RI journalists lack protection

RI journalists lack protection

By Lukas Kuwarso

JAKARTA (JP): Journalists face high risks in the workplace but
there is insufficient legal basis for their protection.

On Nov. 23, 1998, the Alliance of Independent Journalists
(known by its local acronym AJI), received a letter from
Britain's National Union of Journalists (NUJ), reporting its
recent loss in its lawsuit against the Financial Times (FT)
daily.

The suit was filed on behalf of four NUJ members who suffered
occupational accidents while working as FT reporters. FT's
management was accused of having neglected to provide proper
working facilities, resulting in the employees suffering
repetitive strain injury.

According to the letter signed by NUJ president Mark Turnbull
and an executive of the International Federation of Journalists
(IFJ), NUJ must now pay 700,000 in compensation to FT.

Similar letters have also been sent to journalists'
associations throughout the world in a call for international
solidarity to help NUJ pay the compensation.

The letter said NUJ had proven itself to be at the vanguard in
seeking justice for its members and had set a legal precedent
which may serve as a lesson for other workers' unions. The story
illustrates part of the job of a journalists' association in
Britain, a developed country with a strong tradition of press
freedom and journalistic independence.

In developing Indonesia, where the press is still in a
disadvantaged situation, the same story is unimaginable.

It would be considered absurd in Indonesia because the case
seems "trivial" and no precedent exists of a journalists'
organization filing a lawsuit on a compensation claim for its
members.

For five decades, the country's sole journalistic organization
was the Indonesian Journalists Association (PWI). Despite
professing itself to be a professional organization, it has thus
far served the interests of the government over those of its
members.

In other words, Indonesian journalists have never had an
organization which fights for their rights and aspirations,
protects their occupational health and promotes their welfare.
The problem may be typical of a developing country, where getting
a job is regarded as a divine gift and talking about rights a
luxury.

Indeed, this is where the confusion lies. In Indonesia, the
job of a journalist is considered more a profession than labor. A
laborer -- euphemistically termed workers during the New Order
era -- is someone working for money. A laborer receives overtime pay
when he works past his set hour. A laborer is also protected by
the manpower law and his pay must not be lower than the
government-stipulated minimum wage.

An Indonesian journalist tends to fall into the trap of
pseudo-pride when he assumes himself to uphold the "profession"
of news reporting.

Truth is revealed in the working conditions of journalists in
the country. It is an open secret that journalists lack clarity
about their working hours, earnings, welfare benefits and
occupational protection.

When doing his job, a journalist is protected only by a
collective labor agreement (KKB) determined by the company where
he works. Unfortunately, not all press companies are in
possession of written agreements. A journalist must therefore
take the agreement for granted, whether or not it sets out clear
and adequate details about his rights as an employee.

In the New Order era, the government introduced a concept of a
Pancasila-based industrial labor relations (HKIP) in industrial
companies. In press circles, this was accommodated by means of
allotting 20 percent of corporate shares to the firm's employees.
Although the provision of the shares is regulated in the law on
Press Principles of 1982 and maintained in the bill on the press
now under deliberation, it is still unclear how this provision
should be enforced.

No press companies have actually complied. Some financially
successful press companies have indeed tried to meet the
provision but in the form of a profit-sharing scheme. This means
that if the company can post a large profit, a portion goes to
the employees in the form of dividends. The question is whether
employees in this manner enjoy the portion of the corporate
shares to which they are supposedly entitled.

Distribution of dividends seems more like "bestowal of
generosity" from the capitalists (company owners) to the
employees. The employees, who should be entitled to 20 percent of
the company's shares, cannot participate in making a decision on
determining the company's actual profit, including how big is the
profit allocation to them.

The significance of controlling the shares should actually lie
in the employees' right to participate in the process of making
the company's strategic decisions. It means employees would have
their representatives on the board of commissioners and the
representatives would take part in the decision-making process.
Representation of the employees on the company's board of
commissioners could prevent firms from making investments in non-
press businesses such as prawn-breeding farms, a footwear
factory, hotel construction and so forth. In fact, the profit
should be returned to the employees for the improvement of their
welfare and working conditions.

Although the share ownership is an interesting concept, the
realization is not simple, while the Pancasila-based industrial
style seeking to emphasize harmony is not usual in a real labor
relationship.

Industrial relations between capital owners and workers are
usually characterized by "tensions" because both have their
respective vested interests. An owner, for instance, hopes to
make the biggest profit out of the smallest capital, while a
worker wants to earn as much as possible by doing as little work
as possible. The tension may be overcome if the owner and the
worker have equal bargaining positions.

A worker may have a stronger bargaining position if there is a
labor union, which will improve worker conditions through
collective bargaining. It can also create solidarity among
workers when the company treats them unfairly, for example, in
cases of dismissals and wage cuts.

A labor union can also organize the relationship between a
capital owner and workers so there is an agreement for common
adherence. The establishment of this union is aimed particularly
at ensuring that a company will not ignore a worker's interest.
In the absence of a labor union, a worker will always depend on a
company owner's "mercy or good intention".

However, everything connected with the industrial relationship
between a capitalist and a worker may be properly established
only if matters of significant substance have been thoroughly
dealt with. If the state, like the New Order regime, continues to
interfere with everything, the first task of a workers' union
will be to oppose all the constraints put up by the state. This
was exactly what AJI sought to do from its inception.

Now that political constraints have been reduced (through the
simplification of licensing procedures and allowing journalists
to join any professional-related organizations) the next task
awaiting AJI is to turn itself into a professional labor union.
This is indeed a difficult job and will take time to complete.

Since the simplification of the press licensing procedures,
the government has issued licenses to over 400 news media, of
which about 50 media publications have seen the light of day. If
each new media publication recruits 10 new journalists, the
number of Indonesian journalists has now increased by about 500
people in the past six months.

If the 300 new media publications start operating next year,
the number of journalists will increase from about 7,000 at
present to about 10,000. However, if the economic crisis
continues, few media publications can afford to survive. The
inevitable result will be a lot of layoffs.

The writer is chairman of the Alliance of Independent
Journalists (AJI).

Window A: Indonesian journalists have never had an
organization which fights for their rights and aspirations,
protects their occupational health and promotes their welfare.

Window B: It is an open secret that journalists lack clarity
about their working hours, earnings, welfare benefits and
occupational protection.