The Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA) and its affiliates abroad welcome the intent of DOLE-POEA (Department of Labor and Employment, and the Philippine Overseas Welfare Administration) behind this policy to institute reforms to improve and uplift the working and living conditions of domestic workers and caregivers also now referred to as "household service workers" (HSWs)1.
We have serious concerns, however, on the following aspects of the DOLE-POEA policy and its guidelines:
- The Context – The reforms were prompted by a number of factors, the recent of which was the "sudden" realization of our government during the height of the war in Lebanon last year, that we have women domestic workers in Lebanon who were receiving a meager US$100 monthly salary. It is common knowledge that this has been the going rate for many domestic workers in the Gulf and elsewhere. What this typifies is the reactive character of government's response to issues on labor migration. But most importantly, it shows the lack of a comprehensive platform to address the issues and concerns surrounding labor migration primordial of which should have been protection and upholding the dignity of labor.
- The Process – CMA seriously questions the lack of consultation of POEA with migrant workers and advocates. They were left out in the dark in the entire process. We can only recall the vague invitation for a consultation on domestic workers issued by POEA governing board member Ms. Mina Gabor to some migrant NGOs sometime August last year. The next meeting was during the forum of the CCOFW2 (Consultative Council for OFWs) on November 23 when POEA finally made the presentation on the package of reforms. We would like to stress the point that the process is as important as the decisions arrived at. The voice of and participation by parties who will be affected by such decisions are important ingredients in good and responsible governance.
- Redress Mechanism and Enabling Environment for (Overseas Filipino Workers) OFWs – Migrants are not simply helpless victims of their dire situation. They should be empowered to become active direct participants in improving their lot. Alongside policies should be clear effective and responsive redress mechanism for migrants. This should be complemented with an environment to enable the migrants to assert and protect their rights and well being.
- Enforcement and Enforcement Mechanism – Since the decisions were arrived at unilaterally by the Philippine government, we anticipate problems and confusion in the implementation of such policies and decisions. For one, the transition period proves too short. Time should have been allotted to enable the wide dissemination of information on the new policies to migrants and prospective migrants; government personnel at the forefront of its implementation and governments in countries of destination.
- Specificities of receiving countries – Migration issues cannot be addressed unilaterally as migrants move across national borders, from the Philippines to other destination countries. Similarly, migration policies vary from country to country, as dictated upon by their own "national agenda and interest". We believe however that trade, economic, diplomatic and security agenda with other countries should complement, rather than undermine, negotiations for better deal for our migrant workers.
Notwithstanding these fundamental concerns, we see specific merits as well as problems in the DOLE-POEA package of reforms, to wit:
- Objective of the Reforms –We welcome this initiative. The new policies may discourage migration for domestic work under exploitative conditions unless the standards set herein are met. We have always expressed concern for our women domestic migrant workers –being the most vulnerable to abuses and exploitation because of the very "nature" of the job, i.e. unregulated by law because the "work sites" are the private homes of the individual employers. This is compounded by domestic work still not being officially and formally recognized as of the labor sector in many countries thus out of reach by existing labor and social laws.
- Name hiring. Stringent requirements as outlined in the new policies must also be complied with by employers under the name hire system and should extend to diplomatic corps either of the Filipino and foreign missions. We have reports on file in CMA of our own Filipino diplomats being accused (and one was found guilty by a foreign court) of maltreatment by their own Filipino domestic workers.
- Pre-qualification of Foreign Placement Agencies . We view this as a positive measure. But do we have enough POLOs (Philippine Overseas Labor Offices) and competent personnel to handle this? On site, on the negotiating table, this job requires faith and confidence in our own strength and capabilities. We only have 34 POLOs in 24 countries and destinations3. We are even closing down two. We do not have a POLO in Cyprus, one of the top ten destinations of domestic workersThere should be a clear monitoring and periodic reporting back mechanism for POLOs to report on compliance with this. This will also entail periodic performance audit of POLOs.
- Verification of Additional Job Orders for HSWs and low/ semi-skilled female workers and their individual employment contracts. We consider this too as a positive measure. We would like to register the same concerns as in item 3.
5. Pre-qualification of the Applicant HSW – The vulnerabilities to abuses of women domestic workers are primarily due to societies' low regard, low valuation and almost non-recognition of women's domestic work as work. Hence the possession of skills by the migrants may not guarantee the ultimate protection from abuses and exploitation. The trainings however or their equivalencies are welcome provided that these are done FREE of CHARGE to the worker and that the curriculum as well as the trainors will prove competent and sensitive to the needs and realities of OFWs. Unfortunately, we have yet to see improvements in the way OWWA is managing the PDOS program.
