DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/30/2011
Did BSA III know what he was talking about when he said last Jan. 4 that the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) entered into by the Philippines with China and Vietnam — primarily for exploring offshore and deep sea natural resources, including oil and gas — “shouldn’t have happened” and scrapped it on the pretext that it encroached into the country’s territorial waters?
When the Philippines has a written understanding and invitation with two other parties to work together in an area where everyone has agreed to “jointly exploit,” how can there be encroachment? Don’t we have “joint ventures” with other countries in various mineral projects? The biggest fossil fuel project in the country with Royal Dutch Shell, Malampaya gas, necessarily had seismic surveys done. Wasn’t that undertaken with a foreign country and company, too?
What has likely determined the sad fate of the JMSU can be found in a paper written by a senior adviser and director of a Washington DC think tank, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (“The JMSU: A Tale of Bilateralism and Secrecy in the South China Sea” by Ernest Bower), that reflects US attitude toward this joint Asian initiative for common exploration of shared resources for mutual benefit.
To the US, “bilateralism” simply means that it was out of the loop in relation to its former colony, the Philippines — a situation it is extremely uncomfortable with. The term is even inaccurate as the JMSU was a “trilateral” undertaking by the three concerned Asian nations. “Secrecy,” on the other hand, simply means that the US was kept in the dark. This is because it believes that every country in Asia is obliged to keep it informed about matters that are primarily its concern.
The JMSU was a good undertaking in the overlapping parts of the South China Sea for promoting the spirit of “joint development” that would preserve amity as well as provide impetus for economic progress for the nations involved. All three — China, Vietnam and the Philippines —contributed to the funding of marine facilities such as ships as well as equipment for the seismic survey project. The result would have been a treasure trove of information, especially for the Philippines, about each country’s marine resources (even in disputed territorial waters) — which, in the case of the Philippines again, would never have come about given its dire financial straits.
But it seems that BSA III would rather to stay in the dark about this and wait for his US sponsors to do the seismic surveys and keep the information to themselves as they have been doing in the past. Given this, the Philippines will just forever be at the mercy of western interests.
Expectedly, some local print and broadcast media have been raising the China bogey, after reports surfaced of Chinese MIG jets buzzing two Philippine Air Force turbo-prop planes in the Spratlys — this, despite the fact that China has since denied the existence of MIGs in its air fleet; as have Philippine authorities clarified that it was not a “buzzing” incident, since what specific flag those jets flew cannot be ascertained.
Most vociferous were some midget minds on AM radio calling for “the need to fight, even to die” for the Philippine territory, as well as Manila Times “Doctor” Dante Ang, whose column dated May 28 read “Use our US card in resolving the Spratlys issue.”
While the US can and has often used the Philippine card as a Joker now and then in UN diplomatic games (swing votes), as well as a regional gofer to issue derogatory pronouncements on Myanmar or North Korea, the Philippines just has no gravitas to play a so-called US card.
In fact, it was the US that used the Philippines as shock absorber during the Second World War, which sapped the might of the Japanese Imperial Army but decimated the Philippine economy, while the US top general then fled to the safety of Australia.
The US later “granted” independence to the Philippines in 1945 only to take it away with its left hand via the Laurel-Langley Agreement, the imposition of Parity Rights, and, as Salvador Araneta wrote in America’s Double-Cross of the Philippines, the US Congress-issued “Dodd’s Report” in 1948 that consigned our fate as a mere vegetables garden to Japan, an erstwhile enemy which Uncle Sam decided to industrialize to fortify against the “domino effect” from communist China.
Further, when the British, together with the Malaysians, instigated the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) war against the Philippine Republic for the latter’s attempt at retaking Sabah, the US simply sat at the sidelines, refusing even to resupply ammunition for guns and cannons. Why, it has even overtly supported the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) since the late Hashim Salamat sent his kowtow letter to George W. Bush in 2003.
All these therefore provide the context to the groveling of BSA III in relation to the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) and the purchase of old US Coast Guard Hamilton class cutters for the Philippine Navy.
