Uring Manggagawa, Hukbong Mapagpalaya!

Sosyalismo ang Lunas! Ibagsak ang mapang-api't masibang kapitalistang sistema! Manggagawa sa Lahat ng Bansa, Magkaisa!

Biyernes, Enero 22, 2016

Militant workers to Congress: Develop a heart and a spine; override the presidential veto on the SSS Pension Hike

PRESS RELEASE
Contact person: Leody de Guzman 09205200672
January 22, 2016

Militant workers to Congress:
Develop a heart and a spine;
override the presidential veto on the SSS Pension Hike

Members of the militant labor group Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) held a picket at the Batasan gates today to call on lawmakers to override the presidential veto against a P2,000 increase in the monthly pensioners of the Social Security System.

Leody de Guzman, BMP president said, “We call on our legislators to alleviate the hardship of 1.9 million Filipinos who have to barely survive on a measly pension of P1,200 per month at the twilight of their lives.

Have a Heart as People’s Representatives

“If you are truly representatives of the people, you must, at the very least,have a heart to those who dutifully contributed to the social welfare fundin the hope of living decently upon retirement. The current minimum pension of P1,200 is not even half the cost of living of P5,333 per individual,” the labor leader furthered.

Develop a Spine as a Co-Equal Branch of Government

De Guzman clarified, “We appeal to our legislators to develop a spine by collectively standing up as a co-equal branch to the executive department.  Override the presidential veto by garnerning the required two-thirds vote to defend your just and reasonable proposal for a pension hike, lest the people conclude that members of the august halls of Congress are more concerned with their electoral kitty than the welfare of our aging countrymen”.

Reforms to ensure the viability of the P2,000 SSS Pension Hike

The labor leader, who is also the first nominee of the SANLAKAS party-list in the upcoming May elections, asserted that the SSS has sufficient funds to provide for a P2,000 increase in monthly pensions. He added, “especially if it would increase the collection rate from the present 35-38% and by reducing the administrative and operating costs of the social welfare fund. It is the height of injustice that the SSS executives are receiving millions in bonuses despite their obvious inefficiency and lack of regard for the welfare of the millions of its now destitute member-contributors”.

SSS Execu-thieves, Kapalmuks!

At the protest, the BMP, SANLAKAS and Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM) brought a huge streamer that listed the millions in bonuses given to members of the SSS board, who they described as “execu-thieves”,“walang hiya” (shameless) and “kapalmuks” (thick-skinned, insensitive). #

Miyerkules, Disyembre 16, 2015

We must hold our own government, not just the developed country-governments, responsible for ecocidal Paris climate deal

We must hold our own government, not just the developed country-governments, responsible for ecocidal Paris climate deal

As expected, the world’s elite-dominated governments just passed a strong international agreement that condemns millions of us Filipinos and other peoples, as well as other living beings, to suffer from climate chaos.

Instead of passing a strict, legally binding agreement that compels governments—especially those most responsible—to drastically reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and compensate those least responsible by providing finance and technology, they passed a strong, voluntary agreement that basically leaves it to each government to decide whether and how much it wants to reduce its emissions and whether and how much it wants to compensate others.

Instead of passing an agreement that compels all to bring down the level of global warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius, they passed an agreement that has countries pledging to increase warming by at least 3 degrees Celcius—a level of warming that will cause untold suffering in the planet.

Instead of passing an agreement that forces all of the world’s dominant classes from all countries—they who own the oil corporations, the coal power plants, the agro-chemical companies, the airlines, and all the other corporations responsible for emitting much of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—to keep the oil in the ground, the coal in the hole, and the gas under the grass, they passed another agreement that allows—and even encourages—these classes to continue burning oil, coal and gas that will fry the planet for decades to come.

Instead of approving an agreement that forces all of the world’s dominant classes from all countries—they who have profited massively from exploiting working peoples and nature—to return the wealth they have plundered from us working peoples, ourselves part of nature, so as to enable us to cope with the impacts of climate chaos or restore and regenerate ourselves, they have passed another agreement that allows these groups to continue to profit from our labor and from the planet’s riches.

