BACKBENCHER
Rod P. Kapunan
12/1/2012
When Congress, then led by Senator Ernesto "Boy" Herrera, introduced a bill seeking to relax Article 106 of the Labor Code, surely they had in mind the idea of promoting employment. They believed that unemployment remained high because many of our industrialists, manufacturers, traders, and businessmen were hesitant to hire more workers for fear of violating the constitutional mandate on security of tenure, specifically Article 278 of the Labor Code.
They proposed that employers should be given flexibility to discharge their employees once their services were no longer needed. But as a compromise, they would abide by the minimum wage law, and other benefits mandated by law to our workers. That consensus was reached because security of tenure prevented them from hiring more workers when needed and terminating their services due to business loses or for want of production contract. In effect, they thought the easing of the sacred principle that protected employment would give them manpower flexibility.
Unfortunately, that did not solve the problem of unemployment. The proliferation of contractual employment created a new shade of slavery. Service fees ranging from 10 to 15 percent is charged from the monthly income of each worker leased out to employer-beneficiaries by employment and placement agencies. Unscrupulous placement agencies even violate the minimum wage law or deny payment of wages. What employers thought would give them that much-needed advantage ended up having them paying more and leaving the workers without any assurance of employment.
Although theoretically, workers could still file a complaint of underpayment of wages, which in fact became more rampant, the number of cases have drastically dwindled much that the mother case for violation of the minimum wage is still illegal termination, something many contractual workers could never hope to win. Contractualization, in turn, resulted in the withering of trade unionism. In effect, former Senator Herrera provided the right kind of medicine that brought to comatose their own trade federations. All demands from wage adjustments to other benefits like SSS contributions, correlative to the formation of a labor union, have all been reduced to ashes. They could no longer bargain based on their collective strength.
Besides, they are at a loss whether to deal with their bogus employer that specializes in the business of leasing out their services which, under the present circumstance, could raise outlandish defenses. Consequently, contractualization widened the income gap between the workers trapped by the system of regulated or minimum wage, mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and from the very small percentage of skilled workers who could still bargain for better wages with remaining companies willing to hire them. More than that, unemployment remains at 7.2 percent, meaning that 2.9 million of our workers are still out of work, when supposedly the scrapping of the security of tenure was intended to help ease the problem of unemployment.
It therefore makes no sense for this rabidly pro-American government to boast of 7.1 percent economic growth rate (in the third quarter of this year) when it is at the same time hounded by a 16.6 percent poverty level. Such statistical paradox is indicative of a serious imbalance because economic growth rate could only be appreciated if it would result in the reduction of poverty. It was even tactless for President Aquino to make a promise to reduce the country's poverty level from an all-time high of 33.1 percent recorded during his mother's administration in 1991.
Translated most accurately, the economic growth rate dubbed by this elitist government as "the best economic performer in Southeast Asia" is pure nonsense if one has to equally cite the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey in March 2012 stating that the number of "mahirap" or poor rose to 55 percent; and hunger at a record-high 23.8 percent of families; moderate hunger at 18.0 percent; and severe hunger at 5.8 percent." The SWS added that "tresults are quite disappointing because self-rated poverty rose by a large 10 points, from 45 percent in December 2011, and hunger was at a new high, albeit just 1.3 points more than that recorded in December 2011."
More than that, this government's continued adherence to the US-dictated inflation-based economic policy heightened by our unmitigated subscription to currency deregulation and by our open-arms policy to portfolio investment has created a deep wedge in income disparity. Combined with our antiquated system of regulating wage, prestowe ended up as having the most visible gap between the rich and the poor compared with our neighbors in Southeast Asia! According to Stratbase Research Institute, this hypocritical regime is trying to project a brisk economy even as "the registered a Gini coefficient of 44 percent last year, higher than Thailand's 42.5 percent, Indonesia's 39.4 percent, Malaysia's 37.9 percent and Vietnam's 37.8 percent."
The study added that, "the global ranking was prepared by international group called Vision of Humanity using the Gini coefficient to measure inequality of distribution as the basis." Having the highest, the Philippines has "greater rate of inequality compared to other Southeast Asian countries." This means "the richest 10 percent of Filipino families are "raking in more than a third of the country's total income." The huge disparity between the rich and the poor is likely to breed "social tension and political instability."
