Govt ‘won’t abolish contractualization’

The government will not likely abolish the entire system of contractualization in the country but restrict it, according to a former Labor undersecretary.

Contractualization, also known as “endo” (end of contract) and “5-5-5,” is the illegal practice of hiring and firing workers at the end of their five-month employment, enabling employers to avoid regularizing and giving them benefits such as pension coverage.

Josephus Jimenez, also former president of People Management Association of the Philippines Inc. (PMAP), told reporters at the sidelines of the 6th P&A Grant Thornton Business Forum on Wednesday that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) will not likely deliver its promise to abolish contractualization by 50 percent by the end of this year, and 100 percent by 2017.

“This is my bottomline expectation: They [government]won’t abolish contractualization. They’ll only put restrictions,” Jimenez said.

Removing the contractualization system would hurt the economy as this system gives the Philippines “competitive advantage” over other regional economies, he added.

“My position is very simple, if 5-5-5 or ‘endo’ is illegal, then we have to stop it. But do not stop the entire system of outsourcing, because outsourcing is the thing that gives you competitive advantage. Without outsourcing, all the investors will go to Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Brunei Darussalam,” Jimenez said.

He noted that a number of local companies with foreign investors have held back with their expansion and investment plans in the Philippines because of potential risks from policies of the Duterte administration.

“Yes, the economy will suffer [without contractualization]. In fact, some investors have already said, ‘[Look, we’re unstable here. Let us not put further investments because the policies are still unclear],’” Jimenez said.
He added that he knows of five companies that have withheld their expansion plans in the Philippines that would have employed 100,000 contractual workers in the transportation, food and packaging sectors.

Citing the latest Labor Force Survey (LFS) in July, Jimenez estimated that 60 percent of the 42.5 million Filipinos who are employed are regular, while 40 percent are working under contracts.

Jimenez cited 10 reasons why “legitimate” contractualization “could not be, should not be and would not be abolished in the country.”

He said “endo” contributes to the country’s competitiveness, provides employment opportunities, serves as first door to regular employment, allows on-the-job training, offers viable alternative to migration, adopts enough safety nets and gives adequate social protection, among others.

With its promise to abolish “endo,” the government through DOLE is amending Department Order No. 18-A — dubbed as the “Endo Law” — which is set to be released by the end of this month.

When asked about the Department of Trade and Industry’s proposed “win-win solution” on contractualization, Jimenez said he agrees with the DTI proposal, suggesting some improvements.

source:  Manila Times

Women not legally married can avail of maternity benefits

Dear PAO,
My application for paternity leave was denied by my company for the reason that I am not yet legally married to the mother of my child. Does this mean that since we are not yet married, my girlfriend can also not avail of her maternity leave benefits?

Sincerely yours,
Yulo

Dear Yulo,
For your information, Article 14-A of Republic Act (RA) 8282 or the Social Security Law states:

SEC. 14-A. Maternity Leave Benefit. – A covered female employee who has paid at least three monthly maternity contributions in the twelve-month period preceding the semester of her childbirth, abortion or miscarriage and who is currently employed shall be paid a daily maternity benefit equivalent to one hundred percent (100 percent) of her present basic salary, allowances and other benefits or the cash equivalent of such benefits for sixty (60) days subject to the following conditions:

a) That the employee shall have notified her employer of her pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth which notice shall be transmitted to the SSS [Social Security System] in accordance with the rules and regulations it may provide;

b) That the payment shall be advanced by the employer in two equal installments within thirty (30) days from the filing of the maternity leave application;

c) That in case of caesarian delivery, the employee shall be paid the daily maternity benefit for seventy-eight (78) days;

d) That payment of daily maternity benefits shall be a bar to the recovery of sickness benefits provided by this Act for the same compensable period of sixty (60) days for the same childbirth, abortion or miscarriage;

e) That the maternity benefits provided under this Section shall be paid only for the first four deliveries after March 13, 1973;

f) That the SSS shall immediately reimburse the employer one hundred percent (100 percent) of the amount of maternity benefits advanced to the employee by the employer upon receipt of satisfactory proof of such payment and legality thereof; and,

g) That if an employee should give birth or suffer abortion or miscarriage without the required contributions having been remitted for her by her employer to the SSS, or without the latter having been previously notified by the employer of the time of the pregnancy, the employer shall pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the benefits, which said employee would otherwise have been entitled to, and the SSS shall in turn pay such amount to the employee concerned.