Instead of passing an agreement that really changes the system that is at the root of the climate crisis, they passed one that essentially keeps it unchanged.

Their agreement is not a “weak” agreement that merely fails to “do enough” to solve the problem; it is a very strong agreement that does too much to defend the interests of a powerful global elite at the expense of the majority.

Much of the condemnation here should definitely be reserved for the developed-country governments, especially the United States and the European Union, which again resorted to vicious, Machiavellian tactics to bully and bribe developing-country governments so as to defeat even just the limited reforms and concessions that they are pushing.

But this does not mean we should spare elite-dominated developing-country governments like the Philippines’ from blame because, while constrained by unequal international relations, they are not exactly just helpless victims here. 

They could have chosen to send only the more principled negotiators who were unstinting in standing up to rich countries, such as Yeb Sano, Bernarditas Muller, and others; instead, they bowed to the bullying and bribery of the powerful countries (and their local allies inside our governments) who hated these people’s guts and replaced them with Filipino negotiators who advocate appeasing the powerful.

They could have chosen to use weapons of the weak—to collectively threaten economic and political sanctions on the US and the European Union, to limit the access of US and European corporations to our market, withhold our country’s political support for them on other international issues, or to explore and use other means of leverage available to the disadvantaged--unless they concede to our demands, but they chose not to do so because while these options could advance the real, national interests of our people, they also threaten our elites’ own narrow and vested interests.

They could have chosen to go beyond just pushing for mere reforms and concessions towards addressing the ultimate causes of the problem: the system of capitalist private property relations that forces corporations and governments everywhere to prioritize profitmaking over the wellbeing of peoples and the planet. Instead, they chose to hold back from antagonizing their fellow elites from the US and the EU to perpetuate this eco-cidal system.

In short: they could have chosen to side with us, the people they claim to represent on the world stage, but they chose in the end to side with their fellow oppressors from other countries.

They too are therefore ultimately as much to blame as the developed-country governments for burning the planet and condemning the people. They too are shackled by the system—and they too have refused to remove those shackles. 

This is why, today, the only way by which we can save ourselves and those we love from all those who are sentencing us to death is not by counting on these so-called leaders from developing countries and back them in their fight against the developed countries or the so-called ‘principal enemies.’ 

For they too are no less dangerous enemies, unwilling to really fight for our interests against the rich of other countries, constantly selling us down the river and looking only after themselves in the face of disaster. 

And we can only make them do the right thing not by lobbying them to “take action, please” or by counting on the power of our arguments to make them change their minds.

We will not be able to move them by lobbying harder or shouting our slogans louder.

We can only make them do the right thing by organizing ourselves and uniting with others, by bringing together otherwise dispersed and isolated peoples into a global movement really capable of depriving our enemies of what they ultimately need to keep ruling: our labor, our consent.

This is not an unrealistic dream: Our friends and comrades in Paris have shown us the way by actively defying the state of emergency imposed by the French government. Despite the threat of state violence, they marched and danced on the streets, engaged in inspiring acts of civil disobedience against the genocidal climate change agreement that governments—including the Philippines—just passed, and resolved to continue the fight for real system-change in so many localities and so many countries across the world in the coming years.

We join them and all those who are with them in saying again: Don’t mourn, organize!

Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (Solidarity of Filipino Workers)
15 December 2015

Lunes, Oktubre 19, 2015

Welga sa Victoria

WELGA SA VICTORIA

Mula sa mahabang talaan ng paglabag ng mga kapitalista sa batayang karapatan ng mga manggagawa, kaninang madaling araw (Oktubre 19, 2015) ay ipinutok na ng mga manggagawa ng Victoria Manufacturing Corp. ang kanilang welga. 