The VFA “embeds” Americans in Philippine military units supposedly for the training of Filipino soldiers. But in actuality, Americans are the ones learning from us, and may someday use this know-how to kill Filipino soldiers if and when a nationalist Philippine government arises, or when the MILF wins a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain set-up and sends its naval forces to the Sulu Sea that will trigger a military response from the Republic, which the US would then use as a “humanitarian threat” requiring the presence of international troops to “save” the oppressed minority. (Improbable, you say? Well, we can never tell given the vagaries of US geopolitics.)
While there’s a “Scrap the VFA Movement” that condemns this continuing (and escalating) US encroachment into Philippine sovereignty, Noynoy only has ears for Ambassador Harry Thomas. As for those Hamilton class Navy cutters, why is BS Aquino buying these discards (using our Malampaya revenues) when the US gives them as grants to other countries? Bugok na PeNoy talaga!
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; Talk News TV with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “New 2011 Power Scams”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com for our articles plus TV and radio archives)
Monday, May 30, 2011
RH bill: A cop-out for industrialization
CRITIC'S CRITIC
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/30-6/4/2011
Last Monday, Conrado de Quiros, in his “There’s the Rub” Inquirer column, wrote: “RH, the antis keep saying, is not the solution to poverty. Of course not, as I said the last time. Not by itself. Neither is land reform, neither is fighting corruption, neither is graduating from college. Not by themselves. But taken together, they do push back poverty and misery immeasurably. Indeed, RH alone may not solve poverty, but the lack of it adds to poverty and misery all by itself. The absence of it deepens pain and suffering all by itself. The benighted opposition to it spreads benightedness and ignorance all by itself.”
I quote him fully here to show that the he omits an obvious common denominator in every country that has begun to overcome poverty, be it China , South Korea, or in particular, India, which had scrapped its population control program back when former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. That common denominator is agro-industrial development; and there’s the rub in De Quiros’ enumerated solutions to our nation’s poverty.
You can have all the RH laws to try to control population, push land reform and/or fight corruption through all eternity, and graduate all your young people from college; but without agro-industrial development, there’s no chance for them to rise from economic backwardness to progressive modernity.
However, if you have agro-industrial development, even without a population control program, you can grow the economy, expand a middle class, and raise the general level of employment and standard of living, such as what we have seen in India .
China, which is invariably used as a poster child of the pro-RH bill proponents such as De Quiros, would still be in the deepest mires of poverty even with its One-Child policy if it did not adopt a determined policy of agricultural development and food self sufficiency while building domestic industry in all facets, from steel to petrochemicals. China ’s first two great projects were Daching , its first domestic oil production around which industries were built, and Dachai, which was its agricultural prototype.
Conrado de Quiros’ column faulted his and the Yellows’ one-time idol Manny Pacquiao for opposing the RH bill. That after Pacquiao’s great “yellow gloves” in Nevada , where “He was going to put on yellow gloves for the fight, he said, to show that he wasn’t just fighting Mosley, he was also fighting poverty. Yellow is of course President Benigno Aquino III’s special color, so Pacquiao’s subliminal pitch was that he was in fact joining government in fighting it. I was elated and said after the fight that if he could only do to poverty what he did to Mosley, the poor would be saved in no time at all.”
Now, with Pacquiao opining from his simplistic “poor man, obedient flock” platform opposing the RH bill, he is suddenly “not so great” anymore for Conrado. It just goes to show how the pro-RH bill advocates use celebrity endorsers instead of firm demographic and economic arguments. But as Conrado de Quiros himself wrote in the column, “What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.” Never mind if they used Pacquiao before, Pacquiao as an argument has now been taken away.
The major disservice the pro-RH apologists in media are committing against the people is their obfuscation of the issue of the causes of poverty, bringing the discussion to the level of emotional sectarianism by invoking the “prayles” to distract from the economic policy issues. Population is a boon to development and growth if there is a program of economic growth based on the national development paradigm of the establishment of self-sustaining, self-sufficient agro-industrial infrastructure versus the neoliberal economics of liberalization, privatization, and deregulation.
The RH bill debates give the exploitative economic and political ruling class the excuse to distract from the need for the re-nationalization of privatized basic industries and public utilities, as well as the restoration of state direction and planning, its protection for industries, and the institution of anti-trust, anti-monopolistic policies to subdue the runaway greed of the oligarchs and their trapo cohorts amid the backdrop of US-imposed globalization.
