This Thursday, May 1, the entire country shall again observe our fellow workers' day. Therefore, expect that demands from different labor unions and coalitions for another round of increase in the country's minimum wage to be more intense.
Since demands will beso unrealistic (as usual), then, anticipate that the petitioned amount will not be granted. Consequentially, expect labor unions to call for the abolition of the country's Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.
Most of us, however, are in agreement that all these demands are clothed with so much hyperboles for these labor unions and their officers to stay relevant to their union dues-paying members.
So that, time and again, we've emphasized that we must take a look at wages in an all-encompassing perspective. We all know that in more professionally managed companies, it is viewed positively as investment not cost. To some cash-strapped institutions, it is something that they would like to control to survive. To some miserly affluent companies or businessmen, however, it is something they've made their hapless employees continue to starve.
Clearly, in these three scenarios, employers differ in the ways they treat their employees and in their approaches in compensating them. Some are too generous, a few are reasonable and others are just too stingy. On the other hand, laborers and employees differ in many ways too.
Overly protected by our labor laws, even those with salaries three times higher than the established minimum wage are filing notices of strikes. Yet, it is a fact too that despite receiving wages way below established floors from unreasonable employers, some laborers just grumble in the corner by their lonesome. Obviously, they prefer to have little something than have nothing at all. Indeed, there are varying approaches and these are either necessitated by business and economic conditions or just mere attitude.
However, while we've always been on these arguments annually, there is one very significant issue as far as unions are concern that is trivially set aside or has never been discussed in any forum. That is, are union dues paid by the workers completely recorded in the books and its use fully accounted for? To this, the Labor Code is very clear. Chapter II (Art. 241, nos. 8, 9 & 10) provides that "every payment of fees, dues or other contributions by a member shall be evidenced by a receipt signed by the officer or agent making the collection and entered into the record of the organization to be kept and maintained for the purpose." And that "the funds of the organization shall not be applied for any purpose or object other than those expressly provided by its constitution and by-laws or those expressly authorized by written resolution adopted by the majority of the members at a general meeting duly called for the purpose."
Moreover, it emphasizes that "every income or revenue of the organization shall be evidenced by a record showing its source, and every expenditure of its funds shall be evidenced by a receipt from the person to whom the payment is made, which shall state the date, place and purpose of such payment. Such record or receipt shall form part of the financial records of the organization." More importantly, all these transactions shall be summarized in a financial report that shall be submitted not later than 30 days after yearend to the Department of Labor and Employment.
Knowing fully well that some huge labor groups have claimed millions in membership, we can easily surmise that they are collecting billions annually. To illustrate, with say 1 million members at P100.00 per month, the union collects P100 millionin monthly dues. Therefore, annually, it collects P1.2 billion. It's a no brainer. The question is, has the DOLE examined these financial reports and found collections and its use in order? If not, then they are remiss of their duties.
On the other hand, the sector, having a partylist and representation in congress, could have possibly received subsidies or pork barrel. To this, Section 2 (1), Article IX-D of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is very clear. It says that, "The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit, and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenue and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to, the Government, or…(d) such non-governmental entities receiving subsidy or equity, directly or indirectly, from or through the Government, which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity." Clearly, the COA is authorized to examine NGOs or any organization that are recipient of government funds.
Indeed, while it is obvious that we usually magnify situations where the politicians are perceived to be maliciously involved, it is a fact that there are multitudes of lapses and violations committed by labor unions as far as handling workers' contributions and taxpayers' subsidies (pork barrel) too. The audit of these recipient organizations, should have been accorded with the same importance and magnitude.
For your comments and suggestions, please email to foabalos@yahoo.com.