Ayon sa mga manggagawa ng VMCEU (Victoria Manufacturing Corp. Employees Union), ang isyu ay: shutdown to retrenchment, union busting, harassment, refusal to bargain, discrimination, violation ng CBA provision regarding LIPO (last in, first out). Nasa 80 manggagawang regular ang apektado. Tila may balak pa raw ang management (dahil nadulas umano ang dila ng isa rito) na kumuha ng maraming kontraktwal na manggagawa kapalit ng regular.

Ang kanilang welga ay naitayo na nila sa pabrika ng Victoria sa Ortigas Avenue, Pasig, malapit sa Ever. Kailangan nila ng suporta, mga kasama, sa kanilang laban. Maaari nyo silang puntahan sa kanilang welga. Maraming salamat po.

(Ulat ni Greg Bituin Jr.)

Biyernes, Oktubre 2, 2015

PR: Workers’ group slams PH govt’s climate change pledge as ‘empty promise’ and ‘hollow threat,’ demands that it ‘walks out’ from bad deal in Paris

PRESS RELEASE
2 October 2015

Workers’ group slams PH govt’s climate change pledge as ‘empty promise’ and ‘hollow threat,’ demands that it ‘walks out’ from bad deal in Paris

The Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (Solidarity of Filipino Workers), a labor center composed of various unions and trade federations in the country, today strongly criticized the “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) that the Philippine government has submitted to the UN as part of efforts to reach a new climate agreement in Paris this December 2010.

Calling the said INDC as an “empty promise” and a “hollow threat” that primarily promotes the interests of Filipino elites, the workers’ group says the Philippine government is effectively condemning millions of Filipino workers to suffer from climate change by not effectively standing up for their interests in the international arena.

The Philippine government is “pledging" to reduce emissions by 70% by 2030 but is making this conditional on finance, technology, and resource transfers from developed countries.

“The so-called ‘intention’ to reduce emissions is an empty promise, if not an outright lie, because the government, as presently constituted, has no intention of immediately and unconditionally scrapping its plans to build more coal power plants in the country, to democratize control over the energy sector, and to steer the country away from the ‘profit-over-nature’ development model,” the group said.

While the labor group agreed with the demand that developed-country governments should provide more resources to developing country-governments, it scored the government’s persistent attempts to instrumentalize this demand to shield local ruling elites from owning up to and paying for their own “climate debts” to the Filipino people and to other people suffering from climate change in other countries.

“Making the ‘pledge’ to reduce emissions conditional on the transfer of resources by developed countries,” the group said, “is a way for our country’s elites and their foreign partners—those who profit from dirty energy and from the broader capitalist system which causes climate change—to justify building more coal power plants and more ecologically-destructive practices in the Philippines, and thus avoid their own ‘historical’ responsibility’ for causing climate change.”

“If the government really represents the interests of the Filipino working classes, then it should not only demand that developed-country governments do their fair share in fighting climate change,” the group said, “it should also ensure that our own elites also do their ‘fair share’ in fighting climate change. And that entails, among others, immediately ending coal-power, mining, deforestation, and other destructive projects, de-privatizing and democratising  the entire power sector, and scrapping all policies that put the interests of local and foreign corporations over the interests of people and the well-being of Mother Earth."

“And if the government is really sincere in its claim to be standing up to rich countries in the UN process, then it should now be threatening—and preparing—to walk away from what is likely going to be another bad new climate change agreement in Paris.”

“For the past twenty years now,” the group said, “the government has been claiming to be standing up to developing countries. But in fact, at the end of each negotiating session, the Philippines has always meekly and quietly accepted—instead of really fighting against—the unjust agreements that are condemning millions of Filipinos to suffer from climate change. It will make a lot of good rhetorical pronouncements but always bow down to the wishes of the US and other powerful countries when the chips are down. The result is that the Philippines—and other similar developing countries—actually wield no negotiating leverage because the other powerful countries know that they will always surrender in the end.”

