|
A SERIOUS contradiction, apparently caused by naiveté
or dishonesty or both, has infected nongovernment efforts to improve
the lot of household helpers.
While some groups have been
clamoring for the passage of a bill raising the wages of domestics
working in the Philippines, others have protested against government
efforts to increase the minimum salaries of those deployed abroad.
The legislative measure aimed at
increasing the wages of locally-employed domestic helpers is
premised on human rights, and is meant to align existing norms with
the higher standards required by the principle of emancipation.
The bill’s progress in the
halls of Congress is a testament to the unwavering efforts of
nongovernment organizations to advance the human rights of
domestics. The Senate recently approved the measure, taking the
cause of raising domestics’ living standards a step closer to
reality.
To be sure, a P2,000 minimum
monthly pay isn’t enough, especially in Metro Manila. That amount
translates to a measly daily wage of about P67, way below the
mandated average of P250. However, the adjustment is a big
improvement over the P800 minimum now obtaining for local domestics.
But while things are looking up
for them, the same cannot be said of their peers deployed in other
countries. A Palace initiative meant to raise the wages of household
helps working abroad has come up against opposition from
nongovernment groups supposedly working to uplift their lives.
These groups surprisingly have
marshaled free market-inspired arguments to push for their cause.
They say increasing the minimum wage for domestics abroad would
price them out of the market, as Indonesians and other nationals are
more than willing to do the same job for less the pay.
This argument reminds us of
employer groups who buck another pending legislation aimed at
raising the national minimum wage. But should we align local
employers’ interests with those of overseas-based domestics?
We think not. Local employers’
opposition to raising the national minimum wage by legislation is
driven by economic realities and the structural weakness of most
Philippine enterprises. To reprise an argument we raised in an
earlier editorial, not all businesses enjoy the double-digit profit
growth reported by blue-chip firms, since many are small and medium
enterprises whose margins are narrower owing to the great number of
players in their industries.
Despite this, their workers still
have recourse to regional tripartite boards or to collective
bargaining for wage adjustments. Not so for domestics working
abroad, whose only recourse is the Philippine embassy or consulate,
which, in any event, can’t enforce an employment contracts to
which it isn’t a party.
The Palace plan to require a
minimum wage for overseas domestics is aimed at obtaining parity for
these workers who are employed in so-called 3D work situations. The
matter of pricing them out of the market, therefore, is worth
pursuing if that is a market for dirty, degrading and dangerous
jobs, from which only unscrupulous recruiters benefit.
From a strategic trade
perspective, therefore, it makes sense to secure the premium niche
for Filipino domestics by demanding a higher minimum wage. If
pursued, this policy provides incentives for everyone in the
business—from the recruiter to the applicant—to ensure quality
employment. This will result in better work and living conditions
for domestics abroad, and would minimize the tragedy of 16-year-old
girls returning home abused or, worse, in caskets.
|
