Workers visible only during strikes

Workers visible only during strikes

By Fauzi Abdullah

JAKARTA (JP): As was reported, officials of the Medan office of the Ministry of Manpower and the military have been touring factories in the wake of the April strike in order to oversee the enforcement of some regulations.

The North Sumatra governor has also issued a recommendation to the ministry regarding an increase of minimum wages from Rp 3,100 to Rp 3,750 beginning Aug. 1. The last minimum wage hike in the region took place on April 1, 1993 when wages were increased by 21 percent from Rp 2,550 to Rp 3,100 (Kompas March 23, 1994).

It took the big strike to nudge the governor into recommending the increase. And very recently some parliament members also spoke about the need to increase the minimum wages. In addition, it has also been reported that enforcement of regulations, especially with regard to the minimum wage, has been very lax. Up to April, 31 percent of all companies in Medan paid their workers less than the minimum required, according to official data (Tempo, April 30, 1994).

These facts give rise to several questions, among them that of the "invisibility" of workers as a segment of society with interests of their own. The situation described above indicates that workers gain visibility only when they display their anger by launching strikes. This is true not only for Medan or North Sumatra, but is also indicative of the impact of overall labor policy in the New Order era.

Let us look at some changes that have occurred in certain regulations. Act No. 123/1964 on Termination of Employment in Private Undertakings, for example, has in a way been changed by Minister of Manpower Regulation No. 04/1986 on Termination of Employment, and on severance allowances and compensation.

A few articles in the ministerial regulation contradict the act. Article 11 of the act, for example, obliges both parties, workers and employers, to maintain the status quo. Both parties are obliged to perform their respective duties until the Regional/National Committee on Labor Disputes decides upon the case.

Article 13 of the ministerial regulation, however, grants the employers the right to suspend workers even before the Committee decides upon the case. The employer can thus change the status quo. This kind of change took place without much open protest at that time.

Unlike an act, which should go through parliament and because of that through an open discussion in order to be ratified, the ministerial regulation went through a closed debate in the National Tripartite Body before it was put into effect.

Another example is the minimum wage decision. We can compare this decision with higher norms in the hierarchy of law in Indonesia to ascertain that such a decision is consistent with the letter and spirit of the law. Article Three of Act Number 14/1969 on The Basic Provision Respecting Manpower stipulates: "All manpower shall be entitled to employment and an income consistent with human dignity."

The elucidation of Government Regulation No. 8/1981 on the protection of wages further elaborates its meaning: "This government regulation basically stipulates the protection of wages in general, having its origin in the function of wage, which must be able to secure the life of the worker and his family." We may judge for ourselves whether Rp 3,800 in Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi, or Rp 3,100 in Medan is "an income consistent with human dignity" or "is able to secure the life of the worker and his family".

In terms of the process of determining the level of minimum wages, for example, there is no chance for workers to voice what they want or even to know the reason for the decision. This closed nature of the process is institutionalized already by the Minister of Manpower's regulation formulated in 1971.

If companies want to postpone the implementation of the minimum wage regulation, they do not have to negotiate with workers in their own factories. It is enough for them to get the approval from the Ministry of Manpower.

The illustrations above show quite clearly that SPSI (formerly FBSI) is severely constrained in voicing the workers' interests. SPSI is one of the members of the tripartite body in which the draft for Ministerial Regulation no. 04/86 was discussed. Its voice to protect the interests of workers was not heard. The same is true for the Regional/National Council for the Investigation of Wages. No voice was heard, no clear efforts were seen made to raise the minimum wages. What was heard was a statement published in the press, saying that the real wages of workers were not increasing. It is unclear what SPSI as a trade union did about it. The voice of SPSI was not heard either when the Minister of Manpower, Sudomo, in his decision No. 1109/1986 decided, among other things, to allow management to initiate the formation of SPSI units in factories.

The situation now is different from the time when the industrialization process began in the early 1970s. After more than 20 years of industrialization, the share of the manufacturing sector in the economy has increased substantially, the number of industrial workers has grown, as has the concern of the international community regarding human rights, and especially workers' rights. The problem is whether it is still possible to claim industrial peace by letting one party (the employers) get stronger while at the same time keeping the other party (the workers) invisible.