Archive for February, 2007

NTU reiterates support for Akbayan as party-list bet in May 07

The National Transport Workers’ Union (NTU) disputes any claim that it is supporting a party-list other than AKBAYAN in the upcoming May elections.

As a member of the Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), the NTU stands solid and united in our belief that the plight of workers cannot be treated separately from the struggles of poor and marginalized sectors elsewhere, and to divorce our interests from that of the marginalized and oppressed is to pit our common interests against each other instead of the common enemy of injustice and the elites that perpetrate them.

We would therefore warn against any unscrupulous groups who would seek to use the NTU’s name for their own selfish purposes. This would include the misinformation being peddled by a certain party list group that the NTU is supporting them. AKBAYAN is NTU’s choice of party-list in 2007, and Akbayan is where the NTU and APL believes workers’ rights are genuinely pursued and protected.

We warn those who would forward any claims to the contrary that sowing intrigue among the NTU’s ranks will not pay off. We believe that the only way that the working class can advance its interest through the parliamentary struggle is through the development of a labor vote. As such, NTU members will not break its unity with other workers who are supporting Akbayan. The NTU will remain an integral stakeholder for the continued success of Akbayan in the party-list elections.

Reference: Bren Sayasa, National Coordinator-NTU Mobile: 09062044037


The Alliance of Migrants and Advocates to Amend RA 8042 (AMEND) and the Network Opposed to Violence Against Women Migrants (NOVA) recognize recent efforts of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to protect migrant Filipina domestic workers (FDWs) by issuing stricter rules regulating their deployment. However, the “protection package” of the DOLE may come to nothing if the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) administration continues its aggressive labor export program, which commodifies and therefore dehumanizes the overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) that it purports to protect. Moreover, as it is, the “protection package” may even be used by unscrupulous recruitment agencies and training centers to extort money from prospective migrant FDWs. We object to the lack of consultation in the process of crafting the policies and reiterate that government adhere to its declaration that it recognizes and guarantees “the right of Filipino migrant workers and all overseas Filipinos to participate in the decision-making processes of the State ?” (Sec 2(f), RA 8042).

We have always maintained that women’s reproductive work is “real work.” Performed by women inside their own homes, household or domestic work is romanticized as “mothering.” When hired domestic workers perform the same work it becomes low-wage work. In both instances, however, domestic work remains undervalued simply because it is “women’s work”. Paid domestic work is prone to abuse and exploitation as it is usually not covered by labor and social legislation. Further, vulnerability of domestic workers is heightened by class and racial discrimination.

We welcome the efforts of the DOLE to protect our migrant FDWs but express our reservations regarding specific regulations and their implementation:

1. Minimum Age Requirement

We recognize the minimum age of 23 as a critical step to prevent young Filipinas from going abroad and exposing them to abuse and exploitation as “household service workers”. Experience and research have shown how younger women are most vulnerable to maltreatment and sexual violence, including trafficking.

2. Skills Certification

As a way of recognizing the skills of Filipino household service workers, skills certification is desirable. The problem lies in the payment of Php10,000.00 up to Php15,000.00 that the migrant FDWs have to shell out for the training and the additional Php1,000 for certification. The prospective FDWs should not be burdened with training fees. If the government considers skill certification as necessary to market “super maids”, then it should shoulder the cost of the skills training and the certification. The government can also compel the recruitment agencies to shoulder the training cost and the certification since the latter would be getting higher placement fees from foreign principals.

In the past, even without this requirement, many recruitment agencies and their training centers had forced their applicants to undergo some kind of training for domestic workers. Cases handled by us show applicants paying Php7,000 to Php10,000 for a one-week training which consist of rendering household services for the owners and staff of the recruitment agencies and training centers ? cleaning their houses, washing their clothes, fetching water, and the like (Kanlungan case files). We fear that unscrupulous recruitment agencies and training centers will use the skills certification requirement to extort money and to exact unpaid domestic labor from prospective migrant domestic workers. We have also noted the ready made certificates being issued by these agencies to extract money from the already financially burdened workers.

We are alarmed that the DOLE has assigned the Technical and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to be in charge of accrediting assessment and training centers for household service workers and issuing the skills certifications. We are afraid that this system might resurrect the historical corruption in TESDA where officers connived with private agencies at the expense of prospective workers. This was the case when TESDA was in charge of accrediting talent and promotions agencies for overseas performing artists (OPAs) and for issuing the Artist’s Record Book (ARB). Corrupt officials in TESDA schemed with talent and promotions agencies for the “sale” of ARBs, thereby compromising legitimate entertainers and transforming the legal deployment of OPAs into a mechanism for the trafficking of Filipinas to Japan.

