> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 22:59:05 +0800 (HKT) > From: AMRC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: ANTI-WORKER MANPOWER BILL TO BECOME LAW ON OCTOBER 1, 1998 > > Dear Friends > > The draft on manpower bill was finally approved by the House of > Representatives on September 11, 1997, despite wide protests from workers, > legal experts, NGOs and others. The bill will be passed into law on October > 1, 1998.=20 > > Please respond to this call for International Solidarity from Indonesian > Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) in Indonesia. > > OPPOSE THE MANPOWER BILL IN INDONESIA =20 > > There are pro=92s and con=92s. The All Indonesian Workers Union (FSPSI) is = > one > of those which is pro the bill, even though its members oppose. The > disagreement between the FSPSI Central Board and its members was revealed i= > n > the seminar on the bill organized by the FSPSI and ICFTU APRO on September > 27, 1997 in Jakarta. Meanwhile, most workers and NGOs have opposed the > deliberation of the bill.=20 > > There is no substantial change in the bill in case of protecting workers=92 > rights, instead it is anti-workers. If passed into law, Indonesian workers > will face juridical hindrances in defending for their rights, especially th= > e > freedom of association, the rights to strike, negotiate CBAs and be served > by a democratic labor dispute committee.=20 > > No Guarantee on Job Security > > The bill does not guarantee job security. This refers to Articles 16-19 on > contract workers which do not specify the working period and type of work, > saying that details will be set up in the Government Decree. Under such > article, the fate of Indonesian workers will much depend on the generosity > of the government to extend their working period. There is no guarantee fo= > r > a long term job.=20 > > Illegal system of contract workers has widely been practiced in all sectors= > =2E > Companies prefer to apply such system to get cheaper and more easily > dismissed workers without legal procedures, as well as to build self-contro= > l > among the workers. Thus, there is no employer willing to extend the job > contract of a worker with a =93bad efficiency report=94, such as demanding = > for > salary increase or being involved in trade union activities.=20 > > So far, there has not been any legal sanction by the government for the > illegal practices, but the next government decree might be to legalize the > practices. > > No Freedom to Organize > > The manpower bill do not fully address the freedom to organize. Even though > the right to organize is mentioned in Article 27, but the next following > articles just negate the meaning:=20 > > Firstly, to reduce the function of a trade union to the extend only to > negotiate a CBA and being a party in labor dispute cases (Article 32). > > > > The provision negates the workers universal right to be involved in the > decision makings on economy, social, politics, laws and others which will > direct or indirectly affect their lives. The provision also negates the > workers public right as citizens.=20 > > Secondly, to require any trade union to register to the government (Article > 33). This article is adopted from Ministerial Decree No. 03/1993 on the > registration of a trade union, which is the revision of Ministerial Decree > No. 01/1970. > > The article opens a way to the government to intervene in the establishment > of an independent trade union. Up to this time, the Serikat Buruh Merdeka > (Free Trade Union) and Serikat Buruh Seluruh Indonesia (All Indonesia > Prosperity Trade Union) have not been acknowledged by the government, for > not addressing the government=92s desire. In conclusion, workers have no ri= > ght > to organize. > =20 > The government=92s interest in this case is to protect FSPSI as the only > acknowledged trade union in the country. Under such condition, it is > understandable that the FSPSI, as the government=92s instrument to control > workers, supports the bill even if it is only as a pro forma. > > The article is quite contradictory, considering that the Manpower Ministry > does not have the right to acknowledge a trade union. Under the laws, the > legality of an organization is not determined by the government, but the > agreement between the establishing parties before registering to the court > as merely an administrative requirement.=20 > > Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) > > The right to negotiate a CBA is limited, due to the following reasons:=20 > > Firstly, the CBA negotiation is limited only at the plant level (Article 48 > (1)), not in the industrial sector. > > This provision not only creates a social gab among workers, but also limits > trade union=92s power to the plant level.=20 > > Secondly, the contents of the CBA should not contradict the existing laws > (Article 51 (2)).=20 > > This article may have different interpretation, which is CBA negotiation > only on normative rights that would reduce the CBA significance. Normative > rights (legal rights/legal minimum standard), such as legal minimum wage, > are the employer=92s obligations without the need to negotiate. > > Thirdly, CBA should be made based on mutual agreement, without pressures > (Article 48 (2)).=20 > > This means that workers are not allowed to strike when the management does > not fulfill their demands or refuses their CBA reformation. Politically, > the article is meant to cut down the workers=92 bargaining power. > > > > > Strike > > Even thought the right to strike is acknowledged in Article 74, but in > practice it is almost impossible to implement due to:=20 > > Firstly, strike can only be done due to normative rights (legal rigths), i= > n > the context of law enforcement. Strikes are not allowed during CBA > negotiation (Article 48 (2) on CBA).