Stated differently, the rest of the 90 percent Filipinos are wallowing in extreme poverty, but entertained nonetheless by teleseryecapitalizing on irrational human emotion, gossip about movie stars, festivals participated in by dressed but malnourished children; clowns giving away goodies to cash-strapped participants; sensationalism about gory crimes; news about our gearing for war with China; and dosage of propaganda about progress, democracy and freedom. Indeed, there is more fun in the Philippines for people living in a world of contrast between reality and fantasy.
rpkpunan@gmail.com
They proposed that employers should be given flexibility to discharge their employees once their services were no longer needed. But as a compromise, they would abide by the minimum wage law, and other benefits mandated by law to our workers. That consensus was reached because security of tenure prevented them from hiring more workers when needed and terminating their services due to business loses or for want of production contract. In effect, they thought the easing of the sacred principle that protected employment would give them manpower flexibility.
Unfortunately, that did not solve the problem of unemployment. The proliferation of contractual employment created a new shade of slavery. Service fees ranging from 10 to 15 percent is charged from the monthly income of each worker leased out to employer-beneficiaries by employment and placement agencies. Unscrupulous placement agencies even violate the minimum wage law or deny payment of wages. What employers thought would give them that much-needed advantage ended up having them paying more and leaving the workers without any assurance of employment.
Although theoretically, workers could still file a complaint of underpayment of wages, which in fact became more rampant, the number of cases have drastically dwindled much that the mother case for violation of the minimum wage is still illegal termination, something many contractual workers could never hope to win. Contractualization, in turn, resulted in the withering of trade unionism. In effect, former Senator Herrera provided the right kind of medicine that brought to comatose their own trade federations. All demands from wage adjustments to other benefits like SSS contributions, correlative to the formation of a labor union, have all been reduced to ashes. They could no longer bargain based on their collective strength.
Besides, they are at a loss whether to deal with their bogus employer that specializes in the business of leasing out their services which, under the present circumstance, could raise outlandish defenses. Consequently, contractualization widened the income gap between the workers trapped by the system of regulated or minimum wage, mostly unskilled and semi-skilled and from the very small percentage of skilled workers who could still bargain for better wages with remaining companies willing to hire them. More than that, unemployment remains at 7.2 percent, meaning that 2.9 million of our workers are still out of work, when supposedly the scrapping of the security of tenure was intended to help ease the problem of unemployment.
It therefore makes no sense for this rabidly pro-American government to boast of 7.1 percent economic growth rate (in the third quarter of this year) when it is at the same time hounded by a 16.6 percent poverty level. Such statistical paradox is indicative of a serious imbalance because economic growth rate could only be appreciated if it would result in the reduction of poverty. It was even tactless for President Aquino to make a promise to reduce the country's poverty level from an all-time high of 33.1 percent recorded during his mother's administration in 1991.
Translated most accurately, the economic growth rate dubbed by this elitist government as "the best economic performer in Southeast Asia" is pure nonsense if one has to equally cite the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey in March 2012 stating that the number of "mahirap" or poor rose to 55 percent; and hunger at a record-high 23.8 percent of families; moderate hunger at 18.0 percent; and severe hunger at 5.8 percent." The SWS added that "tresults are quite disappointing because self-rated poverty rose by a large 10 points, from 45 percent in December 2011, and hunger was at a new high, albeit just 1.3 points more than that recorded in December 2011."
More than that, this government's continued adherence to the US-dictated inflation-based economic policy heightened by our unmitigated subscription to currency deregulation and by our open-arms policy to portfolio investment has created a deep wedge in income disparity. Combined with our antiquated system of regulating wage, prestowe ended up as having the most visible gap between the rich and the poor compared with our neighbors in Southeast Asia! According to Stratbase Research Institute, this hypocritical regime is trying to project a brisk economy even as "the registered a Gini coefficient of 44 percent last year, higher than Thailand's 42.5 percent, Indonesia's 39.4 percent, Malaysia's 37.9 percent and Vietnam's 37.8 percent."
The study added that, "the global ranking was prepared by international group called Vision of Humanity using the Gini coefficient to measure inequality of distribution as the basis." Having the highest, the Philippines has "greater rate of inequality compared to other Southeast Asian countries." This means "the richest 10 percent of Filipino families are "raking in more than a third of the country's total income." The huge disparity between the rich and the poor is likely to breed "social tension and political instability."
Stated differently, the rest of the 90 percent Filipinos are wallowing in extreme poverty, but entertained nonetheless by teleseryecapitalizing on irrational human emotion, gossip about movie stars, festivals participated in by dressed but malnourished children; clowns giving away goodies to cash-strapped participants; sensationalism about gory crimes; news about our gearing for war with China; and dosage of propaganda about progress, democracy and freedom. Indeed, there is more fun in the Philippines for people living in a world of contrast between reality and fantasy.
rpkpunan@gmail.com