3. OWWA Culture and Language Orientation

We recognize the value of migrant FDWs undergoing country-specific culture and language orientation. We appreciate that this will be free. We recommend that the orientation should include the rights and entitlements of the migrant FDWs in the receiving countries as well as under international instruments. Moreover, DOLE should once more regulate the Pre-Deployment Orientation Seminars (PDOS) to ensure that it does not become a “certificate for sale”. Recruitment agencies have put up “pseudo-NGOs” that have been selling PDOS certificates.

Workers undergoing orientation should also be given a list of contact numbers, particularly that of embassies or consular offices and non government organizations.

4. No placement fee

We support this specific provision and we urge the government to ratify ILO Convention 181, which expressly states that private employment agencies shall not charge directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, any fees or costs to workers.

For this specific provision, however, we propose that the illegal placement fee collection be penalized. There are many cases where workers’ salaries are subjected to deductions the moment they arrive in their work destinations. We strongly feel that simply prohibiting the agencies to collect placement fees without fine or imprisonment is nothing but a carrot stick.

5. Minimum wage of US$400

We welcome this development. The increase of the minimum wage from the measly US$200 to US$400 is long overdue.

Our main concern, however, lies in monitoring the enforcement of this new minimum wage for household service workers. DOLE also needs to clarify the redress mechanism to help the workers in articulating and asserting their rights. Specifically, DOLE has to set up an effective process to address contract and human rights violations. The government should also address the demand side ? the foreign employers and the brokers in the receiving countries who violate the rights of migrant workers. Embassies and consular offices should have the monitoring of migrant workers’ situation as their primary task.

While we recognize these efforts, we would also like to express our concern as to how the Philippine government will translate these policies from paper to actual institutional mechanisms and processes that will really protect migrant FDW given the vulnerabilities in our bureaucratic processes that enables individuals and businesses engaged in the deployment of migrant FDW to find ways and means to circumvent protection policies in order to ensure the steady flow of profit.

We reject the Super Maids and the Aggressive Labor Export Program of GMA. Government has always hailed OFWs as the nation’s heroes but in fact it has treated them shabbily and with disdain. During Israel’s aggression on Lebanon, for instance, the government failed our migrant Filipina domestic workers. It feigned surprise at the stories of abuse and exploitation. It promised reintegration services; but it came up with a Super Maids Program and now, this package o
f regulations.

The government continues to ignore the biggest problem pushing our women to risk life and limb in foreign lands as domestic workers. And this is the lack of gainful and sustainable employment and livelihood opportunities in the homeland. We demand that the government live up to its commitment to “continuously create local employment opportunities and promote the equitable distribution of wealth and the benefits of development” (Sec 2 [c], RA 8042).

In 2004, GMA promised one million jobs every year. She has not delivered and instead, has tweaked the unemployment and underemployment figures to deny the existence of a jobs crisis. She has repeatedly rejected workers’ demand for a P125/day across-the-board increase and spread the myth that local workers are shooing away foreign investors by their demands. She continues to sell our natural resources and peddle our workers to foreigners. How can one million jobs be generated in the homeland under this president? Is DOLE a Department for Overseas Labor and Employment?

We have remained consistent in our critique of government’s over-dependence on the export of Filipino labor especially since the aggressive deployment of Filipinos for overseas work has taken top priority over the State’s responsibility to create and provide gainful local and sustainable employment opportunities for its people. And while we do recognize that migrants and their families have benefited from this phenomenon, we also cannot also turn a blind eye to the social costs of migration. We demand that government put back the agenda of full employment and the creation of decent work for everyone. An administration that cannot fulfill these should be replaced.

Signed:

Alliance of Migrants and Advocates to Amend RA 8042 (AMEND)
Network Opposed to Violence Against Women Migrants (NOVA)
Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)
APL-Hong Kong
BATIS Center for Women
BATIS-AWARE
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific (CATW-AP)
Kapisanan ng mga Kamag-anak ng Migranteng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAKAMMPI)
Kanlungan Centre Foundation, Inc.
Kanlungan ng mga Migranteng Manggagawa (KAMIGMA)
MARINO
Migrant Forum in Asia
Samahan ng mga Manggagawang Migrante at Kapamilya (SAMMAKA)
Unlad Kabayan Migrant Reintegration Services

 

Statement of concern regarding the proposed EU-ASEAN free trade negotiations

Bangkok, 8 February 2007

 

The undersigned civil society movements and organisations from ASEAN and Europe wish to express their strong concerns about the proposed EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA) slated to be concluded within the next two years.

 

The decision to launch these trade negotiations has occurred without prior meaningful public consultation, either with elected representatives or civil society in any of the countries concerned. This constitutes a violation of basic principles of democracy and human rights, that the European Union and ASEAN purport to support.

