| Home Kapatiran
Issue Number 22, January 2003
|
Kapatiran Issue
No. 22, January 2003
TRADE
UNION REPRESSION IN THE PHILIPPINES
- Emilia Dapulang
The Philippine labour movement celebrates an important
milestone this year. February 2, 2002 marks the
centennial of the militant trade union movement in the
Philippines. It was on this date, 100 years ago, when the
country's first labour federation, Union Obrero
Democratica (UOD), was established in the first
labour congress ever to be held on Philippine soil. The
Philippines is distinguished, therefore, not only for
launching the first democratic revolution (1896) for
national liberation in Asia, against Spanish colonialism,
but also for giving birth to the first labour movement in
Southeast Asia.
The Philippine trade union movement, it must be
emphasised, was born with the birthmark of
anti-imperialist struggle amidst the Filipino-American
War (1899-1916)1. It was through this harrowing
war - where anywhere from 600,000 to one million
Filipinos were killed, out of a population of seven
million -- that the US took over the archipelago,
immediately after the Filipino revolutionaries liberated
the country from Spanish colonialism in 1898.
Many of the first unions and union leaders in the country
were among the most active opponents of US imperialist
designs in the Philippines. UOD's founding president,
Isabelo "Don Belong" de los Reyes, was arrested
and convicted for sedition, rebellion and
"conspiracy to raise the price of labour" by
the US colonial authorities in 1902. But despite US
imperialist repression, UOD (renamed Union Obrero
Democratica de Filipinas or UODF) quickly grew from
33 unions to 150 in less than two years. On May 1, 1903,
despite the refusal of the US colonial government to give
UODF a permit to demonstrate, the federation staged a
demonstration of 100,000 workers to celebrate Labor Day
for the first time in Philippine history; chanting "Death
to US Imperialism!".
Small wonder that UOD was declared illegal by the US
colonial authorities almost immediately after that first
May Day rally. It was years later, in the latter years of
the harrowing US "pacification" drive in the
Philippines that US colonial authorities allowed the
formation of another labour organisation. The Union
del Trabajo de Filipinas was recognised by the US
colonial government in 1908, but on the premise that it
would be corporatist and non-political. The UTF's
constitution and by-laws had to be approved by then
American Governor General William Howard Taft. It was
also in the same year that the Bureau of Labor
was created under the Department of Trade and Police to
manage labour disputes and quell labour strikes in the
colony.
This set the pattern of official state policy on labour
ever since: suppression of the militant labour movement
and strikes, co-optation through corporatist or economic
unionism, and State intervention in labour disputes in
favor of capitalists.
Labour Law Enforcement
Today, in spite of the formal recognition of workers'
fundamental trade union and democratic rights and minimum
labour standards in the Philippines, violating labour
standards and workers' rights are the norm. Of 34,000
establishments inspected by the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) in 2001, more than half were found
violating "general labour standards". More than
one-fourth were also found violating the minimum wage
law.
These figures only cover those firms actually inspected
by the Labor Department. With 250 labour inspectors, the
Department is only able to inspect around 4% of over
820,000 establishments throughout the country in any
given year, not to mention the informal sector of the
economy where close to half of the labour force is forced
to eke out an existence.
In the meantime, DOLE's inspectorate is only concerned
with monitoring compliance with occupational health and
safety standards, wages and wage-related benefits and
leave mandated by law. Workers and their bosses are
largely left to their own devices when it comes to the
observance of trade union rights.
Thus, while there is widespread violation of general
labour standards in the Philippines, there is even less
respect for trade union rights and security of tenure.
This is confirmed by a recent survey of manufacturing
firms in Metro Manila (National Capital Region - NCR)
which revealed that out of six International Labour
Organisation (ILO) core labour standards, firms complied least
with ILO Convention Nos. 87 and 98, or the freedom of
association and the protection of the right to organise.
Workers' trade union and democratic rights are
systematically and rampantly violated by
capitalist-bosses oftentimes with tacit or even open
complicity of government officials at various levels. In
fact, the systematic repression of workers' rights
commences at the hiring process.
Big capitalist-employers routinely conduct background
checks to identify workers who have a history of union
participation. There are cases where applicants are made
to sign blank papers unwittingly waiving their right to
join unions. This is blatantly unconstitutional but no
less effective because of its psychological impact on
prospective employees.
Applicants are also commonly required to obtain an
endorsement from a local official such as the village
captain. This official is tacitly expected to play his
part in ensuring that the prospective worker will not
eventually cause "trouble" for the company,
say, by joining unions.
