"This is a perfectly sound proposal."
Contrary to claims of the so-called pro-worker lawmakers and labor unions that extending the probationary period for workers from the current six months to 24 months is anti-labor, this writer agrees with the author of House Bill No. 4802—it is otherwise.
In his proposed measure, Probinsyano Ako Partylist Rep. Jose “Bonito” C. Singson Jr., seeks to extend the probationary period to give both employers and employees ample time to appreciate each other, thereby eliminating the risks for the former of regularizing workers who may later turn out to be not fit for the job.
It should be noted that the present system wherein employers are allowed to hire workers for a six-month probationary period has been prone to abuse. Employees are terminated before reaching the mandatory six months, enabling the employers to avoid regularizing their employees.
This either results in the worker having to look for work again after six months or if the employer had been obligated to regularize the employee, would end up with a worker still under-trained for the job.
By extending the probationary period to two years, workers are then assured of continuous employment for the next 24 months, which Singson says will address the much-criticized “end of contract” practice of employers that is also the main objective of the Security of Tenure Act.
“Endo” is resorted to by employers to avoid compliance to the legally mandated regularization of workers who have rendered six months of continuous employment.
According to Singson, the enactment of HB 4802 is vital to both workers and management who both are confronted with the economic adversities triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.
“This bill works to the advantage of labor and capital who continue to suffer under the COVID-19 crisis. It guarantees workers continuous employment for 24 months and at the same time allows management just enough leeway to recover losses caused by the pandemic,” Singson explains.
It should be noted that President Rodrigo Duterte vetoed the proposed Security of Tenure bill which he had certified as urgent, saying the bill submitted to him will destroy the balance between the employers and the employees as it “unduly broadens the scope and definition of prohibited labor-only contracting, effectively proscribing forms of contractualization that are not particularly unfavorable to employees involved.”
The bill which Duterte vetoed defines labor contracting as a practice wherein a job contractor “merely recruits and supplies or places workers to a contractee,” prohibiting business entities from hiring workers on a contractual basis. It requires businesses to directly hire employees, effectively banning the practice of outsourcing workers through manpower agencies. It also wants companies to absorb or regularize all workers. All employees, including project and seasonal employees except those on probationary status, are entitled to benefits received by regular workers.
While Duterte maintains he remains committed to eradicating all forms of abusive employment practices and protecting the workers’ right to security of tenure, he insists there should be a “healthy balance” between the conflicting interests of laborers and employers.
Singson avers that increasing the time element of the probationary period, is in effect creating a better job security for the average probationary employee, who, most often than not, falls victim to company practices that take advantage of loopholes in the law.
“Increasing the probationary period without prejudice to employers granting regular status to probationary employees at any time within the period of the probationary contract would drastically increase the chances of probationary employees to qualify for regular status while at the same time, employers would be able to save on labor costs related to frequent rehiring and retraining of probationary employees,” Singson adds.
However, extending the probationary period to 24 months doesn’t mean the employee actually has to wait for two years before being regularized and getting some benefits.
According to Singson, granting the employee a regular status may come within the 24-probationary period. But even then, all benefits accorded to a regular employee should be extended to the employee even during the duration of his or her probationary status.
If there’s someone or some group who will be put at a disadvantageous position with Singson’s proposal, it will be the labor unions as they cannot recruit a probationary employee to their union, thus, they won’t be subjected to any union dues.
So, is HB 4802 anti-labor as they claim? For the longest time, we have had to deal with employers terminating workers as early as five months into employment to avoid regularizing them upon reaching six months. This has never been addressed and these employees end up jobless even before their probationary period has matured.
Now, with HB 4802, they are assured of employment for at least 24 months, which would give them ample time to hone their skills and talents, at the same time giving their employers time to appreciate them, leading to their regularization.
Anti-labor? I don’t think so.
