WHILE the labor sector in Negros Occidental was saddened by President Rodrigo Duterte’s veto of the proposed Security of Tenure Act, the Metro Bacolod Chamber of Commerce and Industry (MBCCI) asserted that it is best to review the measure and clarify the gray areas first.
Frank Carbon, chief executive officer of the MBCCI, cited the need to clarify, for instance, the definition of seasonal workers.
Carbon said this and other clarifications could not be done through the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) as pronounced by those who drafted it.
"There are many gray areas which can cause confusions so it is best to be vetoed and reviewed," he said, adding that it will prevent trouble between the labor and management that usually resort to arbitration at the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole).
On Friday, July 26, Duterte said he decided to reject the proposed measure as he intends to allow the practice of "legitimate" job-contracting.
Duterte said it will "result in economy and efficiency in their operations, with no detriment to the workers, regardless of whether this is directly related to their business."
"The sweeping expansion of the definition of labor-only contracting destroys the delicate balance and will place capital and management at an impossibly difficult predicament with adverse consequences to the Filipino workers in the long term," he added.
As this developed, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo reminded workers that the President issued Executive Order No. 51 on Labor Day last year.
Panelo said he (Duterte) ordered the Dole secretary to inspect establishments and issue compliance orders to ensure that prohibited forms of circumventing or frustrating the entitlement of workers to security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution are eliminated.
The President's resolve to put a stop to the practice of exploiting the working class is undiminished as exemplified by the regularization of 462,428 workers from August 2016 to May 2019, he said.
The Malacañang official added "the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure does not authorize this government to oppress or cause the self-destruction of our employers."
For the local business group, vetoing the bill is a "friendly" move to both employees and employers.
Its chief executive officer said clearer interpretations are beneficial to the employees who are always at the losing end.
Carbon said it would be expensive for them (employees) to always go to the Dole or pay for a lawyer to complain regarding labor concerns.
"It will be a burden for the employees if there are many areas of the law subject to interpretation of the lawyers," he said, adding that employers, normally, will interpret on their favor.
Carbon stressed it is not the core business of employers to interpret the law so reviewing it first would also lessen their head cost as pricing and cost-cutting can already be given consideration.
For the labor sector, however, it was a sad day for the workers.
Wennie Sancho, secretary general of the General Alliance of Workers Associations (Gawa), said the veto of the Security of Tenure Bill is a big blow to the labor sector particularly to contractual workers denied of the social and economic benefits they would have enjoyed if the bill was passed into law.
Sancho said they were dismayed because the President reneged from his campaign promise to end "endo" or end of contractualization.
"The aspirations of the workers were broken and lost beyond recall," he said, adding that Duterte "walked away" from his covenant with the workers to end job contractualization.
Moreover, the veto of the bill, for the labor group, only shows how this administration treats the workers despite the government’s often repeated pronouncement of economic boom.
"We felt that we were taken for a ride. This could lead to a massive protest by labor," Gawa lamented.
Its official said the workers' protection clause in the Philippine Constitution that all workers shall have security of tenure was ignored.
It becomes merely a statement of principle when the Security of Tenure Bill was invalidated by a veto, Sancho added.