Showing posts with label POEA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POEA. Show all posts

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Migration and Freedom 14: Shrink or Abolish the POEA

Employment, whether domestic or foreign, is a private contract between the employers and employees. If the terms and price are right, a contract can be signed between the two; if not, the employers will turn down a job applicant, or the latter will turn down a prospective employer's offer. The role of government is mainly to enforce the rule of law, the private contract between the two, to set transparency mechanisms so that both camps are really what they say they are. That is, a prospective employer is indeed a hotel/restaurant and not a prostitution house looking for innocent women to traffic and victimize.

When a government agency comes in to make such private contract as complicated and as costly as possible by requiring lots of permits and certificates, both from employers and would be employees, that agency is becoming a parasite and hence, should either be drastically shrank or abolished altogether.


Here are three papers that argue for the shrinking or abolition of the Philippine Overseas and Employment Administration (POEA). The first is a newspaper commentary yesterday, the other two are my old papers on the subject.
--------

http://opinion.inquirer.net/20199/second-class-citizens


Second-class citizens

By:  *


THIS Christmas season, thousands of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) will have had their constitutional rights violated at the world’s worst airport.

I met Marc one Sunday evening at NAIA 1. He skipped dinner with his family, not wanting to risk a long Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) desk queue and miss the 10 p.m. flight back to Singapore. An elite Ateneo Management Engineering graduate now in a global investment bank, he is one of thousands of young professionals in Singapore and Hong Kong juggling priceless short trips home with an international career. He is one of thousands of young professionals resigned to sacrificing brief moments with their families for inane POEA queues.

After my first Christmas home, I found myself begging a POEA officer to issue my clearance because my plane was taking off in 30 minutes. Without looking up, he sternly ordered me to return to the queue and wait. I boarded only after staring down the guard at immigration, claiming to be a tourist.

It is an open secret that the POEA was formed by torturers left jobless by Edsa. In Singapore, I must travel during office hours to our embassy, not the most accessible of places, to purchase an Overseas Employment Certificate (OEC). My papers are never checked and I routinely write conflicting information in the forms. (I will try “drug mule” on my next OEC). I must then have the OEC certified at NAIA’s POEA desk because it might be fake.

Being the world’s worst airport, NAIA 1 requires Filipinos to queue outside to enter; foreigners have heralds who shout “Business class, business class!” and ask Filipinos, guards included, to make way. Because the POEA desk is brilliantly located outside the departure area, one better be early to first queue at the POEA desk then queue to enter NAIA 1 before one’s check-in counter closes. One may be forced to queue to enter, queue to check in, exit NAIA 1 to queue at the POEA desk, then queue yet again to reenter. Especially if a 747-load of travelers to Los Angeles intervenes, one can readily miss one’s flight and get fired.

The best part is check in, and immigration officers ask to see my Singapore employment pass anyway. Shown my hard-won OEC, they explain that it and the POEA certification may be fake.

Amid such silliness, picture OFWs clutching thick envelopes of documents and their last shreds of dignity as they make obeisance to the POEA. Picture a Filipino professional, trying to be taken seriously in an international team, forced to beg one’s colleagues to leave early for the airport because his OEC might be declared fake.

Saturday, July 09, 2011

Labor Econ 5: On Extending Minimum Wage Law Abroad

(This is my article yesterday in the lobbyist.biz with original title, Extending certain labor laws abroad is wrong)

A nanny state has a big illusion of protecting its citizens and overlook the harm that its nanny policies create on the people. Like the minimum wage law. That law is supposed to protect workers from "capitalist exploitation", thus, even the unskilled should be given the minimum wage by their employers that the state has declared or imposed. It looks cute and very “caring” for the workers, except that when that minimum wage level is high for many enterprises, plus many other costly labor regulations, businessmen hire as few workers as possible, and will not hire the unskilled, the young and little or no job experience yet. And this expands the level of unemployment in the economy.

Recently, the Saudi Arabia government stopped giving work visa for Filipinos trying to work as domestic helpers. This is after the Philippine government issued a new regulation that the minimum wage that Filipino helpers should get is $400, and that employers should provide family information and the layout of the residence where the domestic helper will be working.

The Philippine government is wrong here. Employment is a private contract between the employer and would-be employee. Government intervention in domestic labor market by setting a minimum wage law is already wrong, how much more extending such interventionist policy abroad, to cover foreign employers?

Migrant workers have other reasons to work abroad aside from getting salary higher than what they can possibly get here. Thus, they will accept salaries lower than $400 as they have other reasons for working abroad. Among them:

One, opportunity to travel abroad, to see a foreign country, its people, culture, main economic activities.

