The Manila office of the International Labor Organization (ILO) has just come up with Decent Work Country Diagnostics: Philippines 2017.
The Diagnostics is a comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on the quality—or lack of quality—in Philippine employment. The term “decent work” was coined by the ILO in 2000 to mean work obtained “in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity”.
A little backgrounder on how the ILO developed its “decent work agenda” is in order. The decade of the 1990s saw widespread criticisms by trade unions and civil-society organizations (CSOs) all over the world on the unequal outcomes of economic globalization in both developed and developing countries in the post-Berlin free-trade era. The deep-seated anger against globalization and its social and economic impact was dramatically shown in 1999, when the trade unions and CSOs combine shut down the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. Subsequent WTO Ministerials (such as Cancun 2003 and Hong Kong 2005) also saw pitched battles between the WTO free-trade advocates and global protesters shouting “our world is not for sale”. Up to now, the WTO is unable to craft a new (meaning higher) global trade-liberalization agenda, which is the reason some countries have opted to negotiate for regional and bilateral free-trade agreements, such as what is happening in the Asean and East Asia today.
In the ILO, there were endless debates among the tripartite social partners on how unregulated globalization was riding roughshod on the rights of workers, women and minorities. Accordingly, a “race to the bottom” among footloose global investors had weakened trade unionism and labor rights in both the global North, as well as the global South. One major effort to tame this race to the bottom was an American-European resolution in the ILO reaffirming the core labor rights of workers everywhere as reflected in the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the different ILO Conventions. In 1998 the International Labor Conference adopted the “Declaration on the Principles and Rights at Work”, which restates the duty of ILO member-states to respect the rights of workers to freedom of association, collective bargaining and nondiscrimination at work, as well as their duty not to use forced labor (for example, prison labor) and eliminate extreme forms of child labor.
Now, the question arose: How to enforce the declaration? One solution developed by the group of Juan Somavia, the former ILO director general, was the promotion of a “Decent Work Program” in the different ILO member-states. Hence, the ILO has come up with “decent work diagnostics”, monitoring reports on state compliance with core labor conventions and so on.
The Philippines, through the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), has embraced the ILO’s decent work advocacy. Thus, under the Benigno S. Aquino III administration, the DOLE translated the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 into the Philippine Labor and Employment Plan 2011-2016, with the accompanying subtitle “Inclusive Growth Through Decent Work and Productive Work”. The Labor and Employment Plan (LEP) had four major decent work goals, namely: increases in employment levels; improvements in the quality of employment (by enhancing workers’ rights and their observance); greater social protection for the vulnerables; and marginalized and social dialogue among the tripartite social partners and other stakeholders.
LEP was forthright in identifying and listing “decent work deficits” in the country, the most significant of which are the following:
â– Economic growth in the 2000s was not accompanied by equivalent improvement in employment levels;
â– Labor productivity has been low because of lack of investments, low technology and lack of skills and training, confounded by calamities;
â– The enjoyment of the fundamental labor rights, primarily freedom of association and collective bargaining, was limited to a few since the informal sector, public sector and the “flexible” short-term hires were excluded;
â– The Labor Code is not fully aligned with the Philippine Constitution, especially with the latter’s provisions mandating the State to fully empower the workers as society’s “primary economic force”;
â– The country’s social-security schemes covered a mere 31 percent of the total employed, while minimum wage as a social protection measure has limited coverage;
â– There are growing concerns on industry-specific health and safety conditions, especially given the increasing informality of the labor market;
â– Child workers continue to work and engage in hazardous occupations and industries, such as mining and fishing;
â– Trade-union membership and collective bargaining coverage have been on the downward trend;
â– Multiple layers and delays in labor adjudication impede dispute settlement and social dialogue; and
â– There is marked absence of avenue for social dialogue involving the majority of workers, meaning those in the informal sector and those working in the micro and small enterprises.
What has Diagnostics 2017 found? More facts and figures supporting the foregoing observations. In particular, the new report re-states the continuing “disconnect between GDP and employment growth”, which is the Philippine economic story in the last four to five decades. A disturbing finding of the Diagnostics is the big number of the “NEET” sector. This is the youth group “who are neither in employment, education nor training”. Is the NEET in Mindanao not a rich recruitment ground for the Maute Group and other rebels?
For those who seek an updated situation on the availability or nonavailability of quality jobs in the Philippines, Diagnostics 2017 is a must read. However, this writer has some reservations on two items:
â– First, the study claims that the informal sector constitutes 38 percent of the total employed (page 6). The truth is that the sector, as estimated by the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and the proponents in Congress of the Magna Carta for Workers in the Informal Economy, covers roughly two-thirds of the employed. A study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies even gave a higher estimate, more than 80 percent. The problem is that the research team failed to understand that many in the wage sector, especially those in the micro, small and medium enterprises, have no formal employment contracts. There is also widespread “flexibilization” in the hiring system, even among formal enterprises. The study equates informality to a simple summation of the self-employed and the unpaid family workers; and
â– Second, the study has not gone deep enough in analyzing gaps in economic and employment policies and decent work outcomes. The previous LEP 2011-2016 claimed that PDP 2011-2016 was the pathway to decent work fulfillment. Diagnostics 2017 showed it was not. What then is the assurance that PDP 2017-2022 and Ambisyon 2040 will deliver more jobs for everyone?
