Workers need to better their bargaining power<\/p>\n
By Tjipta Lesmanaa<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The current picture of Indonesian workers is not
\nthat encouraging. Of the 90 million-strong workforce Indonesia
\ncurrently has, roughly 60 million are engaged in the formal
\nsector as well as in the informal sector. Forty million of them
\nearn only Rp 150,000 to Rp 200,000 per month, far below the
\npoverty line set by the National Statistics Bureau.<\/p>\n
Of the remaining 30 million, 20 million are categorized into
\ndisguised unemployment or those who work less than 35 hours per
\nweek. Adding to this is the bleak figure of 10 million
\nunemployed, up from six million registered before the economic
\ncrisis in late 1997.<\/p>\n
Labor costs in Indonesia are, undoubtedly, the cheapest among
\nASEAN countries. It is only 5 percent to 10 percent of total
\nproduction costs, while the average figure in ASEAN countries is
\nestimated at 25 percent. Labor costs in industrialized countries
\ncan be up to 40 percent of total production costs.<\/p>\n
Previous governments gave themselves a boost with the cheap
\nlabor costs. It was conceived as one of the comparative
\nadvantages Indonesia could use to attract huge foreign
\ninvestment.<\/p>\n
Two main reasons are attributable to the cheap labor costs in
\nIndonesia. The first is that it is part of the wholescale red
\ntape system. Secondly, it is part of the government's strategy to
\nlure foreign capital. Neither of the two factors are, however,
\nworthy of appreciation.<\/p>\n
Employers in Indonesia cannot afford to pay their workers well
\nsince they, more often than not, have to pay \"fees\" to various
\ngovernment agencies.<\/p>\n
Such \"fees\" are widely seen as a normal practice in
\nbureaucrat-business relationships. Considering its status as one
\nof the most corrupt nations in the world, practices of this
\nnature are very high indeed.<\/p>\n
The amount paid by companies for this purpose is, according to
\nAgus Sudono, former national trade union (SPSI) chairman,
\nestimated to be no less than 10 percent (of total production
\ncosts).<\/p>\n
The payment of these \"fees\" is needed to facilitate the
\nprocurement of licenses, and in supporting the employers from any
\n\"harassment\" by the workers.<\/p>\n
Collusion between employers, bureaucrats and security
\nofficials is deemed crucial in setting up peaceful conditions for
\nproduction activities. Consequently, workers are paid only 60
\npercent of their real wages, while the remaining 40 percent goes
\nto numerous government officials.<\/p>\n
Another bleak figure regarding the labor force in Indonesia
\ninvolves its quality aspect. Of 90 million people eligible to
\nwork, more than 55 percent are just primary school graduates.
\nMany of them have not even finished their primary school
\neducation. Those who attain university education are no
\nmore than 10 percent. Efficiency and productivity across business
\nlines is conceivably very low.<\/p>\n
Those various factors mentioned above are contributing to the
\nweak position of Indonesia's workers. They have the lowest salary
\nscale among ASEAN countries. They are weak in bargaining with
\ntheir bosses, who can, at any time, dismiss them with no serious
\nlegal consequences. They are reluctant to bring their fate to the
\nattention of the officials at the manpower ministry because the
\nlatter is too concerned with businesspeople (the ministry
\nsupports the employers as they get money from them).<\/p>\n
And finally, unlike their comrades abroad, they have no power
\nto use strike mechanisms to pressure the employers.<\/p>\n
The history of trade unions in Indonesia is marked by heavy
\npolitical influence. Put another way, political parties in the
\npast capitalized trade unions to sell and win their platform.
