LABOR WATCH
700,000 Gov’t Employees to
Lose Jobs?
Is
there a difference between retirement and retrenchment? Analyzing
government policies on the rationalization of the bureaucracy, it appears
that government officials want to encourage as much as 50% of the
1.4-million workforce to retire while at the same time giving them minimal
retirement benefits.
BY AUBREY SC MAKILAN
Bulatlat
Ibon Foundation, an
independent research think-tank, reported that around 120,000 employees
were retrenched in 2004. Most of those who lost their jobs were local
government employees, contractuals and casuals. With the government’s
rationalization policy, half of the government’s 1.4-million workforce is
seen to lose their jobs. As if this is not enough, the government is
looking for ways to give those affected with minimal retirement benefits.
Rationalization
The
Civil Service Commission earlier admitted that about 30 percent of the
1.4-million government employees will be affected by the rationalization
in government agencies.
However, in an interview with
Bulatlat, Ferdinand Gaite, national president of the Confederation for
Unity, Recognition and Advancement of Government Employees (Courage), said
that affected employees could actually reach half of the government
workforce.
In October last year,
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Executive Order (EO) No. 366
“directing a strategic review of the operations and organizations of the
executive branch and providing options and incentives for government
employees who may be affected by the rationalization of the functions and
agencies of the executive branch.”
According to Courage, some 1,500 employees of the National Housing
Authority (NHA) could be retrenched. They are mostly drivers, warehouse
and administrative personnel. From the Agricultural Training Institute,
around 200 permanent employees will be affected and training centers
nationwide will also be reduced, Gaite said.
At the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA), regional offices will be
converted into project management offices that might lay off around 1,600
employees. Gaite added that the implementation of the Electric Power
Industry Reform Act (Epira) will also affect workers in the wake of the
privatization of dams.
Courage data also
showed that around 300 employees at the Office of the President, mainly
those hired during the Ramos and Estrada administrations, were already
served with “notices of redundant positions.”
At the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), around 200 regular employees,
mostly caregivers, center attendants, and clerks could be laid off. Gaite
added that even the more than 1,000 contractuals or those under a
memorandum of agreement will also be retrenched despite the union’s demand
that they be given permanent status.
At the National
Printing Office half of the 500 employees will be streamlined, Gaite said.
No retirement
benefits?
Art. 300 of the Labor
Code of the Philippines states, “No lay-off shall be effected until funds
to cover the gratuity and/or retirement benefits of those laid off are
duly certified as available.”
Bennie Angeles, of
the Sandigan ng mga Kawani’t Mangagawa ng Mamamayan sa Kamaynilaan (Sakamay)
of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), said that even
the already limited benefits of the displaced employees are still
decreasing.
At the MMDA,
employees are urged to avail of the so-called benefits in exchange for
giving up their jobs, said Angeles who works as a foreman in Tandang Sora,
Commonwealth in Quezon City.
Under
the Republic Act (RA) No. 7924 which created the MMDA, “the national
government shall provide such amounts as may be necessary to pay the
benefits accruing to displaced employees at the rate of one and one-fourth
(1 1/4) month's salary for every year of service.”
Angeles, 57,
countered that they have also been informed that the Department of Budget
and Management (DBM) has a different basis for giving retirement benefits.
According to DBM, “monthly retirement benefit... shall be fifty percent
(50%) of the base pay and longevity pay of the retired grade in case of
twenty (20) years of active service, increasing by two and one-half (2.5)
for every year of active service rendered beyond twenty (20) years to a
maximum of ninety (90%) for thirty six years of active service and over.”
Gaite also said that
the EO 366 is actually forcing the government employees for early
retirement if they do not want their new job assignment. Section 9 states
that “personnel who would choose to remain in government service but would
later object to his/her new job assignment shall be deemed
separated/retired and shall be paid retirement, separation or unemployment
benefit, whichever is applicable under existing retirement/separation
laws, without the incentives provided herein.”
Clearly, the
Macapagal-Arroyo administration wants to streamline the bureaucracy and
provide minimal retirement benefits to the displaced government employees.
Bulatlat
BACK TO
TOP ■
PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION ■
COMMENT
© 2005 Bulatlat
■
Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided
its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.