Labor policy may be defective<\/p>\n
By Vedi R. Hadiz<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Amid the election campaign frenzy, with
\npolitical parties demonstrating support supposedly articulating
\npeople's aspirations, few have noted the spate of labor strikes
\noccurring along side the campaign trail.<\/p>\n
While this is hardly surprising, it is still rather pitiful.<\/p>\n
Thousands of industrial workers have been involved during a
\ntime which authorities have been most keen on emphasizing
\nstability and nondisruptive acts.<\/p>\n
This may prove that there are sections of society which
\npresently feel excluded from the country's political process.<\/p>\n
These strikes would less likely take place if, for example,
\ninstitutions existed which could better represent and articulate
\nthe aspirations and interests of workers.<\/p>\n
Such institutions are simply nowhere to be found. The
\nFederation of All-Indonesia Workers Unions (FSPSI), for instance,
\nwhich is the only trade union federation recognized by the
\ngovernment, has been notoriously ineffective.<\/p>\n
Thus workers have had to resort to striking.<\/p>\n
To be fair, there have been scattered press reports on these
\nstrikes. Workers demand that their employers honor government
\nminimum wage stipulations.<\/p>\n
Kompas (May 6, 1997), for example, reported that workers in
\nseven factories in Tangerang, one of the most important
\nmanufacturing centers of the country, have gone on strike to
\nprotest employers' noncompliance with government policy.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Ministry of Manpower has put into effect since
\nlast April new regulations which have increased minimum wage.
\nHowever, many employers have responded by applying for an
\nexemption from these regulations, citing economic difficulties.<\/p>\n
Many business leaders have complained that the government
\npolicy of periodically raising the minimum wage is unsound given
\nthe huge burden that businesses have to bear in the form of
\nbureaucratic levies. These levies, many of which are illegal and
\ntherefore comprise what is popularly known as \"invisible costs\",
\nhave been estimated to comprise up to 30 percent of a
\nmanufacturing firm's total production cost.<\/p>\n
By contrast, wages are said to comprise only about 10 percent
\nof this cost, thereby giving rise to the idea that, in practice,
\npowerless workers have been subsiding more powerful, and corrupt,
\nbureaucrats. Thus many employers have urged the government to
\naccompany its policy of raising minimum wages with a policy of
\ncurbing these bureaucratic costs.<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, the government has done little to address
\nthis issue. Obviously, the Ministry of Manpower, which is
\nresponsible for setting the minimum wage, has little power to
\nchange the behavior of officials of other government bodies and
\ninstitutions, from the central government right down to the local
\nlevel. It cannot even control the behavior of its own officials.<\/p>\n
Thus, what we have now is a standoff: increasingly assertive
\nworkers are demanding better pay and a better life, while
\nemployers say that they can only accommodate the wishes of
\nworkers if the government does something to address the endemic
\nproblem of corruption in our bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the government may not fully recognize the
\ngravity of the situation it has at hand. While it has taken up
\nthe policy of improving the welfare of workers by raising minimum
\nwage levels -- response to growing labor unrest throughout the
\n1990s -- it has refused to acknowledge the link between welfare
\nimprovement, freedom to organize, and a high-cost economy.<\/p>\n
We have seen that by tackling the problem of the high-cost
\neconomy more seriously, there is theoretically much more room for
\nimproving welfare because employers are more likely to agree to
\nrising wage levels. The government has also been unwilling to
\ntackle the politically contentious issue of the freedom to
\norganize. It has refused to grant workers more freedom in this
\narea, presumably in the fear that it will lead to even more labor
\nunrest.<\/p>\n
However, it may be argued that placing too many restrictions
\non the freedom to organize has been one of the roots to the
\nproblem that the government now faces in relation to labor.<\/p>\n
The government says, for example, that it would not recognize
\na union federation other than the FSPSI because this would
\ncontravene the \"national consensus\" struck in 1973 that there
\nwould be only one such organization in Indonesia. But this was a
\nconsensus which was produced nearly two-and-a-half decades ago.<\/p>\n
The face of Indonesian society has in fact changed
\nconsiderably in the meantime, precisely because of the
\ngovernment's success in promoting the economic development and
\nindustrialization process.<\/p>\n
A much larger, better educated, and more aware industrial
\nworking class exists today. Many workers feel that they are
\ninadequately represented and protected by the existing union
\nfederation. Would not the existence of a \"rival\" union encourage
\nthe FSPSI to improve its performance in representing the interest
\nof workers?<\/p>\n
If workers then felt that they had an institution that they
\ncould count on, would this not help alleviate labor problems that
\nthe government now faces?<\/p>\n
Quite distressingly the government's thinking on the matter
\nseems to be taking quite a different direction, if the currently
\nhotly debated manpower bill is any indication. Here, the
\ngovernment still seems intent on curbing the capacity of workers
\nto organize, in the hope that this will in turn curb labor
\nunrest.<\/p>\n
While this bill, for example, recognizes the right of workers
\nto go on strike, it places so many barriers to the exercise of
\nthat right that it becomes meaningless.<\/p>\n
Striking can only be undertaken if it does not harm public
\norder and security according to one of the bill's articles.
\nFurthermore, according to an \"elaboration\" of this article,
\nurging someone else to go on strike constitutes doing such harm.<\/p>\n
Thus, an individual can go on strike, but collective action,
\nwhich can only take place when individual workers organize
\n(therefore, \"urge\") their co-workers to go on strike, becomes
\nimpossible.<\/p>\n
The government is mistaken if it believes that policies such
\nas these will solve its labor problems. Workers have continually
\ndemonstrated that they now possess the ingenuity to get past many
\nof the various obstacles that government has placed in front of
\nthem, in relation to the freedom to organize.<\/p>\n
They have, for example, tended to organize in informal groups
\nat a community level, rather than at the factory, because of the
\nsevere restrictions on factory-level organizing.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, the end result of the government's current
\napproach is only to further alienate workers from the country's
\nexisting social, political and institutional framework. Thus, we
\nshould not be too surprised if many workers simply dismiss the
\ncurrent election-time preoccupation with democracy slogans as
\nirrelevant to their lives.<\/p>\n
The writer is a PhD graduate of Murdoch University, Perth,
\nAustralia and is a research fellow at the Asia Research Center of
\nthe university.<\/p>\n
Window: We have seen that by tackling the problem of the high-cost
\neconomy more seriously, there is theoretically much more room for
\nimproving welfare because employers are more likely to agree to
\nrising wage levels.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/labor-policy-may-be-defective-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}