Labor contracting, casting the stone (Part 2)

Others may argue that such arrangements still give employment to a large segment of the population and, thus, alleviate the unemployment situation in the country.

One thing I enjoy about writing my articles here is the shift from legal writing to one that’s free and easy.

In the former, I posit an argument and discuss it in a regimented manner with heaps of legal jargon. With the free-and-easy writing, I just express things in the most colloquial way, hitting the computer keys with whatever comes to mind.

And yet, in so doing, I am faced with the challenge of being able to convey the same message, with the same impact, as if free-and-easy were legal writing.

So in my article today, l will do light enlightenment on “endo.”

Juan was 26 years old and able-bodied. He had a wife set to give birth with their first child in a week’s time. The couple was broke and jobless. Desperate for a job, Juan applied in a company. The company willingly accepted him, but on one stringent condition – his job was only for a five-month period.

Just so he could tide his family over, Juan readily agreed. He performed with flying colors. Company was impressed. After five months, he was told to rest (with the unwritten understanding that he would be taken in again after).

After a month or so, he was asked to report for work, again for another five months and in the same job.

Fast forward to today, now 32 and with three additional mouths to feed, Juan is still at it — the same routine, as the cycle continues over and over.

Despite performing very well and impressing his bosses, Juan never went up the corporate ladder. His situation never improved. He remains and will remain a five-month contractual employee till kingdom come, devoid of benefits.

You might think that his situation is a one-off. Or that probably, only a number of Filipinos have this fate. You’d be surprised to know many corporations are at it.

This is “Endo,” the practice of hiring employees for a period of less than six months.

What’s with the six months? By law, an employee generally becomes regular if he works for a company for more than six months. With regular employment, certain legally mandated benefits kick in —- overtime pay, night-shift differential, sick and vacation leaves, 13th Month Pay, etc. Most importantly, employment cannot just be terminated at whim, without valid reason.

Sad to say, this is the prevalent practice in many companies in the country today. With this arrangement, an employee may be working in an establishment for a cumulative period of five years or so and yet still not be considered regular as the company argues that he never completed the law-prescribed six-month period.

Yes, with this practice, companies save tremendously on labor costs. There are no overtime pays to speak of. No night-shift differentials. 13th month pays conveniently consigned to oblivion. Astounding when you compute the savings of a company that has a thousand less-than-six-month contract employees. But are there pernicious effects that come with it? Viewed from the employee’s perspective, it is to the grave detriment of the ordinary, hard-working Juan. Undoubtedly, this dashes his hopes of being able to level up, or at least have a bigger pay; or even be accorded benefits rightfully granted by law. And yet Juan, even if conscious of getting the short end of the stick, for the lack of a greener pasture and not wanting to go out of his comfort zone, is constrained to accede to such arrangement as it is a better alternative than not being able to put bread on the table.

Now I don’t know about you, but I firmly believe this is certainly unfair, illegal and a devious way of skirting our labor laws on security of tenure and legal benefits. I know of some cases where an employee has worked for more than five years in a company, but has never been given any vacation or sick leave and worse, has never received any 13th month pay. There have also been cases where an employee who has rendered long years of service to a company through the continuous renewal of his less-than-six-month employment contract, will suddenly lose his job on the ground that management arbitrarily decided not to renew his contract.

Others may argue that such arrangements still give employment to a large segment of the population and, thus, alleviate the unemployment situation in the country. Further, with the employment generated, a more robust economy results. Besides, if the employee accepts this arrangement in exchange for a decent wage, then why should government interfere? But this is precisely why government should intervene — the employee does not have any other option but to accept such arrangement.

In an effort to end such practice so gravely detrimental to our labor force, the government issued Department Order No. 174 last year. Under this Order, the practice of rehiring employees for short periods is prohibited for being contrary to public policy.

I know this guileful scheme cannot be eradicated overnight. But with continued and relentless action from the government, this is achievable. Time will tell. Fingers crossed.