Kasambahay Law four years later: ‘ masaket poh koyah’
Let us protect the rights of Kasambahays. But we should never forget that employers have rights too.
Four years after the Kasambahay Law ( RA 10361) took effect, this column is sorely tempted to say “I told you so.” But the mature individuals that we are, we won’t.
Instead, as we wrote before the law took effect, “if we must have such laws, let it be that which promotes accountability, responsibility, and merit. But if a Kasambahay Law (as it’s drafted now) gets enacted, then it would be better, particularly for those of the middle class, not to hire maids anymore. Better save your money and just do the chores you can do better anyway.”
So far, that comment seems more and more prescient everyday.
The problem with the Kasambahay Law is that it works on the bizarre assumption that most employers and household owners are complete jerks.
One sees this in the Declaration of Policies, which focuses in giving the household help protection against violence, exploitation, abuse, discrimination, and even going so far as to mention — again, bizarrely — “gender sensitive measures.”
No requirement whatsoever of professional development, skills training, and personal accountability.
It’s all about doling more rights without demanding any form of personal responsibility.
RA 10361 ignores the fact that in the Philippines, household helps have a special relationship with their employers not present in the developed or Western world ( whose laws the Kasambahay Law seem patterned after). That’s why they’re called
Kasambahay: household helps are not merely employed servants, they’re considered part of the employer’s extended family.
Hence, if the household help gets sick, physically or emotionally ( i. e., heartbroken), the employer cares and consoles, an uncle dies the employer handles the funeral costs, the help’s grandmother gets sick and she’s allowed immediate vacation leave to visit. Even without RA 10361 Filipino employers gets the willing ( and able) household help through school, paying for her tuition, books, and allowance.
No Western ( and perhaps even developed ASEAN country) employer would generally go through that crap. The relationship is purely contractual and professional. And the Kasambahay Law blithely ignores this.
Instead, it self- righteously demands that the employer give the household help professional treatment and compensation but without requiring reciprocal professionalism and competence from the latter.
Remember, this is within the unbelievable context — despite a supposed national literacy rate of 99% — that many of those applying to be household helpers don’t even know how to cook, boil water, clean furniture, launder clothes.
And breakages in dishes, ceramics, and appliances would be common.
Yet these are the people who demand substantial rest periods, cellphone loads, cable TV, and WiFi access. But most only get their skills after they’re employed, assuming they stay long enough.
Regarding that last sentence, a peculiar trend is seemingly sweeping the country and coincidentally it gathered force after the enactment of the Kasambahay Law: that of absconding maids.
By which we mean those applying to be household helps from the provinces ( and even through agencies) demand they be given transportation and allowance money first before moving to Manila. The good employer, after cabling the funds, would then never hear of that applicant again.
Or the applicant does arrive in Manila, stays for a few days with her employer, then suddenly develops an obsession for education, a needy husband, or a relative gets terminally ill, and she has to go home.
In both instances, the prospective employer will be unable to recover his money (normally in the thousands of pesos).
Whoever made the Kasambahay Law apparently has delusions about our Philippine criminal justice system.
Frankly, I don’t mind giving professional compensation, contractual arrangements, etc., so long as the maid herself is competent and professional. That is but reasonable.
A glance at one of the recruitment pages in the US reveal the following capabilities demanded of domestic helpers: competent housekeeping; prepare family meals; garden maintenance; supervising children, grocery shopping; knowledge of cleaning procedures; experienced caregiver to elderly adults; ability to read and follow instructions; and knowledgeable of safety practices.
A review of such recruitment pages and related US laws would show that their meals are not part of the compensation. Furthermore, breakages and other result of negligent or incompetent acts could (under specific conditions) lead to a deduction from the wages. Let’s have that.
And let’s have a national database system to track down household helps who cheated, stole, did incompetent work, etc., so that they can be blacklisted and never have the opportunity to harm another prospective employer.
And let’s have a non- appealable fast track judicial system that can immediately fine, impose damages, or imprison (after all, absconding with someone else’s money as described above is actually swindling) wayward household helps.
There are (according to some estimates) around 2.5 million domestic helps in the country today. That’s potentially 2.5 million Filipinos the Kasambahay Law is signaling they are entitled to do whatever they want without consequences.
So, yes, let us indeed protect the rights of Kasambahays. But we should never forget that employers have rights too.