There is a disconnect in the ongoing debate over ‘endo’ as we know it and as provided under existing labor laws. And President Duterte is being excoriated by some labor groups as a result. These groups working under the Nagkaisa banner have accused President Duterte of reneging on his campaign promise to put an end to “endo”: to contractualization in any manner or form, the more problematic being the 5-5-5 practice. Under that kind of scheme, a worker is probationally hired for only five months work after which he is terminated and recontracted for another five months and so on without any hope regularization.
But President Duterte is not reneging on his promise. Time and again he has denounced that 5-5-5 practice under any guise as a no-no. It should be exposed and opposed. On the other hand, he has recognized that there are a number of businesses which are eligible for flexible contractual arrangements such as fast food chains whose most basic employees are those in finance, administration and in the kitchen.
The rest, as is the growing norm in industries across the board specially SMSEs, are full-time employees of a manpower service company with all the benefits provided for such employees. These are businesses which are employing and will continue to employ the bulk of our workforce in the foreseeable future. The President is well aware of that. Considering the fact that more than a million people enter the workforce every year, can one blame the President if he takes pause and balances things out?
The employment situation in airline and banking industries are other examples of such flexible arrangements. In the case of airlines, the ground staff, some technical and cleaning personnel and even pilots and stewardesses maybe employed by MSCs even as they form part of the entire crew. For banks, the backroom staff including cleaning and even IT personnel may be MSC employees.
Candidate Duterte did promise to strike off “endo” from the labor lexicon during the campaign. But he was referring to such practices as labor-only contracting, indiscriminate farming out of work or the ‘cabo’ system and other guises such an in house cooperatives. These are out-and-out prohibited practices under the Labor Code as amended, since companies cannot “contract out” positions considered necessary and desirable in the conduct of their businesses.
That is really the crux of the debate. What then are the positions in each and every business considered necessary and desirable? Is a bank teller considered necessary and desirable in the banking business? If so, what bank unit would that be as there is a considerablestratification in the banking sector where some units do not really employ tellers, for example? What about in the airlines or in the fast food industries? What about in the various manufacturing or even commercial concerns? In a mall, for example, how does one classify sales ladies? Or, in the restaurant business, should busboys be regularized?
Indeed, there are a hundred and one issues that have to be threshed out in our earnest effort to weed out the most pernicious ‘endo’ practices which cannot simply be cut off through an executive order.
It will take hearings and consultations with all concerned sectors to craft a responsive and responsible arrangement which close the loopholes and fill in the gaps now embedded in our labor laws. And we are not talking here yet of the problems being encountered in the sector which has the most number of “endo” or “endo-” like practices—government. That is something which President Duterte and his advisers will have to really work on. The sooner, the better.
So, there is really no need for Trade and Industry Secretary Ramon Lopez to suggest that “more investments will flow into the country sans ‘endo’ EO.” Investors will definitely go where they can get the best sustainable returns, with or without the “endo” EO. That is a given even in the most advanced countries. Which is why you have labor rumblings in America, Europe and even Japan where lifetime employment used to be the norm. The world of work has been constantly changing and with it balance and flexibility in the conduct of business. That is why we have laws, rules and standards to ensure that everybody get their fair share from the fruits of their endeavors.
But, as one business guru noted, what we should brace for is the advent of technology which has upended and is upending the world of work no end. Are we prepared or even simply studying how the entry of robots in the workplace, for example, will change arrangements forever?