In labour-intensive export manufacturing, the demographic
profile of workers confirms that employers carefully
sieve prospective applicants. Young female workers are
preferred because they are believed to be less likely to
complain and more likely to defer to older and/or male
supervisors. Likewise, young school leavers are expected
to be more deferential to authority at the workplace as
they are to school and parental authority. Workers with
no previous work experience are also preferred because
they are more easily conditioned to imbibe and obey
company rules and values.
In labour-intensive manufacturing industries such as
electronics, unmarried workers are also preferred to
avoid having to pay maternity benefits. In a number of
cases, companies even require that their workers stay sexually
inactive forcing women workers to undergo
"virginity tests" to prove this.
Applicants endorsed by the mayor or even higher officials
are given priority in employment in exchange for the
mayor's support for policing the industrial space and
maintaining a union-free environment. Business exploits
patriarchal, paternalistic and patron-client relations
existing in the community to enforce labour control and
trade union repression.
In the meantime, workers are also made to pass through
the eye of a needle when they seek to form unions. Bosses
often use these technical requirements to question and
delay the formation of unions, as well as the holding of certification
elections (CE) which establishes a union's right to
represent workers in collective bargaining vis-à-vis
management. Even worse, these documentary requirements
expose the officers and members of the union to
discrimination and harassment. Union members invariably
face the risk of dismissal as a result of their attempts
to form a union.
Given this, it's not surprising that there are only 3.8
million workers organised in active unions, as of 2000.
Of these, less than 500,000 are covered by collective
bargaining agreements or a mere 3.5% of all wage and
salary workers in the country.
Let's now move on to job security. In the Philippines,
job security is something workers wish for rather than
enjoy.
A growing proportion of the labour force is denied job
security as a result of labour flexibilisation schemes
adopted by firms and promoted by the Government. The
spread of labour contractualisation has meant the
termination and replacement of regular employees with
contractual labour - whether through the direct hiring of
casuals, contractuals, apprentices or through
subcontacting.
As a result, a growing number of workers are denied
security of tenure; paid lower wages with little or no
benefits; and deprived of sufficient training and
information on health and safety conditions at the
workplace. They are also effectively denied their right
to form and join unions, participate in collective
bargaining, and wield their right to strike because of
their short-term status.
Suppressing The Right To Strike
If the right to form unions is somewhat make believe, the
right to strike is even more illusory.
Some 1.2 million Government employees are legally denied
the right to bargain collectively and to strike in
accordance with the guidelines of the Civil Service
Commission. Even the ILO's Committee of Experts notes
that this contravenes Convention 98, which has been
ratified by the Philippine government.
In the private sector, the right to strike applies only
to a "legitimate" union, which is the
"sole and exclusive bargaining agent" in an
establishment. Collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
violations are no longer strikeable except in extreme
cases. But even then it's the Labor Department, which has
the right to determine what constitute "gross
violations" of the CBA.
Before workers launch a strike, they must first submit a notice
of strike (NOS) to the Labor Department. Obviously
then, employers are notified of the strike. There's a
mandatory cooling-off period of 30 working days
for bargaining deadlocks and 15 working days in cases of
unfair labour practice (ULP). This gives bosses enough
time to prepare against an imminent work stoppage by
moving out machinery, equipment and materials, increasing
the number of security personnel, hiring scabs, as well
as intensifying workers' harassment.
And when the strike action is finally launched, its
impact is decidedly muted due to mandatory free
ingress-egress at the picketline. Management is
allowed to freely bring replacement labour, production
materials and finished goods in and out of company
premises. Sympathy strikes are prohibited even
though they are well within international human rights
norms. Trade union leaders who engage in "illegal
strikes" face not only dismissal but also prison
terms of up to three years.
Moreover, the Secretary of Labor can assume
jurisdiction (AJ) over labour disputes and place
them under compulsory arbitration (CA) whenever
he or she deems it to be in the "national
interest" to do so. This aborts the strike action
and compels workers to return to work even if the strike
is already ongoing.
If an AJ is not imposed, other capitalists obtain restraining
orders from the regular courts. Bosses can also
obtain injunction orders to stop strike action.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) has
jurisdiction over labour relations' disputes, including
those placed under compulsory arbitration by the
President or the Labor Secretary. A labour arbiter's
decision can be appealed and referred to the
Commissioners of the NLRC. Their decision, in turn, can
be appealed and referred to the Court of Appeals, all the
way to the Supreme Court.
What this legal maze demonstrates is that despite the
formal recognition of the right to strike, it is de
facto State policy to frustrate this right. And
while workers' right to strike and concerted action is
severely curtailed, labour unrest is also diffused.
Workers' grievances are diverted to a dispute settlement
process that is highly legalistic, protracted,
circuitous, and expensive for workers. This framework
negates workers' collective action, engenders dependence
on lawyers, "leaders", arbiters and brokers,
and fosters corruption and backroom deal-making which
invariably favours the moneyed capitalist class.