Two, opportunity to move to another work once they get there. For instance, some applicants as domestic helpers are actually teachers, nurses, other professionals. Once they get to their destination country, their employers or other friends might give them another job opportunity with a higher pay.

Three, opportunity to work in another country or employer that offers a higher pay for a similar job once they get some experience working abroad.

Four, to be reunited with other family members, relatives or friends who have stable job or settled already in destination country. There are many other personal or social reasons that the individuals have in mind.

That is why government should step out of regulating private contracts between employers and employees. Governments can come in to implement the rule of law – the contract between employers and employees, say if one party is not following the stipulated contract.

Certain sectors in the Philippines even cheered the decision of the Saudi government to stop hiring domestic helpers from the Philippines, even if there are an estimated 180,000 domestic helpers currently working there. These sectors add that the Philippine government should create domestic employment opportunities for those who will be displaced, ie, will not be deployed to Saudi.

What do they mean, that government should hire more employees and expand its already bloated bureaucracy? This will mean more taxes from the public as government spending will definitely jump.

Or they mean that the displaced workers can start their own business locally here? Many people who say this are not fully aware of how the national and local bureaucracies treat local entrepreneurs. See these photos below which I took from various small and medium establishments.

The number of business permits that micro, small and medium enterprises must secure even before they can start a business are plenty. Among them: barangay permit, location permit, health and sanitation permit, fire department permit, electrical permit, Mayor’s permit, etc. At the national government agencies level, entrepreneurs must also secure permits from the BIR, DTI or SEC, SSS, other agencies depending on their line of business (eg, get NFA permit if selling rice, get DOH and FDA permit if selling medicines, etc.) Then there are mandatory membership in other government agencies like PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG.

It is not only the cost and fees of those multiple permits, people have to spend money and time to go to those offices, wait several days or weeks before they can finally start a business.

So if the government is not friendly to local entrepreneurs, limiting their potential employment generation capacity, why should government intervene again to regulate foreign employers who intend to hire Filipino workers who cannot be absorbed by the local labor market?

Last year, the Hong Kong government also protested a Philippine government regulation requiring HK employers of Filipino domestic helpers to get various insurance for their helpers costing US$144 for two years. The HK government already requires its citizens to get local insurance for their foreign workers. The Philippine regulation therefore, was an additional imposition, additional cost, to foreign employers. This made many HK households to get Indonesian, Malaysian, or mainland Chinese helpers even if they wish to get Filipino helpers. See my discussion about that case here, Restrictions to OFWs.

I suspect that a local mafia are working with the POEA or DOLE to make otherwise simple procedures become more complicated. These are the guys who sell insurance, in the HK case, and recruitment agencies who charge even higher “placement fee” from aspiring OFWs as the latter are supposed to receive higher salaries abroad because of those new Philippine government regulations, in the Saudi Arabia case. Now they have seen how their treachery would backfire. But the bigger loser are aspiring OFWs who want to work abroad.

Government should learn to step back as most if not all of its interventions have adverse consequences to the people.
-----------

See also:

Friday, April 01, 2011

Criminals 7: Illegal Drugs and China Execution

The use, transport, marketing and trading of "illegal drugs" is a serious crime in many countries around the world. Violation, when caught, can lead to severe penalties, from long imprisonment up to execution.

(this picture from www.thegooddrugsguide.com) Such illegal drugs like codeine, heroine, demerol, etc. Well, I haven't tried any of them, never been a drug user or drug dependent. But from what I gather, those drugs can cause their users to be "out of their normal selves". Some would look and act like idiots, while some can cause physical harm on themselves or to other people.

High alcohol use can also have the same or even worse effect on the users. I've experienced heavy drinking during parties with friends in my younger days, and I've experienced near-death incidence before, like drunk-driving and nearly falling on a deep creek. Or being robbed by muggers while asleep somewhere else due to heavy intoxication.

But alcohol is allowed but certain drugs are not. Both can cause harm to users and other people. Why the double standard?

Anyway, the 3 Filipinos convicted of drug smuggling in China have been executed today. It's a high emotion, high media exposure case here before the final execution. While the victims and their support groups have various reasons to say that they were not real drug smugglers, the government of China was only implementing what it has enacted into law. In a sense, China's government only promulgated the "rule of law" in their own country.

Could the Chinese government possibly have granted some "clemency" and reduced the penalty for the 3, as lobbied hard by the Philippine government through Vice President Jejomar Binay?

