For a practice declared illegal since 1974, endo, or the so-called 5-5-5 scheme, has shown remarkable staying power not in workplaces, but in speeches, rallies, and recycled slogans carried on placards during Labor Day every first of May by militant labor groups and their party-list allies.

It survives not as a prevailing practice, but as a convenient symbol invoked to demonize employers when needed. It is a ghost repeatedly summoned because it remains politically useful.

Endo, as a scheme to terminate workers just before regularization, is not only unlawful, it is obsolete. The Labor Code settled this nearly five decades ago. From the 1990s through the 2010s, regulations, jurisprudence and enforcement consistently reinforced the same principle — security of tenure cannot be undermined through contractual manipulation.

Yet the narrative persists. The reason is not legal or economic, it is political. The idea endures because it simplifies a complex labor environment into a slogan that fits on a placard and resonates in a rally. It portrays employers as clear villains and a convenient target.

Undeniably, there was a time when some employers resorted to repeated short-term hiring to avoid regularization. That chapter is real. But it has long been exposed, penalized and abandoned by enterprises that comply with the law. Today, responsible businesses and legitimate labor contractors recognize that compliance is fundamental and necessary. Oversight, governance, and worker awareness have narrowed the space for any abuse.

To insist that endo remains widespread is to disregard decades of legal development and enforcement. It diverts attention from the real issues that affect workers today.

Today businesses face pressures from market shifts, technology, and changing demand. Work arrangements have adapted accordingly.

Still, workers remain vulnerable and require decisive intervention.

But the problem has evolved, and employers are now in a race against time to protect both workers and enterprises amid fierce, merciless, and unforgiving global competition. Failure to act swiftly risks not only livelihoods, but the very survival of industries.

From 2000 to the present, industries have relied on seasonal demand, project-based work, and cost discipline. Flexibility has become necessary for survival. Enterprises that fail to respond to shifting realities risk closure, making jobs vanish without warning. Preventing this intolerable outcome is a big challenge employers face today. Flexibility through outsourcing and job contracting has become essential for survival.

The Labor Code does not prohibit flexibility, it prohibits abuse. Contracting, outsourcing, and project-based employment are not unlawful when done in good faith and under proper oversight. These arrangements allow businesses to grow, generate employment, and remain competitive.

To label all flexible arrangements as disguised endo is inaccurate, dishonest, and counterproductive. It is an existential threat to undermine legitimate enterprises and discourage investment. Protecting workers should not weaken the institutions that provide employment.

At the same time, flexibility cannot excuse exploitation. Any arrangement designed to circumvent security of tenure deserves no defense and no tolerance. Enforcement must remain firm.

Combative and ideologically driven labor leaders need to be reminded that vigilance must not be used as a shield to mouth outdated endo narratives. Shouting and repeating the discredited language of endo does not strengthen worker protection. It muddles present challenges and delays solutions.

The conversation must move forward. The focus should be on skills development, wage growth, social protection, and preparing workers for technological change. These define the future of work and require cooperation among the tripartite partners of labor, business, and government.

Rhetoric aimed at a discarded practice already addressed by law is nothing more than empty political gimmickry. A society that keeps fighting yesterday’s battles in today’s realities is like Don Quixote tilting at windmills, misguided, misdirected, and blind to the challenges that truly matter.

Worse, those who persist in fighting a battle already won are comical, confused, contrived and completely cut off from reality.

What is needed is intellectual honesty. This means recognizing progress while addressing gaps and accepting that sustainability and worker protection must advance together.

Endo belongs to history. Continuing to invoke it clouds the discussion and delays reform. Let us move forward with clarity, guided by present realities rather than past narratives.