Trade Union And Human Rights Violations
The severely restrictive parameters for legal strike
action become justification for the violent dispersal of
many a picketline -- giving rise to numerous cases of
human rights violations against workers.
Monitoring by the non-governmental organisation, Center
for Trade Union and Human Rights (CTUHR), indicates that
cases of human rights violations (HRVs) against workers
doubled under the present Administration, from 109 in
2000, to 218 in 2001. The largest rise was in cases of
Assault (from 66 to 116) and Coercion (from 4 to 52), and
were perpetrated mostly by police and company guards and
goons. In the first quarter of 2002 alone, the CTUHR has
already documented 48 cases of HRVs committed against
1,879 workers at the picketlines.
There is currently an alarming trend towards the
militarisation of picketlines. In the Nissan car motors
strike alone, some 700 Regional Special Action Forces
(RSAF) were used to disperse the picketline and crack
down on union leaders. The RSAF is the counter-insurgency
unit of the Philippine National Police.
In crushing the strike of Yokohama Tires workers, strike,
the Philippine National Police (PNP) employed some 300
policemen and Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) members.
At Toyota Motors, helicopters and land vehicles escorted
by armed RSAF transported scabs and production machinery
in and out of the factory. The president of the Milagros
Farm Workers Union was murdered in 2001, a few metres
from his house, in broad daylight, by paramilitary forces
and members of the Army's 5th Infantry Battalion.
Workers who get violently dispersed are further battered
by criminal charges. In 2001 alone, workers from 16 out
of 29 companies where strikes were violently dispersed
were charged with malicious mischief, grave coercion,
robbery, arson, estafa (a Filipino word for
corrupt behaviour by a person in a position of trust,
also known as malversation. Ed.), and economic
sabotage.
Neither can the workers expect redress from the country's
judiciary. The Supreme Court (SC) recently upheld the
decision of Philippine Airlines' management to
unilaterally declare a ten-year moratorium on collective
bargaining with workers. The Supreme Court also reversed
a ruling made by the National Labor Relations Commission
reinstating 3,000 workers of the multinational
agribusiness giant Dole who were laid-off as a supposedly
"cost-cutting" measure. The SC said that
management has the prerogative in implementing
cost-cutting measures -- including retrenching workers -
even if the company wasn't in the red.
No Union, No Strike Zones
The establishment of export processing zones (EPZs),
special economic zones and industrial estates is welcomed
not only by foreign investors but also by local companies
in part because of an unwritten no union, no
strike policy enforced in these zones. In the 2001
elections for example, the winning candidate for governor
in Cavite - host to the country's largest export
processing zone - openly solicited the support of
business groups by promising to ban strikes and rid the
province of unions.
In the country's EPZs, the Philippine Economic Zone
Authority (PEZA) serve as a virtual extension office of
the human resource departments of foreign-owned
companies. PEZA and local government officials routinely
ignore workers' grievances or abide by the dilatory
tactics of company bosses. In the Cavite Export
Processing Zone, officials allowed several companies to
shutdown operations in 2001 as a union-busting tactic
while they transferred production to sister companies in
other locations within the country. The Chief of PEZA's
Industrial Relations Division even joined strikebreakers
in the violent dispersal of picketing workers.
Conclusion
Workers' oppression and repression are inherent in
capitalist relations. Capitalists always seek ways to
lower wages and undermine workers' collective might in
order to prop up profits. Under imperialist
globalisation, the worsening crisis of overproduction and
intensifying competition between monopoly capitalists is
accentuating the vicious, brutal and inhumane character
of capitalist exploitation.
This is the reason behind the alarming increase in trade
union repression and violations of workers' rights across
the globe today. Despite the formal recognition of
workers' rights in many countries including the right to
form or join unions, the right to bargain collectively,
and the right to strike, the reality is that workers'
trade union and human rights are rampantly violated with
government complicity - in the name of global
competitiveness.
Monopoly capitalists are compelling governments to
re-codify labour laws and policies to further legitimise
the rapacious practices of corporate elites the world
over. The more than a century old policy of
"containing labour unrest" is sustained by
imposing ever greater restrictions to union formation and
the right to strike.
This is the challenge that the labour movement in the
Philippines has confronted over the last 100 years. It is
the same challenge that we are determined to overcome in
the new Millennium. It is a challenge that workers of the
world must triumph over.
_____________________________________________
1 The main contingents of the
Filipino revolutionary forces were defeated in 1902 but
armed resistance in the hinterlands of Luzon and Visayas
continued until 1910, while the bloody
"pacification" of Mindanao continued until 1916.
Go to top
|
