DOLE: Millions at risk if next president abolishes contractualization

**macsd** · April 25th, 2016 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by b_9904

Which is exactly the DOLEs position.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

If DOLE is against contractual being replaced by contractual, why can't they not close the business that exercise such ? If they have done it a long time ago, this practice should have not proliferated. No one has been penalized that's the reason it has become a norm and abused.

**b_9904** · April 25th, 2016 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by macsd

If DOLE is against contractual being replaced by contractual, why can't they not close the business that exercise such ? If they have done it a long time ago, this practice should have not proliferated. No one has been penalized that's the reason it has become a norm and abused.

Actually, it is the NLRC that has the juris to enforce that part of the labor law.

Re: DOLE they have teeth and stuff but... imma not that into labor law so I wont bother looking up their dole directives to check whether SM, et al violates the law.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

**macsd** · April 26th, 2016 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by b_9904

Actually, it is the NLRC that has the juris to enforce that part of the labor law.

Re: DOLE they have teeth and stuff but... imma not that into labor law so I wont bother looking up their dole directives to check whether SM, et al violates the law.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

NLRC is just a division of DOLE. If DOLE is not into labor law, what is their existence for ? And stop pointing to SM alone, as this practice exist everywhere it was just SM who started such with impunity.

**b_9904** · April 26th, 2016 09:05 AM

Macsd: nlrc is quasi judicial, while dole is executive functions.

If you wanna go after a company in.violation of labor laws then you go to nlrc.

"Sm, et al." Means SM and persons doing SM things.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

**macsd** · April 26th, 2016 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by b_9904

Macsd: nlrc is quasi judicial, while dole is executive functions.

If you wanna go after a company in.violation of labor laws then you go to nlrc.

"Sm, et al." Means SM and persons doing SM things.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

I am not asking what is the function of NLRC, i am saying that it is under DOLE , the same manner NBI is under DOJ , BOC & BIR is under DOF. WTF, you kept stating SM now your saying Sm et al??? Do you have an ax to grind on SM ? Your a waste of time.

**Stigg ma** · April 26th, 2016 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by macsd

I am not asking what is the function of NLRC, i am saying that it is under DOLE , the same manner NBI is under DOJ , BOC & BIR is under DOF. WTF, you kept stating SM now your saying Sm et al??? Do you have an ax to grind on SM ? Your a waste of time.

change is coming!

it is very sad that DOLE which represents the government is not happy that people wont be on a contractual basis!

isn't it good for the people to have job security for their family and not being abused by big time business like hiring them for 5 months then forever renewal only?

how about their benefits? hmo, sick/vacation leave, et al....

and the best thing about this NO contractualization is there would be NO MORE DISCRIMINATION between regular and contractual employees! (been here, done that)

and it should be the government who should start getting rid of contractual employees to set a good example...

**1D4LV** · April 26th, 2016 01:13 PM

imho.....the labor law is not silent on contractualization. ang mahirap is may butas ang batas that huge companies exploit.

contractualization is hiring in 5 months, then terminate.... the employer cannot get the same person to renew the contract. and the person affected should look for other jobs. ito ang kailangan tanggalin.... due to the temporary nature of the business.

project-based is hiring due to the necessities of the activities. contract is for a year, and the employer can renew. based on the labor code, if the employee is renewed for another year, the treatment is that the employee can now enjoy the benefits the same as a regular employee without the security of tenure, but can still be continued as long as the activity of the business exists.

we have project-based people here at the office, that have been with us for more than 5 years. heck, they even have their retirement fund the same as regular employees. they are paid allowances too, with housing benefits, insurance benefits, HMO and uniform benefits. we don't treat our project people as second in level. some of them were also promoted to regular positions (one of our project-based before is now our server engineer, one of them is now our IT security analyst and one of them is now our operations supervisor). We spend and send them to refresh technical training every year and they go out with us on sportsfests, summer outings and christmas parties. we also include them on our annual employee recognition programs.

5% of them leave every year due to opportunities outside. we don't stop them. the only difference is for them, if they do not make the grade on our annual performance process, we just terminate them on that grounds. we cannot do that for our regular employees except perhaps if we have proof na nagnakaw.

my take to the next administration:

a. the contractual (first item above) mode, can be abolished.
b. need to improve on the definitions and widen the scope of the project-based people so that it includes non-critical activities. as long as the business needs the position on an operational or day to day basis, then it should be defined. currently, it only includes technical requirements.
c. enforcement of compliance to the project-based employees should be improved.

my personal opinion is that there is a thin fine line separating regular and project-based people based on the above definition. kung sa US, you can be fired immediately, what would be the difference here? ang mahirap din kasi dito sa kultura ng mga pinoy, pag permanent employee ka, even though you are not productive, hindi ka magagalaw. and most of the pinoys, pag permanent employee ka na, alam mo na hindi ka basta-basta matatangal, nag rerelax ka na.

on contractuals, the business spends every 5-6 months on training.... pag project-based, one time training and an occassional refresh lang. cheaper....

on project-based, pag nawala ang project, the person can be terminated. its the same as call-center agents. pag nagsara account mo, pwede ka i terminate.

again, personal opinion ko lang. everything would fall on how the employer treats every employee.

**b_9904** · April 26th, 2016 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by macsd

I am not asking what is the function of NLRC, i am saying that it is under DOLE , the same manner NBI is under DOJ , BOC & BIR is under DOF. WTF, you kept stating SM now your saying Sm et al??? Do you have an ax to grind on SM ? Your a waste of time.

Wtf... lol. Hay... dear sir, thank you for showing your true value, which is 2cents.

Now, to more interesting users!

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

**b_9904** · April 26th, 2016 10:58 PM

Btw, I am for contractualization. After all, exigencies do demand it.

Suffice it to state, regularization aint some magic wand that will help the poor. Awa will not help them. Ever.

Do remember your econ101, everything costs.

Sent from my ASUS_T00J using Tapatalk

**wowiesy** · April 27th, 2016 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by cast_no_shadow

Sa Government office pa lang.

May contractual, may casual, may project based/job orders.

You just can't regularize everyone since items/plantillas are limited.

You just can't create new items since this should be DBM approved

Another scenario some are not civil service eligible.

Andame dyan tumanda na sa haba ng service hindi parin maipasa ang CSE kaya hindi sila mapermanent item.

Sa private sector I don't know ano impact neto. Goodluck kay Henry Sy at Tan Caktiong.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

agree.. gobyerno ang isa sa pinaka maraming contractuals (perhaps hindi 555.. pero contractuals pa din).. di pa kasama dyan yung kinukuha ng mga kawani ng gobyerno as their "assistants" para may nauutus utusan sila.. i think yung pambayad sa mga ganitong tao nakukuha nila sa mga "nakokolekta" nila.. common to sa mga agencies na talagang talamak ang bigayan...

if you think about it.. government (nationald ang LGU ata) are also not covered by minimum wage law... although mayron silang salary standardization law... i'm not too sure kung all positions in government ay covered ng salary standardization...

malamang pag naglabas ng batas yan against contractualization, exempted na naman gobyerno nyan..