We welcome the exemptions of experienced HSWs from training but we are concerned that the assessment which they still have to undertake to be qualified for exemption will be done haphazardly. We would like to see the standards opened for scrutiny by competent HSWs themselves.
We are likewise concerned that this pre-qualification procedure will be taken advantage of by TESDA-accredited agencies to exact additional exorbitant fees from the migrants. Hence, we would like to see clear implementing and monitoring guidelines from TESDA and POEA in this regard.
6. Minimum age requirement of 25 years –The POEA's rationale for the raising of the minimum age requirement is maturity and better psycho-social preparedness of the worker based on biological age. It may be partly valid, but age is no guarantee that domestic workers who fulfill this requirement will be better treated. As again, we reiterate that the vulnerabilities of migrants go with the very "nature" of the job and the discriminatory attitudes of societies in general. Hence, advocacy and trainings should also be geared towards changing attitudes and perceptions of individuals and society towards women's work in general and domestic work in particular.
7. Increase in Salary to US$400 as the Entry Level or the minimum monthly salary While this may be laudable especially for many Gulf countries where the prevailing salary rate is between US$150-200, we would like to know how POEA intends to enforce this. Singapore and many countries where this prescribed minimum wage would certainly benefit our migrant workers are far from accepting a minimum standard for wages of domestic workers. In countries where the minimum or going wage rates are higher than US$400 like Taiwan (NT$185,840), Hongkong (HK$3,400), Israel (US$950); and Greece (600 Euros), it looks logical that the Philippine government would encourage and support enjoyment of these higher wages by Filipino domestic workers . Unfortunately, we have reliable information of OFWs being shortchanged because the minimum wage as prescribed by the POEA is already stamped on the standard employment contracts thus depriving the worker from availing of the higher minimum legislated wage in that particular receiving country.
8. Exemption from the POEA Placement Fee Policy . This is long overdue and is not a new policy as this only reverts back to the previous practice in the early years of the labor export industry where placement fees were borne by employers and employment agencies abroad. This is also consistent with International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 181 on no-fee charging by private placement agencies. Again, however, we would like to know what mechanisms are being put in place to monitor compliance with this provision by the recruitment and placement agencies.
9. No license issuance for applicant-recruitment agencies with HSWs as new market which implies a moratorium in the issuance of new POEA license for applicants using domestic workers as its new market. We welcome this but we would like to see the strengthening of POEA's anti-illegal recruitment task force and effective coordination between the POEA and the Presidential Task Force against Illegal recruitment. We are concerned that the current unclear and overlapping of functions between these two bodies will render both ineffective in the performance of their vital functions to stamp out illegal recruitment.
10. POEA On-Line Verification System. This is also a positive measure. POEA however, together with the other agencies of government should also strive to work for the fulfillment of section 20 of RA 8042 and establish a shared government information system for migration. More than eleven years have passed since the passage of RA8042 and this is still not realized.
- Other Proposals from POEA . We also welcome these proposals. We consider them as relevant to the effective implementation of this policy:
- Inclusion of domestic work in the national labor and social legislation
- Bilateral agreements on terms and conditions governing the recruitment
- Selection and hiring of Filipino workers
- Adoption of jointly approved Standard Employment Contract
- Sharing of Data base and adoption of the alternative "corporate servicing scheme" or live out arrangements for HSW
To allow for broad consultation and wide information dissemination, we earnestly ask the POEA for a 90-day moratorium on the implementation of these policies. This will provide adequate time for concerned groups to give their input to the improvement of the policy. We at CMA together with our affiliates abroad remain committed to a constructive participation in this process with the best interests of the Filipino migrant workers in mind.
The ensuing dialogue and exchanges around this new policy will offer both the Philippine government and us, concerned stakeholders, to take a closer and deeper look at the plight of overseas Filipino workers to address long term and outstanding migration issues as they relate to poverty, employment, governance and national development.
1 This is an updated version of the Statement. The original was submitted on January 31, 2007 to POEA Admin. Baldoz, Governing Board Member Ms. Mina Gabor, DOLE Sec. Art Brion and House Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs. The essence of the two versions remains the same.
2 CCOFW is a GO-NGO forum on policy issues on labor migration.
3 2005 DOLE ILAS Figure. To cite, Kuwait, top country destination of domestic worker in 2005 has 1 POLO. Saudi Arabia, which ranked 4th for the same period, has 4 POLOs. Hongkong, has 1 POLO.
No comments:
Post a Comment