“If the government really represents the interests of the Filipino people,” the group stressed, “then it should back its lofty rhetoric by actually threatening to walk out from a bad deal and putting real pressure on developed country-elites—and on Filipino elites--to repay their ecological debts." #

Biyernes, Setyembre 18, 2015

Why we need a more explicitly anti-capitalist and feminist ‘climate justice’

Why we need a more explicitly anti-capitalist and feminist ‘climate justice’
Reflections for the First National Congress of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice 
By the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)

We at the BMP join the PMCJ in celebrating our National Congress. In the spirit of comradely discussion, we would like to share our reflections on how to further advance our struggle:

Since its beginnings, PMCJ has contributed to the struggle for climate justice by challenging the taken-for-granted terms of the national and global debates on climate change. Against the dominant discourse which reduces the climate crisis into a narrow and technical “environmental” problem, having to do with finding the most “efficient” ways to reduce carbon emissions, PMCJ re-defined the crisis as a broader moral political and social problem, having to do with finding the most egalitarian ways to organize our societies. 

Thanks in part to the efforts of PMCJ and other climate activists around the world, we hold our Congress in the context of a changed political and ideological terrain: To put things schematically, reformists, or those state managers, business executives, foundation officials, moderate NGO activists and other dominant-class intellectuals from both developed and developing countries who seek to ‘solve’ global ecological problems by subjecting capitalism to “global management” and by providing limited concessions to dominated groups—have essentially capitulated to the conservatives, or those elites from all countries who oppose even their mild reformist measures, by conceding to non-binding reductions “pledges” and by offering “flexibility” through market-based schemes such carbon trading.

On the one hand, this combination of conservative intransigence and reformist acquiescence significantly bolsters the ability of businesses from both developed and developing countries to push for even weaker, more unjust “solutions” to the problem. On the other hand, however, this also significantly discredits the ruling classes and demonstrates their inability to provide moral and intellectual leadership in the face of this global crisis. The world’s elites are struggling to secure hegemony or popular support for the system—a situation that paradoxically creates more conducive conditions for more effective and more just, because more radical, solutions to the climate crisis. 

Redefining climate justice

In this context, we at BMP think PMCJ could better advance the struggle by further clarifying and sharpening our vision of climate justice: that is, by more explicitly linking it to questions of class, gender, and other social antagonisms, and by more unambiguously using it to challenge capitalism and the patriarchal and other forms of domination with which it combines and which it reinforces.

“Climate justice” is of course one of those intrinsically contested terms and even among PMCJ members or supporters there is perhaps no single uniform definition that commands universal agreement. But it is possible to discern a dominant definition by examining the content of our discourse and practice. For the most part, PMCJ seems to have been using a predominantly ‘nationalist’ definition of “climate justice”: i.e. that those ‘most responsible’ for climate change are the developed countries and that they are obliged to pay their ‘ecological debts’ to the developing countries. The term “developed countries” here has been ambiguous: it is understood by some as shorthand only for developed-country governments, elites and/or corporations, but certain texts or pronouncements indicate that they refer to the entire population living in developed countries. The latter is what is suggested, for example, in one formula that some advocate as a concrete way to determine how climate justice could be operationalized: the amount of emissions reductions and financial and other transfers that countries are obliged to contribute (or receive) are calculated using the total emissions of entire population of countries, without breaking down or differentiating these emissions by class or other categories. Hence, for example, the “climate debt” of the United States is computed by adding up the emissions made by say, the Kochs, a conservative billionaire family, with the emissions made by an African-American working-class family. 

From a certain perspective, we can see how this nationalist conception of climate justice could be justified: “developed countries” have indeed been seeking to evade their responsibility in the negotiations and holding them “responsible” is useful for fostering unity among “developing countries” seeking to resist them, as well as for broadening the PMCJ’s constituency domestically. It justifies and enables PMCJ efforts to form a “united front” with Filipino and other Third World elites, middle classes, or with more moderate individuals who could also potentially benefit from the financial, technology, and other transfers demanded from “developed countries.” 