Richard Mendoza sent us through our blog New Katipunero a YouTube videolink of an interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono on the population issue by Dick Cavett 35 years ago. Ono opined that population is not really a problem since it is just a situation that will balance itself out, as some parts of the world have more populations whereas others have surplus food. Lennon called it a myth, a mere scare story to divert from the Vietnam War and the independence struggle in Northern Ireland .
Oh, and do you know that for the past 35 years the Philippines’ population growth of 7 percent has been reduced to 2.8 percent by 2008 without the multibillion subsidy the RH bill wants for RH drugs and devices? By sheer economic pressure and changing attitudes, this rate is expected to naturally decline to the replacement level of 2.1 percent by 2025 according to a group of UP scholars led by economist Prof. Romeo Balanquit. Why then are the pro-RH people insisting on spending billions?
By the way, couldn’t the pro-RH advocates and legislators zero in on other approaches that will utilize an effective exercise of iron free will, or reproductive choice, which will not cost the country a gargantuan sum? Ah, but I don’t think such a measure will pass as the billions waiting to be squandered for condoms and other contraceptives, not to mention other enticements from the contraceptives lobby, are just too tempting to resist for the porkers in Congress.
That said, though, we do agree with our dynamic OpinYon colleague Ms. Liza Gazpar that there is indeed a need for government to focus on the continuing challenge of reproductive health, of preventing abortions, and so on; but again, I maintain that this shouldn’t be before other life-and-death priorities such as support for MRT/LRT fares, rice production, funds for deadly diseases ranging from TB to dengue, and a program (and budget) for the re-industrialization of the national economy, among many others.
Finally, let me issue this challenge to the Inquirer, which is really pushing the RH bill, and its pro-RH columnists, Conrado de Quiros, Raul Pangalangan, Rina Jimenez-David, Jesuit Joaquin Bernas and other comers, to debate the issues--them against my solo self, anywhere, anytime, so long as it is in public. My cable TV show is open to them.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “More Power Scams”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Herman Tiu Laurel
5/30-6/4/2011
Last Monday, Conrado de Quiros, in his “There’s the Rub” Inquirer column, wrote: “RH, the antis keep saying, is not the solution to poverty. Of course not, as I said the last time. Not by itself. Neither is land reform, neither is fighting corruption, neither is graduating from college. Not by themselves. But taken together, they do push back poverty and misery immeasurably. Indeed, RH alone may not solve poverty, but the lack of it adds to poverty and misery all by itself. The absence of it deepens pain and suffering all by itself. The benighted opposition to it spreads benightedness and ignorance all by itself.”
I quote him fully here to show that the he omits an obvious common denominator in every country that has begun to overcome poverty, be it China , South Korea, or in particular, India, which had scrapped its population control program back when former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated in 1984. That common denominator is agro-industrial development; and there’s the rub in De Quiros’ enumerated solutions to our nation’s poverty.
You can have all the RH laws to try to control population, push land reform and/or fight corruption through all eternity, and graduate all your young people from college; but without agro-industrial development, there’s no chance for them to rise from economic backwardness to progressive modernity.
However, if you have agro-industrial development, even without a population control program, you can grow the economy, expand a middle class, and raise the general level of employment and standard of living, such as what we have seen in India .
China, which is invariably used as a poster child of the pro-RH bill proponents such as De Quiros, would still be in the deepest mires of poverty even with its One-Child policy if it did not adopt a determined policy of agricultural development and food self sufficiency while building domestic industry in all facets, from steel to petrochemicals. China ’s first two great projects were Daching , its first domestic oil production around which industries were built, and Dachai, which was its agricultural prototype.
Conrado de Quiros’ column faulted his and the Yellows’ one-time idol Manny Pacquiao for opposing the RH bill. That after Pacquiao’s great “yellow gloves” in Nevada , where “He was going to put on yellow gloves for the fight, he said, to show that he wasn’t just fighting Mosley, he was also fighting poverty. Yellow is of course President Benigno Aquino III’s special color, so Pacquiao’s subliminal pitch was that he was in fact joining government in fighting it. I was elated and said after the fight that if he could only do to poverty what he did to Mosley, the poor would be saved in no time at all.”
