Rethinking Philippine Labor Migration - Part Two

In the total overhaul of our labor migration policies, we need to start with a realization and full acceptance of the fact that, there is today a total incongruity between the current realities in the world labor markets on the one hand, and the core competencies and character of the Filipino workers. The regime of Martial rule under which the Labor Code was formulated is totally incompatible with today’s globalized and free market economy.

Hence, after 37 years of managing labor migration within the framework of an incongruous law and set of policies, it is high time to reshape our strategies to suit the realities of today’s socio-economic and political millieu. The framers of the Labor Code were looking at labor migration as a stop gap measure to respond to a growing population and an expanding labor force, while the Martial Law ruler was going to save the Republic from communism and to establish a New Society.

Under the New Society, our labor force was supposed to have enough jobs and livelihood so as to preclude going abroad for employment. The new society never came about. The Martial regime was dismantled. The Constitution was abrogated and a new one adopted. And yet, Philippine labor migration continues to operate under a discarded system. We have to cut clean now.

Second, the Migrant Workers’ Act must likewise be reviewed and modified. While the Labor Code was too biased on the side of more jobs, the Migrant Workers’ Act is too biased in favor of protection. The reason was that such Act was a reactionary law, designed to appease an angry citizenry after what happened to Flor Contemplacion, Delia Maga, Sarah Balabagan and the scores of other victims of what were considered cruelties and injustice while being employed abroad.

 As a result of the Contemplacion fiasco, Pres FVR was led to fire a very competent Foreign Minister and an excellent Labor Minister. Those draconian measures were merely knee jerk reaction to the peoples’ cry for blood. But our overall labor migration policies should not be held captive by tragedies that do not occur a normal courses of events. We should lead and manage migration from a total and long-range perspectives, unperturbed by incongruities in human events.

Third, we need to resolve or agree on principles of resolving the recurrent dilemna of whether to go full blast on employment to the prejudice of workers’ protection, or to focus totally on workers’ protection, to the neglect of employment objectives. It is very easy for central office theorists to postulate a Solomonic formula of finding a balance between the so-called two equally important goals. But down there in the frontlines, where the rubber hits the road, so to say, it is not practicable to be swaying the pendulum from one side to another.

A clear policy statement should be declared, for instance that, we should go for more jobs and think of protection later, or let POEA go for jobs and OWWA to take care of protection. There should be a clear unequivocal policy decision so as not to confuse the operating units. To tell the frontlines to have a balance between the two is a formula for confusion.Those are the usual approaches of ivory tower planners who have not tasted baptisms of fire in the fields of actual engagement in a foreign post.

Fourth, similar to the third, we need to put resources on both employment and protection but we need to be conscious that these two thrusts need different skills and orientation. Then, we should decide whether to totally privatize recruitment and entrust to the private sector the business of marketing the skills of our human capital, or to have government to take over the recruitment industry, if the same could not be reformed, away from many shenanigans and abuses. Then, we should decide whether DFA should continue to handle the migrant workers affairs or to attach this function to DOLE, or explore another option. This is a contentious matter which requires a lot of discussion and thus will be covered by another column.

Suffice it to say, that we can not go on managing labor migration the way we are doing it now. People are discontented. To me, that is a good sign. It is a sign of concern, for, as the sage said: The future belongs to the discontented. What do you say, then?

* * *

 Email: [email protected]