But we at BMP have also become increasingly concerned about the dangers of this dominant definition—and the underlying strategy it may be associated with—and we hope to have a broader conversation about its implications on our efforts to affect the social balance of forces today.

The dangers of ‘climate justice’ 

First, we fear that, intentionally or not, such a definition obscures—or does not do enough to highlight—the issue of class and gender  “responsibility.” In suggesting that entire populations are responsible or blameless, aren’t we being constrained from highlighting the fact that it is the dominant groups of these populations in both developed and developing countries that have actually been disproportionately contributing the most to “their” country’s total emissions? Aren’t we failing to counter the problematic view that the nineteenth-century African slave is just as liable as the American billionaire for causing climate change because both happen to be “Americans” or that the Ayalas are just as “blameless” as their construction workers because both happen to be “Filipinos”? Aren’t we unwittingly reinforcing an understanding that may pave the way for a different kind of climate injustice: the African-American working-class mother being made to pay for the “excesses” of the male Filipino CEO who flies around the world using his private jet?

Second, we fear that thinking of climate justice in terms of countries or populations obscures the systemic causes of climate change because it does not do enough to counter the interpretation that we are suffering from the problem because the population of particular countries were just “too greedy” or excessively “consumerist”—rather than because a particular class in all countries have been driven to foster consumerism and to over-produce due to the pressures of market competition, something unavoidable under a historically-contingent set of property relations which ties up with and reinforces patriarchal, racial, and other relations of domination. Aren’t we reinforcing the view that the problem has to do simply with individual morality or with people’s “lifestyles” rather than with the historically-specific way by which we organize production, one in which those who control the resources for production are forced to accumulate or maximize profits endlessly in order to survive market competition, thus driving them to intensify their exploitation of nature and create the socio-ecological conditions that ultimately lead to global environmental problems? Aren’t we being constrained, in short, from highlighting that it is capitalism and the other forms of domination that ultimately breeds climate injustice?

Third, we are concerned that conceiving of climate justice along nationalist lines obscures the real social divisions and antagonisms among the world’s peoples in the face of climate change: Doesn’t this understanding reinforce the notion that the “principal enemies” are still just the developed countries or developed-country elites or corporations and that, against these “principal enemies,” developing countries or developing-country elites or corporations can somehow be our “friends” or “allies”? Does this not impair our ability to underscore how our real allies are the working classes and other oppressed groups in developed countries: the African-American working-class mother rather than the male Filipino tycoon? And, as shown by the lack of support for, if not outright opposition to, demands for paying “climate debt” as they understand it (i.e. as resources that will go to governments) even among working peoples in the North, isn’t this putting up an unnecessary barrier that stands in the way of cross-border solidarity among workers everywhere?

Finally, we are concerned that our current conception of climate justice obscures certain courses of actions or strategies that could be more helpful in advancing our struggle. In putting all or most of the blame on “developed countries” rather than on dominant classes everywhere, are we not ending up focusing too much of our limited energies struggling with “external” forces and consequently directing less of our attention and resources on countering the “internal” forces (local elites and their corporations, including their ‘external’ partners from abroad) who are perpetrating forms of climate injustice concretely affecting working people in the country? Why, for example, have we as PMCJ not done more to connect the violence that people experience daily in our unjust public transport system to the question of climate change and climate justice? Why are we not at the forefront of the campaign for a more convenient and more dignified public transport system as a way of countering climate change and of achieving climate justice? There are no doubt many valid reasons, among them our resource constraints, but might it also be because we think “climate injustice” is something done to us from the “outside” by “developed countries” rather than here “inside” by Filipino and non-Filipino members of the global ruling class? 

