Six-month Notice to Employers

[nicolodeon]

The DOLE recently imposed a six-month notice rule for all prospective OFWs. Under this new rule, the prospective OFWs are required to give six-months notice to their employers before actually resigning. Before this ruling, only a one month notice is required.

According to DOLE officials, this would help stem the brain drain currently happening in our country. Why they say that this new rule is primarily for those in the medical and aviation professions, they did not specify clearly if this would apply non-medical and non-aviation professionals seeking better career opportunties abroad.

While I'm not against stemming the brain drain, these would new ruling can potentially be a career stopper for OFWs seeking greener pastures abroad since the work that would be available for them after 30 days would definitely not be there for them after six months. I mean, if I'm the employer - I won't wait for six months since time costs money and that there are other places where I can possible source manpower that I need.

To all lawyer tsikoteers: could the DOLE and POEA be held accountable for a possible loss of opportinity lawsuit? I'm not an OFW (no immediate plans to be one) but I'm just curious if this lawsuit can be filed and if it would prosper.

Unless the public and private entities here in our country find new ways to pay our nurses better, the government IMPO has no right to stop the carreer advancement of a person in the medical profession. AFAIK, here in the Philippines, the average salary of a nurse that works in a 12-hour shift is P 6,000 (gross). Remove all the deductions, then the net would approximately be between P 2K - 4K (single person).

I'm sure that there are a lot of OFW tsikoteers and would-be OFW tsikoteers. What's your take on this new ruling?

[111prez]

bro -- do you have a copy of the particular DOLE or POEA department order on this? its difficult to make any comment unless you read the actual order.

but generally, yes, the employer can file a case for damages against an employee who violates his employment contract and this includes provisions on the proper leadtime for giving notices for resignations. the labor code has such a provision, to wit:

"ART. 285. Termination by employee. - (a) An employee may terminate without just cause the employee-employer relationship by serving a written notice on the employer at least one (1) month in advance. The employer upon whom no such notice was served may hold the employee liable for damages. xxx"

IMHO, the 6 month notice rule for termination of employment by the employee is not reasonable and for sure, this will be challenged

as for suing the DOLE and/or POEA for the loss of opportunity and potential earning, unfortunately section 3, article XVI of the 1987 constitution provides that "(t)he State may not be sued without its consent" and the DOLE and POEA are part of the state

[uls]

finally the govt is feeling the country's massive loss of skill and talent.

so its trying to solve things with a stupid idea. another band-aid solution.

[RedHorse]

matindi yata ang mga nasa aviation... 3 years!

[Altis6453]

Any executive order or issuance to this effect would have the effect of involuntary servitude. The effect would be for the employees to seek to terminate their employment based on Art. 282 of the Labor Code (gagawa na lang nang kalokohan) or to ask for monumental raises in salary which the employer cannot give anyway. As 111prez said, it will be challenged in court.

The government wants to stop brain drain?!? Why don't you start by offering higher salaries to government-employed doctors and nurses?

[nicolodeon]

*111prez: I read this at the biz column of one of the local broadsheets. Nasa INQ7 site din sya.

[nicolodeon]

Just in though SMS: my bro-in-law (who is a nurse) informed that this ruling would be in-effect within one month.

[111prez]

nicolodeon -- bro, thanks for the info. here is the link: http://www.inq7.net/globalnation/sec.../mar/03-02.htm

the rules are yet to be drafted and it will be interesting to read this once this is published (publication is a requirement for effectivity)

a ban is constitutionally infirmed. DOLE will not pursue this as stated in the news report quoting sto. tomas

the DOLE will however argue that the 6 month period is valid since this is only a regulation but IMHO this can still be challenged as being unreasonable

as Altis6453 correctly and accurately pointed out, if this regulation is upheld and made valid, then you will have employees finding a way around it (termination or resignation then lying low then going abroad or just going abroad straight then getting employed without passing through POEA) and with the complicity of foreign employers (who will want the skills of the filipinos) the DOLE will be creating a problem instead of a solution

tama si uls that this is another stupid idea -- a band aid solution

[niky]

Sounds bad... pero depends on the work. For teachers, this kind of thing is required. Many schools require you to pay for the cost of a replacement teacher if you decide to terminate in the middle of the semester. This has prevented some of my acquaintances from leaving.

But 6 months is just way too long... I agree that it's a bad move. You shouldn't really prevent anyone from following their chosen career path.

You could make them contribute to the economy through remittances, though... mandatory membership in an OFW org?

[yebo]

nabasa ko din yan at natawa lang ako. pwede ba yun, ano yan slave labor at di pwede umalis. isang kaso lang yan sa supreme court taob na yan.

besides, what will stop an employee from asking for an indefinte leave of absence? or simply not reporting for work? and there is always the ultimate backfire, which is for an employee to report to work everyday and do absolutely nothing besides sit on his ass?!!! DUH!!!