New law shortchanges child workers<\/p>\n
By Apong Herlina<\/p>\n
Child labor is the subject of an international conference in
\nOslo on Oct. 27-Oct. 30, jointly organized by the International
\nLabor Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund. Apong
\nHerlina, director of the Jakarta Legal Aid Institute, shares her
\nthoughts on the problem of child labor in Indonesia, especially
\nin relation to the 1997 Manpower Law.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Child labor is not a new phenomenon in this
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
For many generations, children, especially in rural areas,
\nhave taken part in activities both within and outside the home.
\nGirls help their moms with cooking, washing, cleaning the house,
\nbaby-sitting; boys assist dads with herding cattle, gathering
\nwood and tilling the land.<\/p>\n
This pattern of child employment has changed with the
\ntransformation from agrarian to industrial society, and from
\npredominantly rural to urban populations.<\/p>\n
With this development, children not only help families in the
\nhouse or on the farm, but they have also entered the workforce.<\/p>\n
The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) estimated in 1994 that
\ntwo million Indonesians aged between 10 and 14 worked outside the
\nhome.<\/p>\n
The figure is probably grossly underreported. Many companies
\ndo not report the number of child workers they employ. There are
\nmany reasons for this, but the most important is to sidestep the
\nobligations determined by the government in employing child
\nworkers. Many children also lie about their age with a view to
\nstanding better chances for employment.<\/p>\n
Children are increasingly engaged in more diverse types of
\nwork.<\/p>\n
In rural areas, they are turning from cottage industries,
\ncattle raising, farming and fisheries to factories.<\/p>\n
Many move to big cities. Some find employment in factories,
\nbecome shop assistants, waiters or household help. Those who do
\nnot have regular jobs look to the informal sector, working as
\nshoeshine boys, street hawkers, street singers or extra
\npassengers for motorists who want to enter Jakarta's three-in-one
\nzone in the morning hours.<\/p>\n
Reasons for child labor are equally as varied.<\/p>\n
The majority of children work because their families need the
\nadditional income to make ends meet. School is no guarantee that
\ngraduates will obtain better work.<\/p>\n
Official regional minimum wages (UMR) do not differentiate
\nbetween pay for graduates of elementary and secondary schools, or
\neven those who never attended school.<\/p>\n
Child labor is an extremely complex problem tied to myriad
\naspects -- legal, cultural, economic and educational. It is also
\ninexorably connected to the development of the nation's future
\ngenerations.<\/p>\n
Some believe child labor should be prohibited outright. In
\nfact, both Law No.12\/1948 and Law No.1\/1951 read: "Children are
\nnot allowed to work", with children denoting boys and girls under
\nthe age of 14.<\/p>\n
However, outright prohibition would be unlikely to solve the
\nproblem, especially if we look at the reality now. Many children
\nare compelled to leave school and enter the workforce just to
\nearn money to survive.<\/p>\n
In 1987, the Manpower Minister issued Regulation No.01\/1987 on
\nthe protection of children forced to work.<\/p>\n
Under the regulation, employers are not allowed to make
\nchildren work more than four hours a day, and cannot make them
\nwork at night. They must pay wages in accordance with the
\nprevailing regulations, meaning employers must pay children the
\nminimum wage level applicable to adults working seven hours a
\nday.<\/p>\n
A child worker, therefore, effectively costs the employer
\ntwice as much as an adult worker. This would make it highly
\nprobable that companies would refrain from hiring child workers.<\/p>\n
In reality, however, many companies simply do not report their
\nemployment of child workers. The limitation of four hours is
\noften violated, both by the children themselves and the
\nemployers. They pay children a lump sum salary, which induces
\nchildren to work longer hours to increase their earnings.<\/p>\n
The Manpower Law No.25\/1997 revokes the two regulations
\nmentioned above, and several other rules that limit child labor
\nand women working at night, regulate child labor and young men
\nworking on ships. All these regulations were made with no other
\nobjective than better protection for children working at certain
\nplaces or at certain times.<\/p>\n
Chapter Seven, Article 95 of the new Manpower Law states:
\n"Every employer is prohibited to employ children", while Article
\n96, item 1 reads, "The prohibition meant in Article 95 does not
\napply to children, who for various reasons, are forced to work".<\/p>\n
The law states an employer is not allowed to make children
\nwork more than four hours a day, but the previous legislation
\nalso set a four-hour limit while simultaneously stipulating they
\nreceive the minimum wage level applied to adults.<\/p>\n
The new law therefore encourages employers to use more child
\nworkers as it does not stipulate the minimum wages that they
\nshould be paid. Children are easier to manage. They are obedient
\nand easily frightened. They do not know their rights and
\nobligations. They have fewer demands compared to adults.<\/p>\n
It may be concluded that apart from extending little
\nprotection to child workers, the new Manpower Law will encourage
\nrather than deter employers from hiring child workers.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/new-law-shortchanges-child-workers-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}