Local workers to get international support
Local workers to get international support
Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
International organizations will continue to intervene in
local labor disputes until Indonesia has a sound conflict
resolution mechanism, observers said on Saturday.
Arist Merdeka Sirait and Apong Herlina argued that as a member
of the United Nations, Indonesia was bound by International Labor
Organization (ILO)'s conventions and fundamental principles on
labor issues, including workers freedom of association.
They pointed out that the government should first reform the
Committee for the Settlement of Labor Disputes, a tripartite
forum which comprises representatives of the government, the
employers and the workers.
Sirait and Apong were commenting on the Minister of Manpower
and Transmigration Jacob Nuwa Wea's remark on Friday that "the
government needs no pressures from inside or outside the country
in the settlement of labor disputes.
Jacob made the statement following recommendations from the
ILO's committee for freedom of association to the government
following complaints filed by the International Union of Food,
Hotels and Restaurants (IUF), which embraces the Shangri-La Hotel
Independent Workers' Union (SPMS).
The complaints was made to help the workers who were laid off
by Jakarta's Shangri-la Hotel settle their conflict with the
hotel management which they see as repressive to the workers'
union.
Sirait told The Jakarta Post that it would be difficult for
the workers to win their case through the committee, as in most
cases, the committee would just order the employer to pay
compensation to the workers to settle any dispute.
"There is no legal certainty here in the settlement of labor
disputes caused by the repression of the worker's union. Even if
there was, the workers would still lose the case because there is
no guarantee of their freedom of association and rights to
collective bargaining with their employers.
"Therefore, it's acceptable if the workers brought their
problems to an international forum sympathetic to their cause,"
he said.
Apong said that Jakarta used double standards in its
interpretation of intervention by international organizations.
"The government frowns on foreign intervention if it concerns
the welfare of workers and the people, the environment or human
rights issues. But it welcomes intervention by other institutions
if it concerns money and state budget," she told the Post on
Saturday.
Apong explained that within the existing mechanism to settle
labor disputes the committee's decision can be sanctioned by the
district court to ensure its execution.
"In accordance with Law No. 22/1957, any parties who ignore
the execution of the committee's final decision were liable to
three-months imprisonment, meaning that none of the conflicting
parties could file further complaints with the administrative
court.
She rejected the idea of establishing a special labor court
saying there would be no guarantee that workers would win their
case as only employers have access to the evidence and have the
opportunity to intervene in the judicial system.
Tertiani ZB Simanjuntak, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
International organizations will continue to intervene in
local labor disputes until Indonesia has a sound conflict
resolution mechanism, observers said on Saturday.
Arist Merdeka Sirait and Apong Herlina argued that as a member
of the United Nations, Indonesia was bound by International Labor
Organization (ILO)'s conventions and fundamental principles on
labor issues, including workers freedom of association.
They pointed out that the government should first reform the
Committee for the Settlement of Labor Disputes, a tripartite
forum which comprises representatives of the government, the
employers and the workers.
Sirait and Apong were commenting on the Minister of Manpower
and Transmigration Jacob Nuwa Wea's remark on Friday that "the
government needs no pressures from inside or outside the country
in the settlement of labor disputes.
Jacob made the statement following recommendations from the
ILO's committee for freedom of association to the government
following complaints filed by the International Union of Food,
Hotels and Restaurants (IUF), which embraces the Shangri-La Hotel
Independent Workers' Union (SPMS).
The complaints was made to help the workers who were laid off
by Jakarta's Shangri-la Hotel settle their conflict with the
hotel management which they see as repressive to the workers'
union.
Sirait told The Jakarta Post that it would be difficult for
the workers to win their case through the committee, as in most
cases, the committee would just order the employer to pay
compensation to the workers to settle any dispute.
"There is no legal certainty here in the settlement of labor
disputes caused by the repression of the worker's union. Even if
there was, the workers would still lose the case because there is
no guarantee of their freedom of association and rights to
collective bargaining with their employers.
"Therefore, it's acceptable if the workers brought their
problems to an international forum sympathetic to their cause,"
he said.
Apong said that Jakarta used double standards in its
interpretation of intervention by international organizations.
"The government frowns on foreign intervention if it concerns
the welfare of workers and the people, the environment or human
rights issues. But it welcomes intervention by other institutions
if it concerns money and state budget," she told the Post on
Saturday.
Apong explained that within the existing mechanism to settle
labor disputes the committee's decision can be sanctioned by the
district court to ensure its execution.
"In accordance with Law No. 22/1957, any parties who ignore
the execution of the committee's final decision were liable to
three-months imprisonment, meaning that none of the conflicting
parties could file further complaints with the administrative
court.
She rejected the idea of establishing a special labor court
saying there would be no guarantee that workers would win their
case as only employers have access to the evidence and have the
opportunity to intervene in the judicial system.