The fate of workers
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was rescinded by the Minister of Manpower Abdul Latief a few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.