Unlike in RA 8187 or the Paternity Leave Act of 1996, none in the above-stated provision of law does it state that the mother giving birth to a child or the one who suffered a miscarriage is required to be lawfully married first, before she could avail of the maternity benefits. Hence, since there is no restriction or distinction, your girlfriend can rightfully avail of the said benefit provided she qualifies to all the other requirements of the law.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Negative economics of no-contractualization

One of the principal socio-economic issues that were raised during the 2016 electoral campaign was labor contractualization, i.e., the practice of employers’ signing workers to renewable contracts of less than six months’ duration instead of making them regular employees. Realizing that from the standpoint of competitiveness they had no choice but to match the other candidates’ commitment, all of the five presidential candidates promised to work for the ending of labor contractualization immediately upon election.

The issue of putting an end to contractualization brings to mind the old saying, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” With regard to the contractualization issue, the saying should be changed to “The road to no-more-contractualization is paved with good intentions. Here the good intention is to provide all workers with the legally mandated benefits—chiefly coverage by SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG—that come with regular-employee status. No conscientious and fair-minded employer wants to deprive his employees of these and other legally mandated benefits.

For any contractualization-related government action to be widely acceptable and easily implementable, it is necessary to determine the reasons why some employers resort to contractualization. The reasons will determine whether the Department of Labor and Employment will experience much difficulty in enforcing a no-contractualization law. There are three reasons.

The first reason is, quite simply, an employer’s instinctive desire, in the absence of adverse government policy, to derive the maximum profit from his business operations. Additional costs reduce profit and SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG coverage for employees are additional costs. Why, the typical businessman asks himself, should I provide benefits for my workers if with the use of legal savvy, I can get away with not providing them with such benefits? The tactic for such legal evasion is of course the hiring of workers for periods shorter than the six-months threshold for compulsory regularization. “Endo,” the shorthand for end of contract, usually comes after five months’ employment.

The second reason for the resort of many employers to contractualization is pure-and-simple avoidance (not evasion) of the law. The choice for employers has been clear-cut. They can place their employees on regular status after six months in the establishment—and begin incurring the costs of the legally mandated benefits—or they can avoid incurring those costs through the before-six-months “endo” arrangement. Why incur all those additional costs when the nation’s labor laws leave you a way out?

The third reason for many employers’ resort to labor contractualization is the most important because of its virtually certain negative impact on the economy, especially on investment and employment.

The plain truth is that the great majority of contractualizing business establishments—mostly small and medium-scale entities, who, according to the government statisticians account for approximately 99 percent of all business establishments—simply cannot afford the financial trappings that go with regular-status employment. They can afford only the basic costs of operating a business, such as rent, wages, utilities and business fees; they cannot afford separation pay, paid leaves, bonuses and social welfare coverages (SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG) for their employees.

Putting an end to contractualization has been declared to be one of the legislation priorities in the House of Representatives; the Duterte administration should be able to obtain passage of a no-contractualization law. What would be the impact of such legislation and how are prospective investors likely to react to the enactment of a no-contractualization law?

Employees of most of the one percent of business establishments that are classified as big already enjoy the benefits due regular-status employees and those who do not yet enjoy such benefits will be given them once a no-contractualization law is passed. Because they are big—and therefore conspicuous—will have no choice but to comply. The SMEs have a choice: they can either decide to close shop (if their owners are unwilling to break, or are fearful of breaking, the law) or they can decide to defy the law (if their owners are not law-abiding and believe that they can get away with law-breaking).

The danger to the economy will come from the reaction of law-abiding would-be investors to a no-contractualization law. If paying the benefits required by such a law will mean that they will not be able to derive profits from their capital, they will not establish businesses. There are such people; they will not go into business if they will be able to make money only by breaking the law.

A halfway point, a win-win solution, to the negative economic impact of a no-contractualization law would be to replicate what was done by Congress to mitigate the harshness of the Minimum Wage Act, viz., make allowance for SMEs. In the same manner that business establishments with less than a certain number of employees are exempt from the operation of the Minimum Wage Act, so similarly situated business establishments can be made exempt from no-contractualization.

The probable negative impact of a no-contractualization law on investment and employment is one pitfall of legislation placing a ban on contractualization. The other is the usual bugaboo of regulating legislation in this country: enforcement. Not so long ago the head of the Department of Labor and Employment estimated that the agency was able to effectively monitor only around 11 percent of business establishments for compliance with the nation’s labor laws. Given the Labor Department’s present enforcement capability, I doubt very much if a no-contractualization law will be effectively enforced. It has been asked before, but I will ask the question again: what is the point of passing a law that will be widely violated?

If the proposed no-contractualization law is not tweaked so as to not discourage investment in SMEs, such a law should, in my view, not be passed at all. 

source:  Manila Standard Column of Rudy Romero

Placing employee on ‘floating status’ not unlawful per se

Dear PAO,
My sister works as a security guard. She was assigned to a private college in Manila. She was on that assignment for about 15 months already when the school asked her to return to her agency. It turned out that she was assessed to have a poor performance, for which reason the school asked for another guard to replace her.

My sister reported back to her agency but it has been three months now and she has been on floating status. She has not been given another assignment. Is this even valid considering that she is not receiving any salary? Please give us advice on this matter.
Dek

Dear Dek,
The term “floating status” suggests a situation where an employee is temporarily placed out of actual work. Although not particularly mentioned under our Labor Code, it is not per se unlawful or illegal. In fact, the code recognizes instances where an employer is allowed to place an employee on bona-fide suspension, but without severing their employer-employee relationship. As stated under Article 286, Id.:

“The bona-fide suspension of the operation of a business or undertaking for a period not exceeding six (6) months, or the fulfillment by the employee of a military or civic duty shall not terminate employment. In all such cases, the employer shall reinstate the employee to his former position without loss of seniority rights if he indicates his desire to resume his work not later than one (1) month from the resumption of operations of his employer or from his relief from the military or civic duty.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has recognized, in a long line of cases, the validity of placing employees, security guards in particular, on floating status. In one case, the High Court ruled:

“x x x While there is no specific provision in the Labor Code which governs the ‘floating status’ or temporary ‘off-detail’ of security guards employed by private security agencies, this situation was considered by this court in several cases as a form of temporary retrenchment or lay-off. The concept has been defined as that period of time when security guards are in between assignments or when they are made to wait after being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. As pointed out by the CA, it takes place when the security agency’s clients decide not to renew their contracts with the agency, resulting in a situation where the available posts under its existing contracts are less than the number of guards in its roster. It also happens in instances where contracts for security services stipulate that the client may request the agency for the replacement of the guards assigned to it, even for want of cause, such that the replaced security guard may be placed on temporary ‘off-detail’ if there are no available posts under the agency’s existing contracts.

As the circumstance is generally outside the control of the security agency or the employer, the court has ruled that when a security guard is placed on a ‘floating status’” he or she does not receive any salary or financial benefit provided by law. x x x” (Exocet Security and Allied Services Corporation vs. Serrano, G. R. No. 198538, September 29, 2014)

In the situation that you have presented, we cannot immediately conclude that your sister’s employer has committed wrong against her by simply placing her on floating status. First, if the contract between her agency and the school allowed the latter to seek a substitute or replacement, then her recall is in order and her employer is bound to place another guard in her post. Second, as mentioned by the court, those on floating status do not receive salary during the period. Finally, the employer may not be forced to deploy her if there is really no other available assignment.

It should be stressed, however, that the floating status must not go beyond the six (6)-month period allowed by law. If her employer fails to assign her after the expiration of the six (6)-month period, she will be deemed to have been constructively dismissed. Consequently, she will be entitled to receive separation pay pursuant to Section 6.5 of the Department of Labor and Employment Department Order No. 14, Series of 2001.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Prescription determined by date of last written demand for benefits

Dear PAO,
My boyfriend was employed as a private company driver. He had family problems, which greatly affected his work. He unintentionally incurred absences, which later resulted in his termination in February 2012. He accepted the termination but he wanted to insist on the payment of his last salary and other monetary benefits. He tried to demand from his former employer, but all his efforts were in vain.

Can he still legally demand his benefits now? He is contemplating on filing a case, but he is not sure if he can still do it considering that several years have already passed. Your advice will be highly appreciated.
Triza

Dear Triza,
An employee who has rendered service in favor of his employer, in compliance with the provisions of their employment contract, is entitled to receive the adequate salary or compensation as agreed upon by them. They have the right to demand the same once it becomes due. And if there is unjust refusal on the part of the employer to pay such salary or compensation, the employee concerned may bring the necessary legal actions.

You mentioned in your letter that your boyfriend was terminated in February 2012 and, while he accepted his termination, he demanded from his former employer to pay him his last salary and such other monetary benefits that may have accrued in his favor. Such demands were not met by his former employer, however. Thus, he considers filing a case against the latter.

We wish to emphasize that the filing of monetary claims must be done within the three-year prescriptive period provided for under Article 291 of our Labor Code. To be specific, the law states:

“All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing from the effectivity of this code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. x x x”

Accordingly, your boyfriend must institute his monetary claims within three (3) years from the time the same has accrued. But the common question is: When do monetary claims start to accrue? As explained by the Supreme Court:

“x x x The Labor Code has no specific provision on when a claim for illegal dismissal or a monetary claim accrues. Thus, the general law on prescription applies. Article 1150 of the Civil Code states:

Article 1150. The time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be counted from the day they may be brought. (Emphasis supplied)

The day the action may be brought is the day a claim starts as a legal possibility. In the present case, January 1, 2000 was the date that respondent Pingol was not allowed to perform his usual and regular job as a maintenance technician. x x x”(PLDT vs. Pingol,G.R. No. 182622, September 8, 2010)

Accordingly, the three-year period when your boyfriend may file his claims began to run on the date of his termination in February 2012, ending three (3) years thereafter.

It bears stressing, however, that the running of the three-year prescriptive period may be interrupted by the filing of an action in court, by a written extra-judicial demand, and by a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor (Article 1155, Civil Code; PLDT vs. Pingol, Ibid.)

Thus, if your boyfriend has made written demands after February 2012, this may have taken its toll on the running of the three-year prescriptive period. The counting of the period will be continued from the date of his last written extra-judicial demand. Correspondingly, he may still file his claim before the Department of Labor and Employment if the total period that has lapsed is still within the three-year prescriptive period.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net

Examining the proposed extended maternity leave

In January 2016, the Senate approved Senate Bill No. 2981 (SB 2981) or the Expanded Maternity Leave Law of 2015 on its third and final reading. Under the bill, the duration of maternity leave for female employees in government service and in the private sector will be extended to one hundred (100) days, regardless of mode of delivery. Mothers around the country have lauded the bill yet some have expressed fears on the repercussions of the same.

At present, the maternity leave provided under the Section 14-A of Republic Act 1161, as amended, otherwise known as the Social Security Act of 1997, provides that a female employee shall be paid a daily maternity benefit equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of her average daily salary credit for sixty (60) days or seventy-eight (78) days in case of caesarian delivery.

It should be noted that the International Labour Organization (ILO), specifically the Maternity Protection Convention (Convention 183) prescribes for fourteen (14) weeks or ninety-eight (98) days of maternity benefits. Evidently, the maternity leave provided for in our country is less than the minimum provided under Convention 183.

Comparing with the other ASEAN countries, the Philippines is one of the countries with the least number of maternity leaves granted. Vietnam is the highest granting about one hundred twenty (120) to one hundred eighty (180) days of maternity leave, while Singapore, provides one hundred and twelve (112) days of maternity leave. Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand all provide a maternity leave period of ninety (90) days. Only Malaysia and Brunei provide for a sixty (60) day maternity leave similar to the Philippines.

Aside from extending the maternity leave to one hundred (100) days regardless of mode of delivery, the bill also provides for an additional maternity leave of thirty (30) days without pay provided that due notice, in writing, be given to the employer at least forty-five (45) days before the end of the maternity leave.

Moreover, the bill, in compliance with ILO Convention 183 provides that “employees availing of the maternity leave period and benefits must receive not less than two-thirds (2/3) of their regular monthly wages.” The bill also mandates that employers from the private sector shall be responsible to pay the salary differential between the actual cash benefits received from the SSS by the covered employees and their average weekly or regular wages, for the entire duration of the ordinary maternity leave.