The Diagnostics is a comprehensive compilation of facts and figures on the quality—or lack of quality—in Philippine employment. The term “decent work” was coined by the ILO in 2000 to mean work obtained “in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity”.
A little backgrounder on how the ILO developed its “decent work agenda” is in order. The decade of the 1990s saw widespread criticisms by trade unions and civil-society organizations (CSOs) all over the world on the unequal outcomes of economic globalization in both developed and developing countries in the post-Berlin free-trade era. The deep-seated anger against globalization and its social and economic impact was dramatically shown in 1999, when the trade unions and CSOs combine shut down the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. Subsequent WTO Ministerials (such as Cancun 2003 and Hong Kong 2005) also saw pitched battles between the WTO free-trade advocates and global protesters shouting “our world is not for sale”. Up to now, the WTO is unable to craft a new (meaning higher) global trade-liberalization agenda, which is the reason some countries have opted to negotiate for regional and bilateral free-trade agreements, such as what is happening in the Asean and East Asia today.
In the ILO, there were endless debates among the tripartite social partners on how unregulated globalization was riding roughshod on the rights of workers, women and minorities. Accordingly, a “race to the bottom” among footloose global investors had weakened trade unionism and labor rights in both the global North, as well as the global South. One major effort to tame this race to the bottom was an American-European resolution in the ILO reaffirming the core labor rights of workers everywhere as reflected in the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the different ILO Conventions. In 1998 the International Labor Conference adopted the “Declaration on the Principles and Rights at Work”, which restates the duty of ILO member-states to respect the rights of workers to freedom of association, collective bargaining and nondiscrimination at work, as well as their duty not to use forced labor (for example, prison labor) and eliminate extreme forms of child labor.
Now, the question arose: How to enforce the declaration? One solution developed by the group of Juan Somavia, the former ILO director general, was the promotion of a “Decent Work Program” in the different ILO member-states. Hence, the ILO has come up with “decent work diagnostics”, monitoring reports on state compliance with core labor conventions and so on.
The Philippines, through the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), has embraced the ILO’s decent work advocacy. Thus, under the Benigno S. Aquino III administration, the DOLE translated the Philippine Development Plan 2011-2016 into the Philippine Labor and Employment Plan 2011-2016, with the accompanying subtitle “Inclusive Growth Through Decent Work and Productive Work”. The Labor and Employment Plan (LEP) had four major decent work goals, namely: increases in employment levels; improvements in the quality of employment (by enhancing workers’ rights and their observance); greater social protection for the vulnerables; and marginalized and social dialogue among the tripartite social partners and other stakeholders.
LEP was forthright in identifying and listing “decent work deficits” in the country, the most significant of which are the following:
â– Economic growth in the 2000s was not accompanied by equivalent improvement in employment levels;
â– Labor productivity has been low because of lack of investments, low technology and lack of skills and training, confounded by calamities;
â– The enjoyment of the fundamental labor rights, primarily freedom of association and collective bargaining, was limited to a few since the informal sector, public sector and the “flexible” short-term hires were excluded;
â– The Labor Code is not fully aligned with the Philippine Constitution, especially with the latter’s provisions mandating the State to fully empower the workers as society’s “primary economic force”;
â– The country’s social-security schemes covered a mere 31 percent of the total employed, while minimum wage as a social protection measure has limited coverage;
â– There are growing concerns on industry-specific health and safety conditions, especially given the increasing informality of the labor market;
â– Child workers continue to work and engage in hazardous occupations and industries, such as mining and fishing;
â– Trade-union membership and collective bargaining coverage have been on the downward trend;
â– Multiple layers and delays in labor adjudication impede dispute settlement and social dialogue; and
â– There is marked absence of avenue for social dialogue involving the majority of workers, meaning those in the informal sector and those working in the micro and small enterprises.
What has Diagnostics 2017 found? More facts and figures supporting the foregoing observations. In particular, the new report re-states the continuing “disconnect between GDP and employment growth”, which is the Philippine economic story in the last four to five decades. A disturbing finding of the Diagnostics is the big number of the “NEET” sector. This is the youth group “who are neither in employment, education nor training”. Is the NEET in Mindanao not a rich recruitment ground for the Maute Group and other rebels?
For those who seek an updated situation on the availability or nonavailability of quality jobs in the Philippines, Diagnostics 2017 is a must read. However, this writer has some reservations on two items:
â– First, the study claims that the informal sector constitutes 38 percent of the total employed (page 6). The truth is that the sector, as estimated by the Employers Confederation of the Philippines and the proponents in Congress of the Magna Carta for Workers in the Informal Economy, covers roughly two-thirds of the employed. A study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies even gave a higher estimate, more than 80 percent. The problem is that the research team failed to understand that many in the wage sector, especially those in the micro, small and medium enterprises, have no formal employment contracts. There is also widespread “flexibilization” in the hiring system, even among formal enterprises. The study equates informality to a simple summation of the self-employed and the unpaid family workers; and
â– Second, the study has not gone deep enough in analyzing gaps in economic and employment policies and decent work outcomes. The previous LEP 2011-2016 claimed that PDP 2011-2016 was the pathway to decent work fulfillment. Diagnostics 2017 showed it was not. What then is the assurance that PDP 2017-2022 and Ambisyon 2040 will deliver more jobs for everyone?
