Sunday, December 16, 2007

Analyzing the Framework and Provisions of an Employment Relationship

ANTO COMETA

The correlation that exists between the employee and employer constitutes the institutional view of an employment relationship. This general view is to some extent problematic as the provisions of employment are not categorically defined. Examining the structure together with the provisions of the individual’s employment provides a better understanding as to what determines an employment relationship. This would aid to address the issues concerning protection, compliance and violations of labor standards as well as to facilitate and promote the appropriate working conditions for both workers and employers.[1]

The employment relationship is outlined within the limitations imposed by both labor and product markets. It is in the exchange between the value of labor and performance of the individual or the worker. Moreover, it is formed within the permanent system of negotiations in view of the fact that a formal contract of employment cannot be expected to characterize the relationship between the specifics of value and performance and that control on cost necessitates repeated emphasis and realization. It is deemed as the exchange between time, qualification and wages which takes place between the employer and employee during the labor process.[2]

In order to establish the existence of the abovementioned relationship it should suffice the elements of selection and engagement of the employee in the organization, payment of wages, the power of dismissal and the employer’s power to control the employee’s conduct. The most essential factor is the employer’s power to manage and control the conduct of the individual, this is not only deemed as the consequence of tasks to be delivered but it provides the means and methods to furnish work undertakings.[3] The subject of identifying the existence of an employment relationship is mainly to establish an appropriate mechanism in order to provide effective measures of protection and prevention of maltreatment and exploitation of workers within the context that constitutes such relationship.



[1] ILO Recommendation 198: Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006

[2] Huiskamp R. et al, 1995, “Regulating the employment relationship: an analytical framework”, Comparative Industrial and Employment Relations, pp. 17-36

[3] Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142293, February 27, 2003

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Dissecting the Rudiments of Work and the Individual: Do You Live to Work or Work to Live?

ANTO COMETA

Work and the individual have been regarded as the essential components of society and its institutions. The formation, growth and development of the state together with the rest of its machinery are derived from the collective functioning of individuals for the sole purpose of survival. Without the individual working, continued existence would not be possible. Dissecting the essentials of work and the values obtained and given by the individual provides a basic understanding on the worth of both work and individual to one another. But does an individual exist to provide and execute work or does the individual toils to survive?

Work has been defined in the general sense of the concept as the individual’s effort or activity performed for the purpose of providing goods or services which are of value to others. It is the creation of material commodities as well as services in which the individual may directly consume or vend to others. This provides remuneration which may be in any form whichever considered being part of the undertaking of paid or unpaid labor. Conversely, it could also be the cause of one’s disappointment and dissatisfaction. Whether the value could be seen to have minimal worth or of vast significance, how the individual perceive that particular value and how it affects his or her well being is of substance and of utmost importance.

The view of an individual functioning and existing to perform occupational activities could be deemed as somewhat fatal to one’s being. This particular discernment of an individual existing merely to provide and execute occupational tasks and functions is of less meaning or no meaning at all when carefully examined. The premise does not have any bearing on the individual’s existence as it does not provide any rationale in the individual’s life.

Work could not be estranged from the individual as work provides several indispensable values ranging from subsistence to its socio-psychological importance. These values are deemed necessary as they are needed in order for the individual to continue and provide worth to one’s self whatever that is. At the most, with respect to one’s existence, the individual whether compelled or not works to live and not the opposite.

Restricting Work Equality through Gender Partiality

ANTO COMETA

Society has never been forbearing in terms of gender particularly in employment and equality of work opportunities. Institutions have prearranged standards and established tasks and functions wherein the abovementioned facets of work have been classified and segregated on the account of the individual’s sexual category. There have been numerous efforts of pushing gender sensitivity in employment opportunity and occupation. The creation and ratification of both local and international labor laws and policies seek to provide equal opportunity and shun discriminatory undertakings in both pre and full employment. However, it fell short of substance as they were never really effusively exercised.

Several provisions on both the Philippine Constitution and the Philippine Labor Code outlined the recognition, full protection and support of anti-discrimination in work and employment opportunities.[1] Furthermore, the International Labor Organization has set sight on the promotion of equality of opportunity and treatment by declaring and pursuing a national policy aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination In respect of employment and occupation.[2] These necessitate that the state would make certain that the fundamental equality between individuals regardless of differences (physical, socio-economic and political relations) are observed and performed in the field of employment and occupation.

In spite of these, laws and policies concerning work opportunity and protection do not fully regulate employers in the selection of its workers and execution of work processes and functions assigned to the individual. To a certain extent it could be seen as if society and its institutions have accepted that preference in gender is not a barrier in the execution of occupational functions. The study conducted by Hector Morada and Lani Santos on sex discrimination in job advertisements in the Philippines reveal that within the period of 1975 to 1995 there has been decreasing figures in pre-employment sex discrimination . However, it did not signify that sex discrimination has declined or has been eliminated. A number of occupations exhibited persistence in eliminating discriminatory advertisements to avoid gender partiality while others display reversals in sex preferred by employers. [3]

We should not discard the fact that the individual is the principal component of any associations that could be instituted within the state. Establishment of these institutions would not be viable without optimizing the potential derived from each individual regardless of gender. With the current protection to labor and support in full employment and equality of employment opportunities, it still remains to be seen how far it would proceed and progress. Unless society and its institutions fully recognize that gender is not a factor that could encumber the functionality and performance in work, the essentials of the so called work equality could be deemed as distant from the ideal.



[1] Article 2 Section 14, Article 3 Section 1, Article 13 Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, and Article 3 of the Philippine Labor Code

[2] International Labor Organization (ILO), Convention No. 111 – Convention Concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation

[3] Morada H. and Santos L., 2000, Sex Discrimination in Job Ads, Philippine Journal of Labor and Industrial Relations, pp. 89-99