The aim of the bill to provide for greater benefits for pregnant women is consistent with the mandate under our Constitution, particularly Article XIII Section 14, to “protect working women by providing safe and healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal functions.”

And yet, it is unavoidable that some fear that the expanded maternity leave will in fact cause possible discrimination in terms of employment against women. These apprehensions are brought about by the idea that the employers, particularly small businesses, would feel burdened particularly since there is now a mandate that the employers will be responsible for the salary differential between the SSS grant and what is mandated under the bill.

Understandably, such fears are justified.

It may be worthy to point out, however, that to temper the added responsibility to employers, the bill exempts certain employers or establishments from the payment of the differential. Among them are distressed establishments, retail/service establishments employing not more than ten (10) employees, those who pay their workers on a purely commission or task-basis and micro-businesses or those whose total assets are not more than three (3) million pesos.

Moreover, it must be noted that the Labor Code of the Philippines provides for the protection of women employees against discrimination. Article 135 states that it shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex. Discrimination may be in the form of lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male employee, for work of equal value, or in favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes. Article 137, in addition, provides that it shall be unlawful to discharge a woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy. It is likewise unlawful to discharge or refuse the admission of a woman employee upon returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant.

Despite all these safeguards, it is still apt to recognize that there is, however, a risk that the discrimination may happen prior to being employed.

To avoid the additional costs, the employer may opt to give preferential treatment to male applicants. Such discrimination may be harder to perceive as employers are given the prerogative to set qualifications and standards by which to select their employees. Unless there is a blatant show of discrimination in the hiring of only or mostly male employees, it will be harder to draw the line between management prerogative and actual discrimination.

Hence, should the maternity leave in our country be increased to one hundred (100) days, our government is faced with the duty to ensure that the same will not cause discrimination against women in all stages of employment. Otherwise, the benefits envisioned may be outweighed by the harm.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author. This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and not offered as and does not constitute legal advice or legal opinion.

Kiarra Nastazsa Adrienne A. Cabile is an Associate of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices (ACCRALAW).

(632) 830-8000

kacabile@accralaw.com.

source:  Businesworld

‘Stop abuses, not contractualization’

The complete elimination of employment through contractualization may have unforeseen negative consequences, according to two top local businessmen, who urged the government to instead focus on stopping abuses of the practice.

During a forum organized by the Economic Journalists Association of the Philippines (EJAP) and ING Bank on Tuesday, DMCI Holdings Inc., Chairman Isidro Consunji said it would be wrong to abolish contractualization as a whole, but rather the abuses associated with it.

“I think its inappropriate to eliminate contractualization per se,” Consunji said “I think that the issue there is in the abuses rather than the elimination of contractualization.”

Phinma Corp., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Ramon del Rosario Jr., echoed Consunji’s sentiments, agreeing that it is the abuses associated with contractualization that should be condemned and not contractualization as a whole.

“It is fair to say that contractualization has been abused. And there are legitimate reasons to complain about those abuses,” Del Rosario said.

“But on the other hand, I think it is very dangerous to condemn contratualization as a general principle because there are sectors, industries in our economy that are offered on the basis of contracts,” and cannot operate on a non-contract basis, Del Rosario said.

Examples of these kinds of businesses are the construction and business process outsourcing industries, Del Rosario said.

“Construction is an example. Construction projects are always done by contracts. Of course if a project is done by contract, the bulk of the people employed are under a contract basis. I cannot envision how banning contractualization will work in the context of industries like construction, for example. Even business process outsourcing (BPO), many of the engagements are also done by contracts,” he explained.

Del Rosario stressed that in approaching the issue that there should be separation between contractualization and the abuses of it.

“There are many sectors of the economy wherein the only way you can hire people is through contracts. So let’s be very precise about what it is that we are against. I think it’s the abuses,” Del Rosario said.

The Phinma CEO expressed his hope that people are against the abuses of contractualization and not the general principle of it.

“I think when people say endo, it tends to connote the wrong principle of contractualization. What I hope they really mean are the abuses,” Del Rosario concluded.

source:  Manila Times

SM unfazed by calls to end ‘endo’

SM Investment Corp. (SMIC), the holding firm of the Sy family, is unfazed by the presidential candidates’ vow to end job contractualization, saying that they would abide by the law and find ways to survive.

