The positive side of legitimate job contracting

Today, the secretary of Labor and Employment, two of his undersecretaries, together with the House of Representatives' Chairman of the Labor Committee Congressman Fidel Nograles of Rizal, and this writer are speaking today at the Waterfront Hotel, Lahug. The topic is Legitimate Job and Service Contracting in relation to government policy and governance.

One positive thing about the current administration is that it is more open and understanding of outsourcing compared to the Duterte government. If you can recall, in the last presidential debate in 2016, then presidential candidate Digong Duterte made a huge promise that when he assumes the presidency, the first thing he would do, aside from planting the Philippine flag in the Spratlys, was to abolish contractualization. Just like any other trapos' empty promise, the flag was not erected and contractualization even prospered, instead of being abolished. By making the promise in 2016, Duterte got the support of many progressives and radicals, the same sectors that burned his effigies towards the end of his presidency.

The BBM administration is definitely more pragmatic and less theoretical when it comes to the global phenomenon of outsourcing as the worldwide generally-accepted practice in a highly-competitive business arena. It should be recalled that the organic law that institutionalized job contracting and service contracting is, of course, Article 106 to 109 of Book Three of the Labor Code, which was promulgated by President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Sr.

The late father of BBM is the true author of Philippine contractualization, having been the one who promulgated Presidential Decree 442, where the law on contractualization is provided. The Kilusang Mayo Uno and other progressive trade unions have falsely accused Senator Ernesto Boy Herrera as the author of contractualization. Herrera became senator only after the 1986 EDSA Revolution.

Instead of demonizing contractualization, this government correctly takes a more balanced and professional approach to this issue. The BBM government knows that the legitimate service and job contractors are allies of the government in promoting job creation, job retention, and job enhancement, as components of employment promotion, which is one of the three main missions of DOLE, the other two being workers' protection and promotion of industrial peace based on social justice. The agencies and contractors, which are licensed by DOLE itself are the ones that open the doors to young new entrants into the labor force. Most of these new workers are unskilled, inexperienced, and lacking in competencies required by the corporate world. The agencies and contractors train them and develop their potential.

The DOLE that grants these agencies licenses and thus has authorized them to operate, should not unduly make their operations difficult by some hasty, highly-biased, and peremptory labor inspections. Some inspectors and their bosses, the regional directors, without hearing and opportunity to be heard, would rush to declare licensed agencies as labor-only contractors and, by highly biased order, direct principal employers to absorb the employees of contractors.

These approaches are highly unfair to small and medium-scale business enterprises, both agencies and principal employers. This kind of government's undue interference in the exercise of management prerogatives are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, so to speak.

Many big multinationals have transferred to Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia, aside from Singapore and Taiwan, because the government seems to antagonize investors and consider them as enemies of the people, as exploiter of labor. The truth of the matter is that employees of contractors are paid minimum wages, protected by SSS, ECC, PhilHealth and Pag-Ibig. The government that makes it difficult for private business to survive is the one that engages job order workers, and denies them employer-employee relationship.

There are hundreds of thousands of government casual and contractual workers who do not have social protection. It would seem then that if there are employers who need to be inspected, it is, first and foremost, the government itself.