Now, with Pacquiao opining from his simplistic “poor man, obedient flock” platform opposing the RH bill, he is suddenly “not so great” anymore for Conrado. It just goes to show how the pro-RH bill advocates use celebrity endorsers instead of firm demographic and economic arguments. But as Conrado de Quiros himself wrote in the column, “What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away.” Never mind if they used Pacquiao before, Pacquiao as an argument has now been taken away.
The major disservice the pro-RH apologists in media are committing against the people is their obfuscation of the issue of the causes of poverty, bringing the discussion to the level of emotional sectarianism by invoking the “prayles” to distract from the economic policy issues. Population is a boon to development and growth if there is a program of economic growth based on the national development paradigm of the establishment of self-sustaining, self-sufficient agro-industrial infrastructure versus the neoliberal economics of liberalization, privatization, and deregulation.
The RH bill debates give the exploitative economic and political ruling class the excuse to distract from the need for the re-nationalization of privatized basic industries and public utilities, as well as the restoration of state direction and planning, its protection for industries, and the institution of anti-trust, anti-monopolistic policies to subdue the runaway greed of the oligarchs and their trapo cohorts amid the backdrop of US-imposed globalization.
Richard Mendoza sent us through our blog New Katipunero a YouTube videolink of an interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono on the population issue by Dick Cavett 35 years ago. Ono opined that population is not really a problem since it is just a situation that will balance itself out, as some parts of the world have more populations whereas others have surplus food. Lennon called it a myth, a mere scare story to divert from the Vietnam War and the independence struggle in Northern Ireland .
Oh, and do you know that for the past 35 years the Philippines’ population growth of 7 percent has been reduced to 2.8 percent by 2008 without the multibillion subsidy the RH bill wants for RH drugs and devices? By sheer economic pressure and changing attitudes, this rate is expected to naturally decline to the replacement level of 2.1 percent by 2025 according to a group of UP scholars led by economist Prof. Romeo Balanquit. Why then are the pro-RH people insisting on spending billions?
By the way, couldn’t the pro-RH advocates and legislators zero in on other approaches that will utilize an effective exercise of iron free will, or reproductive choice, which will not cost the country a gargantuan sum? Ah, but I don’t think such a measure will pass as the billions waiting to be squandered for condoms and other contraceptives, not to mention other enticements from the contraceptives lobby, are just too tempting to resist for the porkers in Congress.
That said, though, we do agree with our dynamic OpinYon colleague Ms. Liza Gazpar that there is indeed a need for government to focus on the continuing challenge of reproductive health, of preventing abortions, and so on; but again, I maintain that this shouldn’t be before other life-and-death priorities such as support for MRT/LRT fares, rice production, funds for deadly diseases ranging from TB to dengue, and a program (and budget) for the re-industrialization of the national economy, among many others.
Finally, let me issue this challenge to the Inquirer, which is really pushing the RH bill, and its pro-RH columnists, Conrado de Quiros, Raul Pangalangan, Rina Jimenez-David, Jesuit Joaquin Bernas and other comers, to debate the issues--them against my solo self, anywhere, anytime, so long as it is in public. My cable TV show is open to them.
(Tune in to Radyo OpinYon, Monday to Friday, 5 to 6 p.m., and Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; TNT with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on GNN, Destiny Cable Channel 8, on “More Power Scams”; visit http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com for our articles plus select radio and GNN shows)
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The truth behind our workers' migration
BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
5/28-29/2011
One of the biggest lies we have been made to believe is that many of our workers leave because of acute unemployment. We take the statement that about 11.3 million of our people are out of work as logically correct. Added is the fact that as of January 2011, close to 19.4 percent of our labor force is underemployed, earning below what they are supposed to earn by their skill and qualifications, are engaged in intermittent work (mostly self-employed) which is short of the current minimum wage of P404 (now P426 daily), for an eight-hour work.