SMIC President Harley Sy, speaking to reporters after the company’s annual stockholders’ meeting on Wednesday, said that the conglomerate is not in any way engaged in contractualization of employees, commonly known as “endo,” a scheme by which employees are hired for less than six months, and thereafter terminated to avoid their employment from ripening into regular employment.

“For the record, we deny that we are hiring on a contractual basis. That is purely speculative. In fact, we are one of the country’s biggest employers,” Sy said.

Under the law, “contractual employees” are those who render services under a contract, which particularly stipulates the period of employment and will not ripen into regular employment. Meanwhile, “seasonal” employees are those engage to work during a particular season in an activity that is usually necessary or desirable to the trade or business of employers.

Although hiring on a contractual basis is legally allowed, the Supreme Court, in a long line of cases, held that contractual hiring becomes “illegal and unconstitutional” when the same employee is repeatedly hired by the same employer and for the same purpose every after each employment contract expires.

Sy explained that SMIC does hire “seasonal” employees, which the holding company needs depending on the period of the year and demand for additional workforce, especially during Christmas season, other holidays, and during the opening of classes.

“Seasonal employment is actually a good opportunity for people who need flexibility,” he said.

“There is this speculation among many people that we do the five, five, five [i.e., five month employment contracts to avoid the six-month mandatory regularization]. We do not do that, we hire seasonal workers in addition to our regular employees,” Sy added.

“We need a lot of people, especially when the demand so requires like during the Christmas season and opening of the school year. Seasonal employment is validly allowed under our laws,” he added.

At present, SMIC has a total of 65,439 employees, regular and probationary combined, across SMIC, SM Retail, SM Prime, BDO and China Bank.

“In the event that the next government ends contractualization, we will abide by the law and find ways to survive,” Sy said.

On Sunday, during the last presidential debate, all five candidates vying for the country’s top post said they are against the practice of job contractualization, and vowed to end it if elected.

source:  Manila Times

Nagkaisa dares presidentiables to sign contract to stop ‘Endo’

THE NAGKAISA Labor Coalition said it would send out a contract to the presidential candidates to commit themselves to ending contractualization.

This “single, active contract” to be sent this week will “bind whoever wins rather than the five presidentiables dividing our ranks this coming election,” Nagkaisa in a statement on Wednesday said.

The labor coalition is composed of 49 federations and worker organizations, whose leaders joined a press conference yesterday.

The coalition said the candidates’ response to the contract would be released after May 1, in an effort to guide the electorate as to how the presidentiables stand on this matter which has become a key campaign issue.

Nagkaisa said if the candidates do not sign the contract, it would persuade people not to vote for them. But if they do sign, the respective positions on contractualization would still be checked if they are realistic.

The contract outlines eight points the next president should agree on: the end of contractualization, wages suitable to a reasonable standard of living, quality public services, reforming the labor compliance system, the poor’s right to the city including criminalizing demolitions, realization of full employment by the end of the next president’s term, regular political dialogues, and “an office... equivalent to a cabinet rank presidential adviser on labor concerns.”

Nagkaisa said it would no longer rely on Congress to pass a security of tenure bill and would instead count on the next president, with his or her authority to issue executive orders.

The group plans to pass two bills, one for the private sector and another for the public. They said the latter is still in the works.

Josua Mata, secretary-general of the Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa, attributed Nagkaisa’s failed dialogue with the Aquino administration to the President’s opposition to the security of tenure bill.

“He was claiming that [with] the security of tenure bill, if passed into law, 10 million workers would lose their jobs,” Mr. Mata said in a phone interview.

For his part, Alan Tanjusay, spokesperson of Nagkaisa, said in a phone interview, said the coalition does not have the capacity to do the survey ourselves,” but estimates there are 25 to 30 million contractuals in the country.

“Naniniwala kami na [We believe that] the government has an official survey on the number of contractual workers in the country pero hindi nila binibigay sa amin, hindi nila shini-sharesa amin kasi [but they are not sharing it because] I think the picture is very, very alarming, very grave, or sa tingin namin [or as we see it,] it concerns a national security already,” he said.

source:  Businessworld