The saying “charity begins at home” does not resonate with the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the government office tasked to alleviate the lives of the less fortunate members of our society.
The recent Senate hearing on the proposed budget of the DSWD for 2024 had revealed that 53.4 percent of its staff were contractual employees and that some of them have been in that status for 15 years.
Social Welfare Secretary Rex Gatchalian had acknowledged that grotesque setup, but pointed to the refusal of the Department of Budget and Management to give the DSWD funds for additional permanent positions as the underlying cause.
Without the contractuals, it is doubtful if the DSWD would have been able to, among others, bring relief goods to distressed families during natural or manmade calamities, or assist neglected or abandoned children.Those employees do not enjoy security of tenure and their continued employment depends on the discretion of the DSWD secretary. They cannot enjoy the benefits that accrue to regular employment despite the fact that they perform the work of regular employees.
The flip side of contractuals are job order employees. In theory, contractual employees are hired to work for a fixed period of time, while job order employees are assigned to work on specific projects, otherwise known as “pakiao” or piece of work. They are, in effect, one and the same thing.
In both situations, their services enable the concerned government offices to fulfill their mandate. Hence, their contracts are routinely renewed and may go on for years depending on the needs of their employer.
The Department of Labor and Employment (Dole) and the Civil Service Commission do not see anything wrong with those supposedly temporary or provisional work practices. They had issued guidelines on how to implement them to ensure compliance with government audit policies. It stands to reason (or common sense) that if it is okay for government offices to hire contractual or job order employees, then there should be nothing wrong with private businesses doing the same thing.
In other words, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
But note, when the services of an employee of a company who was hired for a fixed period or a specific project are terminated and he or she files a complaint for reinstatement with back wages, there is a very strong chance the Dole would act favorably on the complaint.
The template often used to justify that order is, since the employee did work that was beneficial or advantageous to the company, then he or she should be considered a regular employee and therefore entitled to all benefits that attach to that status.
Never mind if the contract which was written in the language the employee was familiar with clearly states that his or her employment shall automatically end on a specific date or upon the completion of a project.There would always be an excuse, no matter flimsy, to justify disregarding the unequivocal terms of the contract to favor the complainant. And to reinforce that “bleeding heart” approach, the mantra “all doubts should be resolved in favor of labor” would be invoked.
And if, for any reason, the employer fails to comply with the order of reinstatement and payment of back wages, a writ of garnishment would be immediately sent to the banks that hold the employer’s deposits.
It makes no difference that in the process of freezing the bank accounts, the employer’s operation would be adversely affected or it would be prevented from paying the wages of the rest of the employees.
Recall that whenever May 1 or Labor Day comes, the Dole routinely issues a statement asking employers to recognize the sacrifices and efforts of their employees by giving them all the benefits due them under our laws.
Considering the Dole’s tolerant attitude toward contractual and job order employees in government offices, it seems that call does not apply to the government.
The stomach and financial needs of those employees must be different from those in the private sector. INQ
For comments, please send your email to rpalabrica@inquirer.com.ph.