This reasoning persists because there has been no previous study why the estimated 11 million Filipinos opted to leave with many daring to gamble the unity of their family just to eke out a living abroad. But a random survey would startlingly reveal that close to 85 to 95 percent of those who left were in fact “not seeking employment”, but are “seeking for better employment” and “security of employment” abroad. For a labor analyst not to make a qualification on this could wrongly place the Philippines to the level of those countries in Central Africa, like Chad, Niger, Mali, Somalia and Sudan where migration to Europe for employment is a matter of survival.
Hence, analyzing why many of our workers leave would readily provide an answer that our problem is not unemployment, but security of tenure. We are not saying that unemployment is not a problem, but the kind of employment we propagated here has given rise to a more serious problem of job security and stagnating wage caused by the lack of opportunity to advance with a corresponding increase in income. The proliferation of labor-only contracting have instilled into the minds of those lucky enough to be employed here a painful truth. That truth is that there exists a barrier that prevents them from being promoted and correspondingly obtain increases by the merit of their length of service, experience and skill for the job and loyalty. It is this practice of leasing out of human services that has deprived many members of our precious labor force the incentive to hold on or to remain loyal to their job.
Admittedly, the minimum wage is fairly sufficient for an unmarried wage earner and without any dependent for support. In fact, the amount received by ordinary unskilled and semi-skilled workers is somewhat high if one would use as basis the low-value products manufactured by companies where they are mostly employed. Nonetheless, even if we say that our workers in that category are overpaid, the problem is not solved by their being employed. As contractual workers, of which many now belong, there is always in them the anxiety that before six months they could lose their jobs, with a grim prospect of not being rehired. That anxiety becomes most visible and apparent once they start to have a family and children to attend to. Indeed they constantly face the question: How long would they be able to hold on to their job?
The fear of economic dislocation matters most to many of them. While they know the scheme is to precisely prevent them from becoming regular employees, they could not however defer the needs of their families as they wait for the renewal of their contract. It is their family that suffers while in the meantime the scheme is being applied to them. If ever their contract is renewed, they will have to wait for a new job assignment for about one to two months.
The situation is worse for our educated white collar and technical workers. Even if many are receiving slightly above the minimum, that does not mean anything if they are entrapped into that vicious system of labor-only contracting. Aside from the absence of security of tenure, labor-only contractors peg to the lowest level their wage rate to maximize their profits. It is the intermittent employment that compels a great number of them to scout for greener pastures abroad. They know that for the entire years they would work as leased-out workers here they would only be receiving slightly above the minimum, if fortunate enough to be employed by a “fair-dealing” labor-only contractor. As contractual employees wanting to give up their employment here, they are willing to pay as much as from P90 thousand to P150 thousand for their placement fee.
As many of them would rightly surmise, two to three years of contractual service abroad would be equivalent to eight to ten years of continuous work here. If they are fortunate enough to work for a continuous service of 10 to 15 years, even if on a contractual basis, they could retire as though they worked here for 25 to 30 years with extra savings to allow them to send their children to private colleges and universities; own a house and lot which at times are even luxurious than that owned by upper middle class families; buy a car and other amenities they could not otherwise afford had they remained here. Most importantly, many of them open up their own businesses to contribute in their own way in helping our country.
What can be gleaned from this deplorable dilemma that confronts our workers, especially the technical and white collar workers, is they merely take their local experience as jumping board to qualify for employment abroad. Here, despite their educational attainment, qualification, skill and experience their status has been reduced to that of modern-day slaves paid an amount just enough to allow them to report for work. Their greatest fear is their serviceability as contractual workers. Many realize that at the age of 35 somehow they will have to go, and at 40 they resign themselves to the truth that no labor-only contractor will hire them. The reason is they are already considered too slow to cope up with the pace of work. Today, because of stiff competition, employer-beneficiaries demand much from their leased-out workers, like multi-tasking, and labor-only contractors willingly do that to secure that precious service contract in the supply of manpower.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Rod Kapunan
5/28-29/2011
One of the biggest lies we have been made to believe is that many of our workers leave because of acute unemployment. We take the statement that about 11.3 million of our people are out of work as logically correct. Added is the fact that as of January 2011, close to 19.4 percent of our labor force is underemployed, earning below what they are supposed to earn by their skill and qualifications, are engaged in intermittent work (mostly self-employed) which is short of the current minimum wage of P404 (now P426 daily), for an eight-hour work.