Against cooptation

Perhaps our concerns above could be assuaged by assurances that demanding “climate justice” from developed countries at the global level does not necessarily stop us from demanding it from dominant classes or groups at the national level. “We need to stand with our government at the UN but we can and should fight with them at home” is an argument we have often heard, and indeed PMCJ has commendably stood at the forefront of challenging Filipino elites’ promotion of dirty energy, for example. But we still have apprehensions with this line of reasoning: Does this not impose an artificial division of our struggles at the “global level” and at the “national level”—as if the two levels can be separated in practice? Can there really be a harmony of interests between capitalists and workers at one “level” and conflict at another? Do Filipino workers really have no choice but to demand that reparations from the rich countries go to “their” government, knowing fully well that “their” government is systematically dominated by capitalists and is likely to mobilize all their power to keep those ‘reparations’ in their hands? And shouldn’t we be prioritizing “united fronts” with all oppressed groups in all countries before, or rather than, with our country’s elites? 

Besides, if what we really mean when we demand ‘climate justice’ is for reparations to end up in the hands of oppressed groups everywhere, then why don’t we just say so? Why, in short, do we not just articulate the principle and the demand in the following terms: ‘We demand that those most responsible—i.e. the dominant classes and groups in all countries—pay back their climate debts to those least responsible—i.e. the dominated classes and groups in all countries”?

From our perspective, this unambiguously internationalist definition of climate justice does a better job of helping us avoid some of the dangers we outlined above: First, it foregrounds the issue of class and gender responsibility in that it leaves absolutely no room for holding working-class and other oppressed groups in developed countries liable for climate change. Second, it promotes discussion on the systemic causes of climate justice in that it raises questions about why dominant classes and groups have been driven to engage in ‘over-production’ or encourage ‘over-consumption.’ Third, it highlights the fundamental division between the exploiters and the exploited in all countries and it stands a better chance of exciting and gaining the support of working peoples across the planet. Finally, it does a better job of drawing our attention to the many different ways by which climate injustice is being experienced by working people—in the lack of decent public transport, housing, health care, etc.—and alerts us to the kinds of locally-grounded grassroots struggles by which we can make “climate justice” less abstract to the people we seek to mobilize.

Why is this redefinition of climate justice so important today? How does using it to think about our strategy and to define our relations with others—such as the Philippine government and other NGOs and social movements—help us in our daily struggle? We think it is crucial because, at a time when more and more people are desperate for fresh and out-of-the-box solutions, the ideas we have been offering are increasingly being coopted by dominant groups in the service of failed, ineffective and unjust solutions to climate change: by reformists from all countries who support calls for inter-national redistribution but are averse to any discussion of the systemic causes of and the systemic solutions to climate change—those who only want to change the system in order to keep it the same—on one hand, as well as by conservatives from all countries who cynically instrumentalize the demand for climate justice to perpetuate the existing order. And for as long as we do not clarify what distinguishes us from these two more powerful camps, we only end up serving yet again as “warm bodies” to their mobilizations and as transmission belts of their ideologies, unable to offer alternatives and to attract people to our own autonomous camp. 

What would be the point of building ‘united fronts’ if, in order to do so, we have to dilute our message, fail to counter dominant ways of thinking, and therefore fail to foster anti-capitalist and feminist attitudes or subjectivities? What would be the point of our demonstrations, of our campaigns, and of our popular education efforts if we only end up echoing and unwittingly being used to support those determined to prop up the very system that causes climate change? 

Towards an anti-capitalist, feminist conception of climate justice

We at BMP believe that, with the more explicitly internationalist, radical, and feminist conception of climate justice we favor, with its sharper critique of class, gender, and other forms of domination, and with its clearer stance against capitalism and the patriarchal and other relations of domination it combines with and reinforces, our movement would be much less vulnerable to being hijacked in support of the very system we are struggling against—a system that is intrinsically driven to prioritize profitmaking over the welfare of people and the planet. 

By pointing to those ultimately responsible for causing climate change and for blocking just and effective solutions, by highlighting the systemic, patriarchal origins of climate injustice, and by pointing to unapologetically socialist, feminist, and radically democratic solutions to achieve climate justice, we might have a better chance of countering the dominant ideologies that prevent people from supporting our cause and, thus, of developing the kind of attitudes or subjectivities needed to forge a radical anti-capitalist, counter-hegemonic global mass movement: still the only social force that could counter the power of those who stand in the way of climate justice. 

