Kompas - April 12, 2006
After triggering a wave of protests, the
government’s version of the draft revision of the
labour law has been canceled.
Following the tripartite meeting at the State Palace
on April 7, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said
that Law Number 13/2003 on Labour (UUK) would be
improved through a national tripartite mechanism. It
is hoped that this forum can produce an outcome that
will bring relieve to workers, employers and the
government.
There is an important point that needs to be noted
here. The cancellation of the draft revision can
actually be viewed as the genuine position taken by
the government in looking at the labour problem. The
president’s decision to cancel the draft represents
a compromise that was a consequence of the pressure
of recent worker demonstrations, not because of any
other considerations.
Democratic mechanisms
Deliberations of the UUK within a tripartite
mechanism are in accordance with the procedures for
resolving labour problems. However, bearing in mind
that the UUK and its revisions (if it had been
implemented) would have brought with it massive
changes for workers, it would be best to give an
opportunity to trade unions not directly involved in
the tripartite forum to present recommendations.
The economic situation that will become more and
more difficult in the future will place workers in a
correspondingly week bargaining position. The UUK
and its revisions will become a normative regulation
that will be binding on workers for years and years
into the future. It is because of this that trade
unions need to collectively agree on the maximum
level of compromise that can be tolerated,
particularly over principle issues such as contract
systems, outsourcing, wages and severance pay.
Government responsibility
The president also views China and Vietnam as
appropriate examples of how to overcome labour
problems. China and Vietnam are seen as being able
to significantly attract the interest of investors
to enter these countries because they have a more
flexible labour policy.
There is however something important here that is
not being stated. Although wage levels in China are
not very high, the government’s involvement in
meeting the social needs of its people are. Newsweek
Magazine (December 2005) for example explained that
the Chinese government has recently increased the
budget for higher education seven-fold while the
Indonesian government has actually withdrawn
operational funding for tertiary education. Fifty-
five percent of Chinese citizens of student age can
now obtain at lease one type of tertiary education.
It is similar with regard to government assistance
for healthcare. Thus although workers’ wages are not
very high, their purchasing power and welfare levels
is not as low as is the case in Indonesia.
Conversely, every year in Indonesia education and
healthcare funds must succumb to the obligation to
pay the debt. It is not surprising therefore that
workers are making every effort to defend high
levels of severance pay because it is impossible for
them to hope that the government can finance the
cost of education for their families after loosing a
job. Workers continue to demand wage rises because
their purchasing power is incapable of meeting the
needs of a reasonable life. If these factors are
regarded as being unproductive to investment, it is
not workers that should be challenged, but the
government. The business world’s charges against
workers over issues of productivity are clearly
misdirected.
The president’s reference to Chinese and Vietnamese
models of labour flexibility should not be touted as
a justification on the part of the government to cut
into the remaining rights of workers. The decline of
industry and human resources is not because we have
failed to adopt the Chinese and Vietnamese approach
to labour. Rather it is a consequence of the
government’s neoliberal policies of increasing the
price of goods and social services so they are out
of reach of workers, business and the majority of
the people. Overcoming the problem of
deindustrialisation by making the protection of
workers more flexible is the same as putting workers
in the position of the victims as well as the
accused.
Discussions over the UUK therefore, need to be
accompanied by a system of reference that is healthy
and honest with regard to the macroeconomic
situation. Those from academic and university
circles that have been asked to provide input into
this issue need to totally discard the paradigm or
way of thinking that cites the protection of workers
as the reason for the failure to create employment
opportunities.
Aside from discussing the UUK, the other pressing
agenda items for workers and business is to call in
the government’s promises to protect domestic
industry. High interest rates, low purchasing power,
numerous forms of illegal payments, bureaucratic
fees, dependency on imported raw materials, the
destruction of the domestic market, the low level of
productivity and technology — who’s responsibility
is this? Why must workers bear the burden of the
crisis? Why has the president forgotten his promise?
[Dita Indah Sari is the general chairperson of the
People’s Democratic Party (PRD). Translated by James
Balowski.]