This reasoning persists because there has been no previous study why the estimated 11 million Filipinos opted to leave with many daring to gamble the unity of their family just to eke out a living abroad. But a random survey would startlingly reveal that close to 85 to 95 percent of those who left were in fact “not seeking employment”, but are “seeking for better employment” and “security of employment” abroad. For a labor analyst not to make a qualification on this could wrongly place the Philippines to the level of those countries in Central Africa, like Chad, Niger, Mali, Somalia and Sudan where migration to Europe for employment is a matter of survival.
Hence, analyzing why many of our workers leave would readily provide an answer that our problem is not unemployment, but security of tenure. We are not saying that unemployment is not a problem, but the kind of employment we propagated here has given rise to a more serious problem of job security and stagnating wage caused by the lack of opportunity to advance with a corresponding increase in income. The proliferation of labor-only contracting have instilled into the minds of those lucky enough to be employed here a painful truth. That truth is that there exists a barrier that prevents them from being promoted and correspondingly obtain increases by the merit of their length of service, experience and skill for the job and loyalty. It is this practice of leasing out of human services that has deprived many members of our precious labor force the incentive to hold on or to remain loyal to their job.
Admittedly, the minimum wage is fairly sufficient for an unmarried wage earner and without any dependent for support. In fact, the amount received by ordinary unskilled and semi-skilled workers is somewhat high if one would use as basis the low-value products manufactured by companies where they are mostly employed. Nonetheless, even if we say that our workers in that category are overpaid, the problem is not solved by their being employed. As contractual workers, of which many now belong, there is always in them the anxiety that before six months they could lose their jobs, with a grim prospect of not being rehired. That anxiety becomes most visible and apparent once they start to have a family and children to attend to. Indeed they constantly face the question: How long would they be able to hold on to their job?
The fear of economic dislocation matters most to many of them. While they know the scheme is to precisely prevent them from becoming regular employees, they could not however defer the needs of their families as they wait for the renewal of their contract. It is their family that suffers while in the meantime the scheme is being applied to them. If ever their contract is renewed, they will have to wait for a new job assignment for about one to two months.
The situation is worse for our educated white collar and technical workers. Even if many are receiving slightly above the minimum, that does not mean anything if they are entrapped into that vicious system of labor-only contracting. Aside from the absence of security of tenure, labor-only contractors peg to the lowest level their wage rate to maximize their profits. It is the intermittent employment that compels a great number of them to scout for greener pastures abroad. They know that for the entire years they would work as leased-out workers here they would only be receiving slightly above the minimum, if fortunate enough to be employed by a “fair-dealing” labor-only contractor. As contractual employees wanting to give up their employment here, they are willing to pay as much as from P90 thousand to P150 thousand for their placement fee.
As many of them would rightly surmise, two to three years of contractual service abroad would be equivalent to eight to ten years of continuous work here. If they are fortunate enough to work for a continuous service of 10 to 15 years, even if on a contractual basis, they could retire as though they worked here for 25 to 30 years with extra savings to allow them to send their children to private colleges and universities; own a house and lot which at times are even luxurious than that owned by upper middle class families; buy a car and other amenities they could not otherwise afford had they remained here. Most importantly, many of them open up their own businesses to contribute in their own way in helping our country.
What can be gleaned from this deplorable dilemma that confronts our workers, especially the technical and white collar workers, is they merely take their local experience as jumping board to qualify for employment abroad. Here, despite their educational attainment, qualification, skill and experience their status has been reduced to that of modern-day slaves paid an amount just enough to allow them to report for work. Their greatest fear is their serviceability as contractual workers. Many realize that at the age of 35 somehow they will have to go, and at 40 they resign themselves to the truth that no labor-only contractor will hire them. The reason is they are already considered too slow to cope up with the pace of work. Today, because of stiff competition, employer-beneficiaries demand much from their leased-out workers, like multi-tasking, and labor-only contractors willingly do that to secure that precious service contract in the supply of manpower.
(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