\nThat was one reason why all political parties in the past set up
\ntheir own trade unions. By the time former president Soeharto
\nseized power from Soekarno in 1996, there were about 23 trade
\nunions in the country.<\/p>\n
As a four star general, Soeharto ruled the nation with an iron
\nfist giving no room to freedom of any sort. He claimed to be
\nanticommunist, though. But his regime was, as a matter of
\nfact, patterned on the communist regime.<\/p>\n
Uniformity is one of the styles of the communist regime
\neverywhere. Being aware that the political stability could be
\nthreatened by labor issues, he instructed his manpower minister
\nto squeeze the 23 trade unions and blend them into one
\norganization.<\/p>\n
The motive behind this policy was easy to grasp: to
\neffectively control the trade unions. That was the beginning of
\nthe Indonesian Trade Union Federation (SBSI), set up in February
\n1973.<\/p>\n
Under Admiral Sudomo (as manpower minister), however, SBSI was
\ndissolved and changed into the Indonesian Union of Workers (SPSI)
\nwhich was unitary in its form. Sudomo was previously supreme
\ncommander of the powerful security agency Kopkamtib.<\/p>\n
Like his mentor (Soeharto), Sudomo was a fierce and ruthless
\ndespot. Obsessed by the \"efficiency\" of armed forces
\norganizations he altered the status of the trade union from a
\nfederation to a unitary body.<\/p>\n
The move, however, aroused criticism from abroad. Fearing the
\ncriticism would endanger the business climate, Sudomo loosened
\nhis grip just before his term ended by agreeing to change SPSI
\ninto FSPSI (Indonesian Union of Workers Federation).<\/p>\n
As Soeharto was beginning losing his grip on power, pressure
\nto crack down on the monopoly of the trade union was mounting.
\nMochtar Pakpahan was the first intellectual who persistently
\nfought for the setting up of an alternative trade union. His
\nefforts were fruitful when the Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union
\n(SBSI) was established in 1997. Pakpahan's popularity, at home as
\nwell as abroad, was even greater when the regime managed to have
\nhim sent to jail.<\/p>\n
The movement of Freedom of Association for workers entered a
\nturning point when the Soeharto regime was toppled in May 1998.
\nUnder heavy pressure from industrialized countries, Indonesia
\nfinally ratified the International Labor Organization (ILO)
\nConvention No. 87 (on Freedom of Association).<\/p>\n
Room for establishing alternative trade unions was widely
\nopened by the government act. Indonesia suddenly became the only
\ncountry in the world with the most number of trade unions: 17.<\/p>\n
Freedom of association is, indeed, important in upholding
\nworkers' bargaining positions. But concern is mounting that the
\nexercise of such freedom would only bring chaos without a clear
\nruling.<\/p>\n
There is an urgent need to reform the legal system following
\nthe ratification in 1998 of ILO Convention No. 87 by the House of
\nRepresentatives (DPR). The only ruling on trade unions until now
\nwas the manpower minister's Decree No 5\/1998 which just covered
\nthe registration mechanism of trade unions. It was very limited
\nin its scope.<\/p>\n
The need for a law specifying conditions for setting up trade
\nunions is very urgent. Is just about anyone free to form a union?
\nHow do the workers stage strikes and how do they reach a
\ncompromise when there is more than one union in their work place?<\/p>\n
Without such a ruling, the existence of so many trade unions
\nwould only harm the workers. The right to stage a strike is also
\nin need of a ruling. Production activity would, undoubtedly, be
\nobstructed if every worker's petition of was channeled through a
\nstrike.<\/p>\n
Each employee should bear in mind that the employer is
\nhis or her own partner in bringing about his or her prosperity.
\nWithout the owner, and an undistracted production process, any
\ntalk about prosperity makes no sense. Hence, both sides have to
\nwork hand-in-hand and respect each other as human beings in need
\nof a decent living.<\/p>\n
The position of Indonesian workers in relation to their
\nemployers during the past 30 years is, indeed, very fragile. They
\nhave low salaries, low levels of education, a weak bargaining
\nposition and no freedom of association.<\/p>\n
Hopes were in the offing recently thanks to the political
\nchanges following of the demise of Soeharto. To seize the new
\nmomentum, the government should immediately bring in new laws to
\nmake it possible for workers to exercise their freedom of
\nassociation and to set up a mechanism to solve industrial labor
\ndisputes.<\/p>\n
It is also high time for labor union leaders to increase their
\nknowledge and skills, especially in the leadership arena, in
\norder to strengthen their positions. The ILO could play a
\nsubstantial role in this regard.<\/p>\n
The writer is a columnist and lecturer at the political and
\nsocial sciences department of the University of Indonesia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/workers-need-to-better-their-bargaining-power-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}