The fate of workers

The government-sponsored bill on manpower has not even been debated by the House of Representatives, but some labor activists are already hot under the collar, calling the proposed legislation too restrictive for workers.

Last week, it was Bomer Pasaribu, a member of the executive board of the All Indonesian Workers Union (SPSI). As a legislator privy to the bill, Bomer said the proposed legislation, if passed, would "castrate" existing workers' rights. Eleven non- governmental organizations in a meeting with the National Commission on Human Rights said Tuesday the bill would give the government too much power in running the affairs of workers. It would empower the government, but not workers.

Since the House has not even begun deliberating the bill, commenting on its specific contents is premature. But the concerns expressed by Bomer and other activists are valid. After all, the legislation will affect the fate of millions of Indonesian workers.

Looking at the background to the bill, there is no reason to suspect any ulterior motive on the part of the government. Current labor laws of the country contain many weaknesses. They need reviewing and merging into a single and all encompassing law. For example, the current punishment for employers who fail to pay workers the minimum wages, according to the 1969 Law on Manpower, is a maximum three-month imprisonment and a Rp 100,000 fine. This kind of punishment is too weak to have any deterrent effects. There are other weaknesses in the existing legislation. When taken as a whole, therefore, the bill is well intended.

The concerns of the activists regard the right of workers to form a union, and their right to strike. These are two rights -- recognized by our constitution -- which are essential in an industrial and democratic society. While the bill appears to recognize these rights -- and crucial bargaining powers for workers -- it proposes to give the government the right to regulate the affairs of the union.

If there are suspicions about the motive, one does not have to look far behind to find out why. A similar clause in the 1969 law was used as the basis for a ministerial decree that allowed employers to call on the military to bust a strike. The decree was rescinded by the Minister of Manpower Abdul Latief a few years ago, but who can guarantee that another minister in the future would not invoke the clause and allow similar, if not more repressive, measures against workers? The next minister might not be as predisposed towards workers as Latief. The fate of workers cannot be left to the whims of a minister in charge. The law should be clear and firm, and leave little room for interpretation.

Some might argue that the bill can still change during the House's deliberation before it becomes a law. But one can hardly find anything comforting in the recent performance of the House, especially the way it allowed the government's nuclear power bill to be steamrolled into an endorsement.

The prospect of major changes to the bill is even dimmer given the House is already flooded by about two dozen bills -- all sponsored by the government -- which it should finish deliberating before it is formally dissolved in September. With the general election and the one-month campaign period, this effectively leaves the House five months at the most to finish its constitutional tasks.

Unfortunately, the tight schedule facing the House is not likely to guarantee open, serious and extensive discussion for the bill on manpower, or the other bills that are still pending for that matter. Deadline pressure is no pretext for poor legislation, especially when it concerns the fate of millions of workers. If the House cannot ensure a legislation that is fair, it would be better to leave this bill for the next batch of new legislators who will move in on Oct. 1.