 

Any agreement as far-reaching in its consequences and as broad in scope as the proposed EU-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement should involve at the very least a wide-ranging and on-going consultation process, in addition to full disclosure of all texts being considered. A detailed, comprehensive and qualitative sustainability impact assesment (SIA) should always be carried out prior to launching any negotiations.

 

In particular since the experience with existing EU FTAs shows that significant negative outcomes have occurred, while many of the promised benefits have failed to materialise. For example, assessments of the EU-Mexico Global Agreement show a doubling of Mexico’s trade deficit with the EU since the FTA came into force. And contrary to the predicted benefits to employment and labour conditions, since the signing of the EU-Mexico Agreement unemployment has risen and workers are increasingly facing precarious labour conditions and temporary employment contracts, below-standard wages and no social security. While foreign investments have increased, this has resulted mainly in foreign takeovers of domestic industries, without generating additional employment or increases in remuneration.

 

An independent SIA, commisioned by the European Commission for the Euro-Mediterranean FTA (EMFTA), concluded that the EMFTA would have adverse effects on hunger, education, poverty and health. This SIA omitted intellectual property, investment and government procurement provisions as part of the study: issues which normally are considered to have far-reaching consequences for people and developing countries such as ASEAN.

The EU now appears to be pushing ahead with similar free trade agreements in other regions regardless.

 

In this light, the undersigned civil society organisations are highly concerned that:
 

  • the EU appears to be promoting anti-development policies with its push to incorporate the controversial Singapore issues already rejected at the WTO by various ASEAN members;

  • the vast socio-economic disparities in ASEAN and the least-developed status of Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar – one of whom is not even a WTO member -, are not being taken into account as the EU is demanding full reciprocity without meaningful special and differential treatment beyond mere transition periods -  which even the WTO allows;

  • the liberalisation of services at a WTO-plus level, given the dominance of EU services companies, will tend to outcompete ASEAN services providers;

  • the accompanying limitations on the ability of national governments to regulate in the public interest will jeopardise access to essential services, and have far-reaching implications for the poor and rural populations in both regions. Experiences with previous FTAs and our reading of EU policy heightens our concern that services negotiations will include essential services and public utilities like water, health, education, public transport, culture, etc.;

  • any EU-ASEAN FTA will leave the ASEAN countries worse off than the current GSP treatment, while demanding from these asymmetrical partners extensive WTO-plus liberalisation without allowing adequate special safeguard measures;

t>

  • EU requirements that ASEAN substantially lower its tariffs will result in a significant loss of revenue to developing countries which can not easily raise similar funds from other taxation sources;

  • the EU’s high priority on access to raw materials as expressed in its key document setting out the future direction of its trade policy – ‘Global Europe: Competing in the World’ – will seriously undermine ASEAN countries’ capacity to maintain sovereignty over their natural resources, including restrictions on exports, investment and intellectual property rights;

  • the EU will push for market access commitments with regard to government procurement, which will encroach on vital policy space needed for equitable wealth redistribution and social coherence necessary for nation-building;

  • intellectual property protection is already reducing access to affordable medicine and education in developing countries; and that the EU will require ASEAN countries to join additional intellectual property treaties, which will further increase the level of intellectual property protection – to the detriment of the right to health, education and other basic human rights.

Given the above, the undersigned civil society groups from both the EU and ASEAN demand that people’s needs and rights should be at the heart of any economic development including trade arrangements.  There should be political accountability on all economic decision-making processes, including civil society participating as a full stakeholder, in order to arrive at equitable and sustainable development and trade systems.

 

The undersigned,

 

11.11.11, Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement

Agribusiness Accountability Initiative-Asia

Alliance for Progressive Labor

AsiaDHRRA

Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum

Asia Pacific Network on Food Sovereignty

Asian Farmers Association

ATTAC-Netherlands

Centre for Labour Information, Service and Training

Drug Study Group/FTA Watch

Focus on the Global South

Freedom from Debt Coalition

FTA Watch Thailand

GATS Platform-Netherlands

GCAP Senca

Global Network-Asia

Initiatives for Dialogue and Empowerment through Alternative Legal Services, Inc.

Institute for Popular Democracy

International Gender and Trade Network

International South Group Network Asia

Jubilee South-Asia Pacific Movement for Debt and Development

Monitoring Sustainability of GlobalizatioN-Malaysia

Resource Center for People’s Development

RRAFA

Solidarity Center

Southeast Asian Committee for Advocacy

Sustainability Watch

ThaiDHRRA

Third World Network

Transnational Institute

Via Campesina

X-Y Solidarity Fund