Building such a movement is not as unrealistic as pessimists in the movement think. Indeed, thanks in part to PMCJ and others’ efforts to change the terms of the debate, this movement is already stirring. In Copenhagen in 2009, in Lima last year, in Paris this December, and in many other places around the world, more and more people are rallying behind the call: “System-change not climate change!” Further strengthening this movement is not something we can keep postponing. Faced with a planetary emergency, we simply have no time to waste being coopted in support of false solutions such as the idea that climate justice could be achieved by “greening” capitalism.# 

Huwebes, Hulyo 23, 2015

Agency Accused of Legalizing Contractualization

July 23, 2013

Agency Accused of Legalizing Contractualization

IN A run up to the last State of the Nation Address of President Noynoy Aquino, a labor group denounced a regulatory state agency of doing the exact opposite of its mandate to serve as an instrument of equity, social justice and economic development to which they claimed was similar to the declarations made by Aquino more than five years ago. 

The Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) held a rally at the central office of the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) along Aurora Boulevard in Quezon City, Friday to protest the agency for providing “legal cover for the vilest opportunists of modern times”. 

The group held that, “tax-evading, fly-by-night manpower contractors, without sufficient capital, often dummies of shady employers, and manpower suppliers of sweatshop owners taken refuge in the open-arms of the CDA”. 

“The CDA has systematically denied hundreds of thousands of workers who are also members of the labor service cooperatives of their right to security of tenure and robbed them of their just wages and benefits by legitimizing cooperatives engaged in labor-only contracting (LOC),” said BMP chair Leody de Guzman. 

LOC is illegal under the Article 106 of the Labor Code. 

“In addition to acquiring legal cover for their schemes, these scoundrels in suits have availed for themselves incentives such as tax exemptions and even enjoy tax deductions if they “reinvest” in socio-economic projects and donate to charity, as well as preferential rights,” he added. 

The militant leader likewise noted that, “Besides being liable of denying constitutionally-guaranteed rights, these manpower cooperatives still have the gall to call their victims “members” and “coop-reneurs” to disguise the dehumanization of their poor victims”. 

They insisted that the CDA “must end being used as a tool of labor contractors to skirt the rights and neglect general welfare of millions of impoverished workers whose only goal is to provide for their families. The noble principles of cooperativism have been tarnished”. 

De Guzman professed that, “The alarming number of labor service cooperatives engaging LOCs is so rampant that trade union organizers have encountered them in almost all industries all over the country, he . 

“Cases of LOCs among cooperatives have been piling up to the extent of consuming most of the time of labor arbiters even up to the Supreme Court,” he alleges. 

In order for these to be addressed, the rallyists demanded that the CDA investigate and dissolve all standing labor service cooperatives, infuse rigid verification mechanisms to check information submitted to them by applicants, impose a total ban on labor service cooperatives for its vulnerability to and extensive record of abuse. 

The BMP also pushed that the agency must also not be contended with dissolving abusive cooperatives but also the filing of appropriate civil and criminal charges for deceiving the agency and taxpayers who bore the incentives they wrongfully claim and for cheating the workers of their right to security of tenure and robbing them of their just wages and right benefits. 

Progressive groups are expected to raise the issue of rampant contractualization, and worsening working conditions as “undeniable testaments to Aquino’s flawed economic policies” in Monday’s SONA

Lunes, Hunyo 1, 2015

BMP book

BMP book, an account from facebook

Itigil ang Tanggalan!

Itigil ang Tanggalan!
Disenteng Trabaho para sa Lahat!

kagutuman sa kabila ng kahirapan

kagutuman sa kabila ng kahirapan

Mga tagasunod

Slam Evil, Slam Apec

Slam Evil, Slam Apec
November 1996