My friend from the DFA said the answer was a possible Yes. The problem was the heavy media exposure in the Philippines. There are back channels always in major cases. But China would not be happy to hear if people will say, "Pressure by Philippine media caused the Chinese government to reduce the penalty for the 3 convicted drug traffickers." In a sense, the louder the media noise here, the stronger the resolve of the Chinese government to proceed with the execution. Which is what exactly happened.

So one lesson here is that for cases that involve foreign governments, there are limits and dangers when local media becomes too noisy. Foreign governments have their own laws and have their own political culture.

Many laws are irrational and oppressive, whether in the Philippines or abroad. If we are strangers or aliens in foreign lands, it is always safe to obey those foreign laws, no matter how harsh they may be. If we think they are too harsh and too barbaric, then don't go to those countries. Go to other countries where the laws and political culture are something that one can live with.
--------

Part 2:

With expanding globalization, including the globalization of criminal activities, the public's perception and expectations of the role of certain government agencies like the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) evolve.

The same friend of mine from the DFA whom I indirectly mentioned in Illegal drugs and execution commented to my article. He wrote,



What is important is for govt to be allowed breathing space to do its duty, instead of the whole world being incited to breath down its neck. There are things that can only be done quietly. But the culture of distrust and inciting the public to hate the govt for its "inaction" would often make it impossible for positive results to be achieved. Pnoy sent a letter to his counterpart about the three. That is the highest action a country can take. We had the VP go to China. These are very concrete actions. And yet, some sectors accuse Pnoy and the govt of not doing enough.

I agree with my friend from the DFA. The planned execution then was a decision by a foreign government, China, not by media or individuals in China. Thus, the most appropriate action given the circumstances then of high public discourse on the saving the 3 convicted Filipino drug traffickers, was a government to government negotiation.

Personally though, I think the RP government should have never negotiated with its Chinese counterpart on those executions. What if another group of Filipinos will be caught and prosecuted on drug trafficking in Malaysia, another VP Binay trip to Kuala Lumpur? Another group of Pinoys on drugs trafficking case in Norway, another Binay trip to Oslo? Do we taxpayers pay and pay for those many foreign trips to save not-so-responsible fellow Filipinos?

People should be responsible for their actions. They should be accountable for whatever negative consequences of their actions, it has nothing to do with their own government. They know that drug trafficking is super-regulated and super-penalized in many countries, they should not even think of doing it, much less of actually doing it. When they are caught and prosecuted, they run to the DFA and the Philippine government, and when they are finally executed, it is the fault of the Philippine government for "not doing enough"? Where is personal responsibility there?

Another friend commented,
States do no want other states to execute their citizens. Citizens also expect their state to give them help - di ba may Public Attorneys Office tayo to defend the accused if they cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
I don't buy this, to relegate personal responsibility, that it's all government responsibility. Meaning some Filipinos can steal, kill and transport drugs in other countries, and when they are caught and penalized, DFA and Binay or P.Noy will be busy saving them?

What the RP government can do perhaps, is to advise ALL departing Filipinos, whether as tourists or workers or students abroad: "If you violate certain laws of the countries you are visiting, RP government may not save you. So, obey the laws there, the same way that you should obey the laws here."

The main job of the DFA is to promote international trade, economic, cultural and political diplomacy, between the Philippines and the country where it has an office. Also to provide some economic intelligence to Philippine-based exporters. Stuff like, are the European consumers buying more Thai and Vietnamese fruits than Philippine fruits? Why? DFA should reward the industrious and those who obey the laws. If we assign or expect them with the ugly job of protecting each and every Pinoy law violators in other countries, then they will have no more time to promote diplomacy and international trade.

There are some proposals to increase the budget of the DFA, like having more defense counsels. I will be in favor of that, but not through higher taxes, but by cutting the budget of other agencies, like the bloated Armed Forces and Defense department (AFP-DND).

But there should be a limit to what the DFA legal counsels can do. Like helping OFWs in distress (raped by their employers, unpaid, over-worked, falsely accused, etc.) For drug traffickers, especially proven and convicted, they should not be government priorities. If they commit the same crime in the Philippines, RP law says they should get harsh penalty anyway, no difference. They should get their own private legal counsels to defend them.

About overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), it is wrong to say that it is a "government policy". Employment, local or foreign, is always a private contract between the employer and the employee, it is never a government contract. Since government is outside of this contract, the function and regulations of the POEA should be shrank significantly. More POEA regulatons means more bureaucracies, additional fees, additional transaction procedures.
---------

See also: