Kasambahay Law four years later: ‘masaket poh koyah’
Four years after the Kasambahay Law (RA
10361) took effect, this column is sorely tempted to say “I told you
so.” But the mature individuals that we are, we won’t.
Instead, as we wrote before the law took effect, “if we must
have such laws, let it be that which promotes accountability,
responsibility, and merit. But if a Kasambahay Law (as it’s drafted now)
gets enacted, then it would be better, particularly for those of the
middle class, not to hire maids anymore. Better save your money and just
do the chores you can do better anyway.”
So far, that comment seems more and more prescient everyday.
The problem with the Kasambahay Law is that it works on the bizarre
assumption that most employers and household owners are complete jerks.
One sees this in the Declaration of Policies, which focuses in giving
the household help protection against violence, exploitation, abuse,
discrimination, and even going so far as to mention -- again, bizarrely
-- “gender sensitive measures.”
No requirement whatsoever of professional development, skills training, and personal accountability.
It’s all about doling more rights without demanding any form of personal responsibility.
RA 10361 ignores the fact that in the Philippines, household helps have a
special relationship with their employers not present in the developed
or Western world (whose laws the Kasambahay Law seem patterned after).
That’s why they’re called Kasambahay: household helps are not merely employed servants, they’re considered part of the employer’s extended family.
Hence, if the household help gets sick, physically or emotionally (i.e.,
heartbroken), the employer cares and consoles, an uncle dies the
employer handles the funeral costs, the help’s grandmother gets sick and
she’s allowed immediate vacation leave to visit. Even without RA 10361
Filipino employers gets the willing (and able) household help through
school, paying for her tuition, books, and allowance.
No Western (and perhaps even developed ASEAN country) employer would
generally go through that crap. The relationship is purely contractual
and professional. And the Kasambahay Law blithely ignores this.
Instead, it self-righteously demands that the employer give the
household help professional treatment and compensation but without
requiring reciprocal professionalism and competence from the latter.
Remember, this is within the unbelievable context -- despite a supposed
national literacy rate of 99% -- that many of those applying to be
household helpers don’t even know how to cook, boil water, clean
furniture, launder clothes.
And breakages in dishes, ceramics, and appliances would be common.
Yet these are the people who demand substantial rest periods, cellphone
loads, cable TV, and Wi-Fi access. But most only get their skills after
they’re employed, assuming they stay long enough.
Regarding that last sentence, a peculiar trend is seemingly sweeping the
country and coincidentally it gathered force after the enactment of the
Kasambahay Law: that of absconding maids.
By which we mean those applying to be household helps from the provinces
(and even through agencies) demand they be given transportation and
allowance money first before moving to Manila. The good employer, after
cabling the funds, would then never hear of that applicant again.
Or the applicant does arrive in Manila, stays for a few days with her
employer, then suddenly develops an obsession for education, a needy
husband, or a relative gets terminally ill, and she has to go home.
In both instances, the prospective employer will be unable to recover his money (normally in the thousands of pesos).
Whoever made the Kasambahay Law apparently has delusions about our Philippine criminal justice system.
Frankly, I don’t mind giving professional compensation, contractual
arrangements, etc., so long as the maid herself is competent and
professional. That is but reasonable.
A glance at one of the recruitment pages in the US reveal the following
capabilities demanded of domestic helpers: competent housekeeping;
prepare family meals; garden maintenance; supervising children, grocery
shopping; knowledge of cleaning procedures; experienced caregiver to
elderly adults; ability to read and follow instructions; and
knowledgeable of safety practices.
A review of such recruitment pages and related US laws would show that
their meals are not part of the compensation. Furthermore, breakages and
other result of negligent or incompetent acts could (under specific
conditions) lead to a deduction from the wages. Let’s have that.
And let’s have a national database system to track down household helps
who cheated, stole, did incompetent work, etc., so that they can be
blacklisted and never have the opportunity to harm another prospective
employer.
And let’s have a non-appealable fast track judicial system that can
immediately fine, impose damages, or imprison (after all, absconding
with someone else’s money as described above is actually swindling)
wayward household helps.
There are (according to some estimates) around 2.5 million domestic
helps in the country today. That’s potentially 2.5 million Filipinos the
Kasambahay Law is signaling they are entitled to do whatever they want
without consequences.
So, yes, let us indeed protect the rights of Kasambahays. But we should never forget that employers have rights too.
Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign
Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for
constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.
jemygatdula@yahoo.com
www.jemygatdula.blogspot.com
facebook.com/jemy.gatdula
Twitter @jemygatdula
source: Businessworld
