IN the presidential debates that preceded the elections, the presidential candidates made a stand on “contractualization,” with one or two of them declaring opposition to it, vowing to outlaw it even, with the rest preferring to give it, more or less, serious study. Obviously afraid of any “labor” backlash, none of the candidates expressed support for the idea.
Here lies the crux of the problem. In our country, there never has been a clear distinction between the need to create jobs for the unemployed and the need to protect the tenure of those already employed. If contractualization is an effort of management to undermine the tenure of those employed by employing short-term scabs, those whose tenure is being threatened must oppose it, invoking their right to collective bargaining, even their right to strike, to make their reaction felt.
If, on the other hand, contractualization is an effort to get an extra project done, an “emergency” activity to be carried out, or an activity not covered by regular employees’ terms of reference to be pursued, it must be encouraged and supported, because it creates jobs for the unemployed.
The duty of the government is to generate jobs for the unemployed, so that growth will be inclusive. In the pursuit of this responsibility, the government must encourage subcontracting, to encourage isolated individual workers to come together to respond to larger manpower requirements, make it easier for smaller firms to satisfy contractual obligations. Contractualization is one of the means that must be employed to create jobs for the unemployed.
It must be stressed that those who already have jobs must take care of themselves. Our laws give them more than enough not just to protect themselves from management/owner abuses, but to expand their entitlements. They should cease their dependence on the government to do the job of looking after them.
It is a historical fact that union power has been on the decline in the last two decades all over the world. Modes of grievance settlement other than strikes and lockouts, like mediation boards, joint labor-management committees, etcetera, are increasingly becoming the tools of choice in the settlement of labor-management issues. It is not that unions are weakening; it is simply that company problems have become so encompassing, they cannot be limited to management or to labor alone. The two must act in concert to save themselves. Look at how the American unions agreed to make concessions just to save General Motors from bankruptcy. In the Philippines unions must agree to new modes of grievance settlement, even as they mobilize their intellectual and physical resources to protect and enlarge the rights of their members.
Unless it is an attempt to undermine the security of tenure of those already employed, contractualization is not anything to be afraid of. We need it, among other means, to deal with our intensifying unemployment problem. But it is an ambiguous term in our country these days. To dissipate “labor’s” fear, the government must clarify it.
Image credits: Jimbo Albano