The questions ‘endo’ raises for us EMPLOYER’S CORNER
One opinion writer using the above title tries to invoke Catholic principles to justify the Security of Tenure (SoT) bill, which he claims will completely end whatever is left of “endo.” He is disappointed for its veto and blames the alleged unholy alliance between government and employers.
His arguments alternate from discussing established and universally accepted principles of social justice, to his personal applications of such principles. On the latter, however, it becomes meaningful only when these principles are anchored on a fair and just application to all concerned.
There is no problem about the principles he cited. They apply to all everywhere. But it must be remembered that these principles are valid both for those who employ people and those who are employed. The rights of one does not invalidate the rights of others. Upholding the right of one group does not necessarily mean trampling on the rights of the other group. Rights are never mutually exclusive.
Our policymakers can avert the drift towards a social volcano of discontent by amending all inequitable provisions in our labor laws and cease from filing onerous bills.
The burden is lopsidedly placed on the shoulders of one against the other. There is undue focus solely on the rights of the workers… without equal regard to prevailing economic conditions and workers; performance.
What is bothersome is his shift from discussing universal principles to issues of personal poverty as if material and personal poverty are caused solely by those perceived to have more, the employers. From the arena of general principles, the discussion deceptively veers to an issue of morality, and who do you think is suddenly burdened with it but those, again, who are perceived to have more, the employers?
In other words, the burden is lopsidedly placed on the shoulders of one against the other. There is undue focus solely on the rights of the workers to “have a remuneration assuring an existence worthy of human dignity” without equal regard to prevailing economic conditions and workers’ performance that impact on a firm’s viability.
Apropos this, I am reminded of what Kahlil Gibran wrote: “How vain it is to build a fence on one side, while destroying the wall on the other side.”
Catholics preach principles of justice which are always not cut and dried or uniform for all, but the application of these principles need an intermediate stage prior to application. This stage is called discernment, which is precisely what should be done by legislators whose task is to safeguard the common good and find the right and just laws for all, employers and employees alike.
The opinion writer’s article is objective in the beginning until he begins romanticizing on the idea of personal poverty as a virtue, that, curiously, is where he wants the rich and the well-to-do to be.
Poverty as a choice (not as a curse) when voluntarily practiced remains a virtue to be upheld. But forcing the rich to be poor so that the poor can be rich is certainly not a Catholic definition of virtue.
The writer has mangled Catholic teachings on charity, justice, and virtues of poverty to suit his objective of maligning all employers whom he perceives to be mistreating their workers.
He is unaware that employers who are laboring to keep their companies on even keel are threatened by the avalanche of antiemployer labor bills and regulations on top of existing restrictive labor code which will systematically and gradually erode the base of capitalists. Competition compounded by harsh laws and militant union actions will hasten business shutdowns and restrict the flow of investments. In turn, massive unemployment, rise in poverty level, and (heaven forbid!) civil unrest will follow.
While there is still time, our policymakers can avert the drift towards a social volcano of discontent by amending all inequitable provisions in our labor laws and cease from filing onerous bills. Similarly, regulators must pause before issuing equally egregious orders that further fuel the conflict between labor and capital.
Biased opinion writers are doing a great disservice to workers when they patronizingly and wrongfully write about workers’ protection in the SoT bill. In reality, it is anti-labor, anti-employer, and anti-economic progress. Fortunately, President Rodrigo Duterte judiciously vetoed the bill in time to protect the country’s economy.