- Written by Ken Fuller
- Tuesday, 11 September 2012 00:00
Viewing the Philippine Airlines (PAL) dispute in historical context, it is not difficult to understand the feelings it has generated. In 1998, it may be recalled, the Philippine Airlines Employees’ Association (Palea) was persuaded to suspend collective bargaining for 10 years in order to assist the rehabilitation of the airline. Then, a few years ago, with rehabilitation complete and the union preparing for negotiations on a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA), PAL dropped its bombshell, announcing its intention to outsource three “non-core” departments.
Airport services, in-flight catering and call-center operations would be outsourced to, respectively, Sky Logistics, Sky Kitchen and SPI Global. Non-core these might be, but they accounted for 35 percent of total staff numbers and 70 percent of Palea membership, among which were 62 percent of the union’s leadership.
In September 2011, as the deadline for the outsourcing neared, Palea pointed out that in 2010-2011, PAL enjoyed a net income of $65.5 million, boosted by other income to $72.5 million. There was, on this view, no economic case for the outsourcing. Furthermore, Palea pointed to Section 4 of the CBA, under which PAL “undertakes not to contract out existing positions, jobs, divisions and departments previously occupied by present or future regular employees within the collective bargaining unit.”
Although clumsily drafted, that seemed clear enough, but the company pointed to the next paragraph, which allowed it to form joint ventures or “spin-offs.” Most literate people would be able to distinguish a “spin-off” from an outsourced operation. My dictionary describes the former as “a usually useful by-product” or “something derived from an earlier work.” PAL also argued, presumably with a straight face, that it would have to close down unless the three departments were outsourced.
The case went to the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE), which pronounced that the company was within its rights and that the prohibition in the CBA “applies only to jobs and services that have been or are temporarily contracted out.” Permanent outsourcing was allowed. But why would PAL have agreed not to outsource jobs that had already been hived off? And what union would see value in such a clause?
The case next went to the Office of the President, which simply agreed with DoLE. For over a year now, the case has languished at the Court of Appeals, despite the fact that those union members who stuck to their principles rather than accepting PAL’s compensation package and turning up to work for the contractor have been on the breadline since Oct. 1 last year.
Just what working for the new contractor would entail was made clear in a Palea position paper published this July. “As contractural hires, the worker would be doing the same job as before but with a big pay cut, much less benefits, more hours of work, no security of tenure and without a union to serve as voice and protection.”
By way of illustration, whereas a PAL master mechanic would have received a monthly salary of P28,000, Sky Logistics pays only P11,111.50.
Some of those currently separated from their employment have given PAL many years of service. Palea president Gerry Rivera, for example, was employed by the company for 28 years. Union secretary Bong Palad was with PAL for 31 years. What outsourcing employers fail to understand (and I had considerable experience of this during my years as a union official in the UK) is that when they attack the wages and conditions of long-serving, tried and tested staff they are dissolving a bond of trust — maybe forever; and when they exchange such a labor force for an alternative recruited on the cheap, their decision constitutes a step into the unknown that will almost certainly back come to haunt them.
By August 2011, DoLE and the Office of the President had given outsourcing the go-ahead. Then, on Sept. 27, Palea held a protest action that resulted in the cancellation of flights. It was a result of this that a Pasay judge this July ruled that 234 of those allegedly involved should face charges, a decision that resulted in a further protest by Palea members.
For some time now, protest camps have been established in Manila and Cebu, providing the picket-lines for the international airports. On two occasions, the Manila camp has been attacked by what Palea terms “hired goons.” A broad coalition of support has been built behind the union’s case, and solidarity actions have taken place in cities in the USA, Hong Kong, Japan and Australia.
In the meantime, the profile of PAL ownership has changed, and Palea sees a “window of opportunity” in the entry of San Miguel into the company and the consequent accession of Ramon Ang to the presidency of the airline, as the new regime has identified the settling of the dispute as a priority. A further hopeful sign is that the Asia-Pacific section of the International Transport Workers’ Federation has endorsed Palea’s call to make this Sept. 27, the anniversary of the union’s protest action last year, a Global Day of Action for Airline Workers.
In early August, Qantas workers in Australia scored a victory when that country’s labor relations tribunal, Fair Work Australia, came up with a package that included a commitment of no compulsory redundancies as a direct consequence of the use of contracted labor. Hopefully, that won’t dampen Qantas workers’ enthusiasm for solidarity action on Sept. 27.
“Arguably,” says Palea, “the fate of the labor movement in the Philippines hangs on the outcome of Palea’s trailblazer fight against contract labor and for regular jobs.”
The outcome will certainly be a landmark, but the whole outsourced-downsized-privatized-deregulated system also needs to be challenged by a broad movement for economic change with an alternative model putting people first and setting the Philippines on the path of real development.
(Feedback to: outsiders.view@yahoo.com)
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento