For eight consecutive years, from 2016 to 2023, the International Trade Union Confederation or ITUC, a general consultant of the ILO, has consistently included the Philippines in its shame list of the 10 worst countries for workers. It’s time to have an honest conversation with the ITUC and our local labor leaders who seem to take pride in routinely placing the country on this degrading list.

While it is undeniable that some Philippine employers fall short of ideal practices in the handling of their employees, this is a global phenomenon that varies in severity and scale among the 187 member countries of the ILO. As the local saying goes, “kahit saang gubat, may ahas” (in every forest, there are snakes), a phrase that aptly describes the working conditions in countries around the world.

However, ITUC’s selection of the 10 worst countries for workers is arbitrary, unilateral, inaccurate, careless, and demeaning. It appears to be a crude attempt to maintain its relevance amid the global decline in union membership.

ITUC analysts should engage with the countries they criticize, especially the Philippines, which has been singled out for eight straight years. There is no official record of any vetting done on site by an ITUC official or agent to obtain first-hand information on the real working conditions of workers in the Philippines. This raises questions about the legitimacy of its rankings and whether the ITUC is simply conducting a tabletop exercise after receiving allegations from labor leaders.

This situation brings to mind the story of a highly awarded judge who was praised for his efficiency for having no case backlog. When asked how he achieved this, the judge responded, “I listen to the prosecution, then I render judgment.” The interviewer followed up, “But how about the defense, your honor?”

The judge replied, “It will just confuse me.” Similarly, the ITUC seems to render judgment without fully investigating both sides.

In the absence of any record of ITUC investigations in the Philippines over the past eight years, it is tempting to compare its ranking system to this flawed judicial approach.

Perhaps ITUC should reconsider changing its methodology. Instead of shaming countries, it could highlight the TEN BEST countries for workers, promoting best employment practices and inspiring its member countries to follow suit. Additionally, ITUC can broaden its scope by examining working conditions in totalitarian states which might provide a more balanced perspective in its comparative analyses.

If one looks at those ten countries shamefully named by ITUC, including the Philippines, these countries continue to have impressive economic growth as reflected in their rising GDP and employment rates. This only suggests that ITUC’s yearly negative list, accepted hook, line and sinker by the ILO, may be more of a political statement than an accurate reflection of labor conditions.

In an era where company culture and employee well-being are more important than ever, outdated labor practices from the first industrial revolution are largely a thing of the past. Yet, ITUC and certain labor leaders seem determined to keep these issues alive, using unproven allegations to scare workers into remaining loyal to the labor movement.

Today’s enlightened employers fully recognize that workers are the backbone of any business and they do not need to be lectured on best management practices by self-proclaimed defenders of labor rights. ITUC may have unfairly and harshly prejudged the ten countries on its list, seeking to score points with its diminishing membership by perpetuating a narrative of class struggle.

Many labor unions and employers enjoy a robust bipartite partnership but a few Philippine labor leaders feel proud for convincing ITUC to include the country in the shame list for eight consecutive years. Sadly, they fail to recognize the damage this brings to the country’s reputation, particularly among potential foreign investors like Japan’s industrial leaders.

In reality, all labor cases are properly addressed by DoLE through its juridical arm, the NLRC, and the courts of law. Elevating these alleged labor abuses to the international scene through the ITUC is an agit-prop strategy, a relic of the socialist movements of the past.

It is counterproductive and unpatriotic to use ITUC’s rankings as a platform to tarnish the country’s reputation by resurrecting resolved cases, court matters still in litigation, or unsubstantiated incidents of labor abuse.

Rather than relying on external organizations to highlight alleged issues, labor leaders should focus on constructive dialogue and collaboration with local authorities and employers, in the true spirit of tripartism, to create real and lasting improvements for workers.