[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=’Win-win solution?’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
REX MAESTRECAMPO
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
IS THE so-called “win-win solution” proposed by trade and business leaders to supposedly end the “endo” scheme (labor contractualization) really what it is?
The solution of using service providers where workers will supposedly enjoy their benefits would still maintain contractualization, and it is actually the content of the current guidelines on the employment scheme. The solution is also the promise of Department Order No. 18-A Series of 2011, the existing guidelines governing contractualization, which was approved under former President Noynoy Aquino.
The proposed solution actually goes against the promise of President Rodrigo Duterte of ending contractualization. It will only continue DO 18-A Series of 2011 which has seen the spread of contractualization.
Essentially, the “win-win” strategy will mean a continued loss for workers. It will maintain contractualization, a scheme that pulls down wages and violates all basic rights of workers. For contractualization to end, workers should be considered regulars of their principal employers and enjoy their full rights under this setup.
The reason big corporations use contractors is so they can continue to boost their profits amid the crisis by cutting the cost of labor. They can afford to hire workers directly, but because of their greed, they hire contractors who they can pay less.
The “win-win” solution mentions that full benefits will be given to workers. Workers demand that they receive their full basic rights in terms of wage, working hours, mandatory benefits, and most importantly the right to unionize. If they are indeed willing to give these full basic rights, then what is the need to hire contractors? The truth is they do not want to, so essentially they want contractualization.
In their “win-win” strategy, principal employers can get away from their accountability because of the unclear employer-employee relationship. Big corporations and contractors will just point finger at each other on who should provide workers their rights and demands. How will workers exercise their rights under a contractor or service provider? If correct wages and benefits are not given, which would always happen, how would workers exercise their right to union, to collectively bargain, or to strike? The setup undermines union power.
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
