Deceitful

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading heading=’Deceitful’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
EDITORIAL
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Saturday, February 24, 2018
[/av_textblock]

[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
WILL the proposed security of tenure bill approved on second reading in the Lower House end contractualization? Or will it actually legitimize and broaden labor-only contracting?

House Bill No. 6908 or the proposed amendments to the provisions of the Labor Code to strengthen security of tenure, despite its good intentions, still contains provisions that legitimize contractualization through the limited new definition of “regular employment”, the deletion of the phrase “necessary and desirable” in Section 295, and the broadened definition of “job contractors.”

In the proposed bill, “regular employment” will be limited to hiring on an indefinite period. Workers will be regular or not depending on the period of their employment rather than the nature of their work as necessary or desirable to the business of the employer, as the current Labor Code provides.

With this loose definition, the bill will not end contractualization but instead will allow it to prevail. Also, the deletion of the wording “necessary and desirable” in section 295 will shatter the call of the workers for job security.

The bill also still legalizes contractualization with a set of parameters and weak penalties that purportedly regulates it. Contractualization is mostly committed by big businesses. These supposed parameters and penalties will not prevent these companies from exploiting our workers through contractualization.

The bill only prohibited subcontracting or the contracting out by an agency or service provider on the second tier, fixed term employment, and 5-5-5 or Endo. Although the House Committee on Labor placed safeguards such as provisions on penalties for employers found to be committing labor-only contracting, the inclusion of control over workers’ output as added criteria for the determination of labor-only contracting, and a more stringent licensing of job contractors, these safeguards unfortunately are not enough to completely end contractualization.
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]