What I have observed with this policy the DOLE has in terms of how an employee is paid out of the money that accumulated for years for a company’s violations of some labour standards discovered by a DOLE inspector is that the company is allowed to pay an abused/cheated employee in secret, with no one else – and not at the DOLE, either. Yes, any employee is old enough to come to a decision for herself/himself. OK, that is given and expected. However, I just have one disagreement with this. Something that can be manipulated by a fraudulent company. For one, if they weren’t fraudulent, violations on labour standards could have been avoided earlier. And that should be the main consideration why all their actions should be scrutinised and arbitrated by the DOLE.
Some workers, undeniably, are not vocal and assertive: all these violations can be ignored by them so long as they have a job. For one, an assertion of all these monetary discrepancy can lead their employers to sack them. So, they would rather not assert anything just for them to stay. A job is more important to them rather than any payment of monetary discrepancy they’ve been deprived of by the company. I think millions are experiencing this practice, yet they all keep mum. And the drama continues every day: they are constrained to tell lies against themselves and their rights. No one notices this either. Or, perhaps, most of them have become oblivious or contentedly immersed in the concept of inequity and injustice.
For me such a process isn’t good. There seems a possibility that an employee can be blackmailed or threatened no matter how educated she/he is, so in the end an employee will just say a lie: will go to the labour office and say she/he has been paid despite disapproval in her/his mind, despite helplessness, for what she/he will do against her/his employer is like crawling up precarious ladders. See, this is obviously my point. Millions of employees in this country are not empowered to be vocal and assertive as they can be sacked straightaway for telling the truth, for not following what their employers have dictated them to do. Thus, I believe that the assertion of payment should not come from an employee herself/himself but from the DOLE itself. Yes, I know it is legal to do this. And understand DOLE lawyers for this. That is why I am appealing to our senators to make a more effective scheme on how workers whose rights are violated are going to be paid out in all conscience, and not mendaciously continually, without any threat of being sacked or beleaguered in the workplace.
A lot of workers in this country are vulnerable. They cannot make a stand against companies with Machiavellian legal representatives. And this is the truth that our legislators should ponder as well. If laws cannot be honestly followed, they need to be altered. Otherwise they become ostentatious laws. Something that exists in our illusion and frustration. If laws are not followed, then they become completely unreasonable: show contempt for our intelligence as a country.
It is high time that such a policy was changed. I hope a senator of this country can notice this problem. Yes, for me it is a problem, a big problem. It is a subtle human right violation, which our government ignores to notice to assume that an employee is old enough to decide for herself/himself. But in all honesty, I’m afraid that this policy causes unfair consequence. It offends the true purpose of an inspection. It indirectly disparages the power of an inspection and the DOLE itself. It isn’t deep. It is so procedural yet so insincere in a way. It can also be sidestepped, deceptively – who knows? Thus, the perfect solution is that payment should be done with a DOLE lawyer and key officials and militant groups from communities or universities like UP if possible. Then the pressure doesn’t come from a worker, which is what most workers avoid doing. What if the company hadn’t paid the worker the exact amount set by the DOLE? What if the company hadn’t paid the worker at all? These possibilities are theoretically capable of happening or existing, and likely in practice as well.
Changing this policy is a signal that the DOLE is sincere in helping workers whose rights are infringed. It also signals whether the government really means parity or whether there truly exists a political will to begin change for better and fairer labour standards and practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment