

自然就敢請了

最後是建立

透明的規則與信任機制

長榮事件會發生

另外一個爭議點是不透明

員工最後當然會選擇少請比較安全

所以好的主管就是要讓制度被理解

像有些老闆會和員工說明

團隊的最低運作人數以及請假順序

讓大家知道請假

或准假的原因是什麼

還有一些外商甚至把部門休假率

納入主管的考核

如果休假率太低

代表主管可能在壓抑員工的休假

公司就會介入處理

好的主管不是監控出勤

而是創造一個讓人敢請假的環境

請假這件事在你的公司

是被主管理解

還是會被暗示質疑

如果你是主管

你會怎麼打造一個

讓人敢請假的團隊

會計師事務所安永

曾做過一個有趣的研究

當員工每年多休十個小時的假

平均績效能提升 8%

而且離職率也更低

也就是說員工敢放假

企業反而更賺

放假其實不只是人資議題

而是企業韌性的指標

國外很多公司早就意識到這件事了

開始反過來設計制度

讓請假不再是例外

而是組織運作的一部分

像德國的 SAP 就設有

心理健康假

員工不需要醫師證明

只要覺得需要喘口氣

就可以休息

讓員工知道如果你狀態不佳

說出來沒關係

而美國的梅西百貨

則讓員工能以志工假

參與社會服務

讓員工可以離開辦公室

找回能量與意義

這些制度的重點

其實不在假期的名稱

而在背後的那個訊息

公司願意承認員工的狀態本身

就值得被照顧

有些公司甚至更直接

逼大家一定要放假

例如 LinkedIn

它每一年就有全員休假週

整家公司同時關機

沒有人需要擔心我放假得找人代班

台灣也有類似的做法

像友達光電

每一年都有全員放假的黃金週

鼓勵主管協助團隊排休

甚至把休假達成率

視為考核的指標之一

這樣的機制讓主管

不再是出勤監督者

而是運作協調者

還有公司則藉助科技來幫忙

美國零售業就開始導入 AI 排班系統

預測請假高峰期自動調度人力

台灣也有科技業開始嘗試

讓員工請假的資訊即時透明

以及設置跨部門支援平台

讓同事登記可支援時段

減少主管臨時找人的壓力

也讓員工更敢請

這些鼓勵休假的做法

都是企業用制度

向內外部傳達

我們是一家願意

照顧人的好雇主

當然讓員工放心休假

確實會增加營運成本

企業要多預留人力

花時間協調排班

很多老闆會想這樣不是虧了嗎

但在照顧員工與控制支出之間的拿捏

其實就是最關鍵的 ESG 課題

就有 ESG 顧問跟我們說

真正的永續不只是節能減碳

而是讓人能健康工作 安心請假

企業若願意為了員工的健康多花成本

活用制度 文化 科技

去支持大家可以請假

不只是在缺工時代

打造出更有信任感的雇主品牌

也展現出更深層的永續能力

你的公司是讓你覺得

請假是權利還是勇氣

如果你的公司主動幫你排假

你會不會更想留下來

你會選擇高薪 壓力大 走不了的公司

還是能安心請假的企業

大家如果對今天的內容有興趣

都可以參考資訊欄裡面的連結

有更詳盡的報導

如果你對今天的影片有任何想法

都歡迎留言告訴我們

我們現在也開啟了超級感謝的功能

我們很需要大家的支持

最後最後很謝謝上次

超級感謝的朋友們

你們的支持是我們進步的最大動力

我是商周的惠群

懂商業看商周

我們下集見 Bye bye

Key Vocabulary

Vocabulary	Meanings
請假 /tʃʰiŋ³⁵ ka⁵⁵/ A2	verb - to ask for leave
員工 /i⁵⁵ ku⁂ⁿ²¹⁴/ A2	noun - employee
主管 /tʃu⁵⁵ kʰwən²¹⁴/ A2	noun - manager
考核 /kʰaʊ⁵⁵ xʊ⁵⁵/ B1	noun - evaluation
制度 /t͡su³⁵ tu⁵⁵/ B1	noun - system
壓力 /a⁵⁵ li²¹⁴/ B1	noun - pressure
效率 /i⁵⁵ t͡ɕiɛ²¹⁴/ B1	noun - efficiency
支持 /t͡ʂɨ⁵⁵ t͡ʂʰɨ²¹⁴/ B1	verb - to support
透明 /tʰʊ̌ŋ²¹⁴ miŋ⁵⁵/ B2	adjective - transparent
協調 /ɕiɛ⁵⁵ t͡ɕiɛ²¹⁴/ B2	verb - to coordinate
文化 /xʊ⁵⁵a⁵⁵/ B2	noun - culture
代價 /tai⁵⁵ t͡ɕia⁵⁵/ B2	noun - cost
永續 /iŋ⁵⁵ ɕy³⁵/ C1	adjective - sustainable
韌性 /iɛn⁵⁵ ɕiŋ⁵⁵/ C1	noun - resilience
激勵 /t͡ɕi⁵⁵ li³⁵/ C1	verb - to motivate

Key Grammar Structures

• 這個禮拜我們想跟你聊聊最近長榮空服員事件

  ➔ Verb + Verb pattern (想 + 聊聊) to express intention followed by an informal repeated verb for emphasis.

  ➔ "聊聊" repeats the verb to make the tone softer and more casual, common in spoken Mandarin.

• 公司也沒有拒絕員工的請假

  ➔ Negation with 沒有 + Verb to indicate an action did not happen.

  ➔ "沒有拒絕" means "did not refuse" — it negates an action, not just a state.

• 只要臨時請假，不管你請的是病假、事假還是特休

  ➔ Conditional clause with 只要…就… (as long as…).

  ➔ "只要" introduces a minimal condition that triggers the result after it, commonly paired with "就".

• 讓很多人因為怕被扣點，不敢請假

  ➔ Causative construction using 讓 + NP + VP to indicate causing someone to do something.

  ➔ "讓很多人不敢請假" means people are made to feel afraid to take leave — causative form shows emotional effect.

• 但實際上卻是假性出勤

  ➔ Use of 卻 for contrast — “however/nevertheless”.

  ➔ "卻" signals contradiction to previous statement — useful for nuanced contrasts in writing.

• 問題不在員工而在於組織

  ➔ Contrast with 而 to link clauses meaning “but rather / whereas”.

  ➔ "而在於" creates contrast to emphasize the true source or cause.

• 如果一個人請假，就可能讓整個工作都停擺

  ➔ Conditional clause with 如果…就… (if… then…).

  ➔ "如果" introduces the condition, and "就" marks the resulting action — a very common Chinese conditional.

• 主管是最接近員工的人，應該主動觀察疲勞信號

  ➔ Modal verb 應該 expresses obligation or advice (‘should’).

  ➔ "應該主動觀察" gives advice — expressing what is morally or professionally right.

• 真正會管理的主管，不會讓員工撐著不請假

  ➔ Use of 會 to indicate ability or habitual tendency (‘will / can do’).

  ➔ "真正會管理的主管" means “a manager who truly knows how to manage” — showing learned ability or characteristic.

• 公司願意承認員工的狀態本身就值得被照顧

  ➔ Passive structure with 被 + Verb indicating the action is received.

  ➔ "被照顧" translates as “to be taken care of” — passive form emphasizes the state of receiving care.