=20 > > Secondly, Article 76 says that strike is allowed only within the factory > compound. This means; (a) Preventing workers to organize solidarity strikes= > , > (b) Localizing and reducing the function of a trade union only at the plant > level, =A9 Preventing mass strikes, demonstrations or workers rallies out o= > f > the government=92s control. > > This article may be to suppress the possibility of mass strikes and labor > demonstrations that have been increasing in the recent years. It should be > realized that the high number of labor strikes and demonstrations is in fac= > t > caused by the non-functioning of the official industrial institutions in > defending and channeling the interests of workers, who consequently find > alternative ways. As long as there is no solution on the substantial > problem, such restrictions would not work. =20 > > Thirdly, Article 79 says that a strike should not disturb public security > and order, nor should it threaten any lives or damage the properties of the > company or community. =20 > > Under this article, which has multi interpretations, a strike may easily be > considered as a criminal act. =20 > > This is quite an illogical article, since any strike would normally cause > public and capital disorders that would pressure the company to fulfill the > workers=92 demands. Under such article, demand for a better working condit= > ion > may be considered as a criminal case. =20 > > Labor Dispute Resolution > > Labor dispute resolution should be based on mutual agreement (Article 56). > In case of deadlock, the case may be solved either through court or > arbitration and mediation (Article 57). > > The articles are so confusing, since do not clarify the type of dispute and > the labor dispute resolution committee to deal with. In fact, labor dispute= > s > should be categorized into right and interest disputes. =20 > Right disputes, such as violations on workers rights, as mentioned by laws, > and on CBA should be solved through court for law enforcement. Interest > disputes, such as conflicts during the CBA negotiation or plan for > dismissal, should be dealt outside the court.=20 > > > > > > Problems arose as the consequence of the articles:=20 > =20 > (a)=09piling up of cases, which means longer procedures that will in turn > weaken the workers=92 =09stamina and economy; > > (b)=09over authority of arbitrator, mediator and industrial dispute resolut= > ion > committee; > > (c)=09complicated law enforcement; > > The government set up regulations and procedures on the appointment of > arbitrators (Article 65) and mediators (Article 70). Under these articles: > > (a) =09The arbitration and mediation bodies, such as the Regional Committee= > on > Labor Dispute =09Resolution (P4D) and the Central Committee on Labor Disput= > e > Resolution (P4P), depend =09on the government that prevent them from > effectively defend for the workers interests. =09Consequently, workers do n= > ot > trust the bodies. > =20 > (b) =09There are only arbitration and mediation bodies formed by the > government. In other words, =09it is impossible to form other such bodies > either permanently or incidentally. In this case, the =09current bodies are > more appropriately called the government administrative institution.=20 > > The Government Control System > > In conclusion, the bill does not provide any protection on the workers basi= > c > rights. Workers can only form or become members of the trade unions > acknowledged by the government. It is almost impossible for them to form or > become members of an independent trade union without the government's > intervention. Under the new bill, trade unions function only at the plant > level, in CBA negotiations and is considered as an industrial relations > disputing party. =20 > > In the national tripartite body, the unions will only be considered as a > legitimating body for the government's policies. Currently, there are many > of Manpower Ministry policies, recommended by the national tripartite body, > such as on dismissals and minimum wage that disadvantage workers.=20 > > The right to strike is limited, allowed only in the factory compound and is > merely to show a law upholding by the management. Under the new bill, there > will be many striking workers put into jail under criminal charges or > dismissed.=20 > =20 > The right to negotiate a CBA is also limited, allowed only at the plant > level to the extend of normative rights.=20 > > Workers will easily lose their job in the future not only due to easier > dismissal procedures, but also the government control on the labor dispute > committees.=20 > > > Under such condition the function of the manpower bill is not to strengthen > the workers' bargaining power against the management, which is the key to > solve the current labor problems besides the high rate of unemployment.=20 > > Instead of building a democratic industrial relations system as the key for > the development of national industrial, the manpower bill is used to > maintain cheap labor policy and politically obedient workers in anticipatin= > g > free trade by:=20 > > Firstly, systematizing the government control on workers through: (a) > establishing corporative trade unions under the government control, (b) > preventing strikes, =A9 reducing negotiations, (d) handling of labor confli= > cts > by government administrative bodies. > > Secondly, putting efforts in improving workers' welfare only to the extend > of their minimum wage as regulated by laws.=20 > > Thirdly, using law enforcement approach in industrial relations control by > putting strict sanctions on labor law violators. But the new approach will > not apply effectively under the current phenomenon of corruption and > collusion. The fact that labor strikes have been an effective way to force > the management to comply with the workers' normative rights should be admit= > ted.=20 > > Action Taking > > Considering the bad impacts of the bill will have on workers, we call on al= > l > parties to put pressures on the government to cancel the deliberation of th= > e > bill and to have it discussed again in the House of Representatives in 1997 > 2002 period. With the current labor laws which some kind of relatively > protecting the workers basic rights, The postponement of the bill would not > mean the absence of laws, looking into the fact the current labor laws are > still relatively relevant to protecting workers. =20 > > Send your letter of PROTEST to:=20 > > President Suharto > Jl. Veteran 17 > Jakarta - INDONESIA > Fax (62-21) 3452685 > > Please send a copy of your letter to Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation > (YLBHI) by email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Fax (62-21) 330140 Adress Jl. > Diponegoro 74 Jakarta 10320 Indonesia >
