Fly now, plane arrives later

Labor and Employment secretary Rosalinda D. Baldoz’s decision to affirm with modifications the original decision of the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo-era DOLE on the case of the Philippine Airlines Employees Association, known as PALEA, contesting the outsourcing by PAL management of certain ground functions and services was met by, as expected, an obdurate union leadership.


Upon receipt of the decision, Gerry Rivera, the union president, came out in the media with his guns blazing, denouncing the decision as ‘Halloween’, complementing his description of the original decision as ‘Midnight’.

Both adjectives mean, figuratively, ‘deathly scary’. Of course, literally, as he said, it means the ‘death of job security at PAL’.

Listen to the unionist: “The decision would conjure 3,000 zombie positions which will have cheaper wages, less benefits, no security of tenure, and no protection by a union.”

The end of the world?

Wait a minute. Has he read the decision or was he referring to another? Or, was he so blinded that when he read the decision his vision was clouded by tears of hatred for the DOLE?

I have, and I believe the decision was, unlike Rivera’s rant, sober and correct. Only three issues were resolved by Secretary Baldoz when she considere

First, whether PAL may validly contract out the functions and positions d PALEA’s motion for reconsideration of the original decision. that are presently performed and occupied by regular rank-and-file employees and union members under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Second, whether PAL may validly terminate the services of the employees under the CBA, the Labor Code, and Department Order No. 18-02.

And third, whether the termination of services of the employees constitutes an unfair labor practice of the PAL.

The CBA, the law, and Department Order No. 18-02, collectively supported by jurisprudence say “Yes” to the first two issues and “No” to the last. Baldoz, knowing her law and her morals, followed them, as she should.

The world of labor has changed, Rivera should be told. The world of business has metamorphosed, he must be reminded. Our unions in the Philippines must recognize these for them to remain relevant. They must adapt to new business realities and to modern bargaining strategies to preserve jobs and, thus, obtain the benefits due them.

The fact is outsourcing is a valid and legal business strategy in this Knowledge century. It is also a fact that businesses, by virtue of their prerogatives, may trim fat, reduce cost, enter into alliances, contract out non-core functions, and terminate employees if only to survive.

Even governments nowadays resort to the above-enumerated strategies. Who says governments can’t go bankrupt? It can, financially and morally. The Philippine government, if any one will bother to ask, has just been from a fresh rationalization program, resulting to the early retirement and separation from the service of thousands of bureaucrats, many of them with non-essential functions.

But such acts of management should be tempered with social responsibility. It doesn’t mean that just because a company is losing, it can already ride roughshod over the rights of workers to just and humane treatment, like the payment of appropriate benefits.

Baldoz saw to it that this will happen. She modified the benefits to ensure that the to-be-terminated workers will get the just reward of their having been ‘regular’ employees, and more. The ‘regular’ is in direct marks because in this era of globalization, regular employment is no longer the norm. Sad, but true.

Security of tenure?

Security of tenure nowadays is equated with workers having an array of knowledge and skills that they can sell to the market—a market which happened to be so choosy, competitive, and exacting. It is not a market for the worker with moribund skills, the insecure, and the inflexible. It is not a market that looks at what you know, but a market that looks at how much you will learn more while working. It is a market that frowns on the narrow-minded and smiles on those with a world-view of innovative ideas.

Such is the market that PAL is in. The airline industry is so competitive that PAL’s failure in the past to abandon its comfort zone and to innovate—secure as it was in the wrong thought that it is indispensable in the scheme of things in this country—left it at the mercy of its more service-oriented, innovative competitors.

You want proof? Well, when Cebu Pacific, the budget airline, came out with its ‘dancing flight stewardesses’, the flight attendants’ union at PAL cried foul and said it was demeaning to women. Wake up, people. It was a marketing strat, did you know that?

So, PAL is losing money. The documents supporting the DOLE decision showed that it is profusely bleeding financially. Very few now ride PAL primarily because its level of services delivery has declined from so-so to mediocre. Its planes arrive late. Its workers are grumbling, instead of working and thinking. Cebu Pacific is beating it black and blue. PAL, if it would not be allowed to do what it needs to do to survive will not last a full year. It will run aground.

Why? There are many reasons, but one I can hazard as guess is because its owner badly treats his employees. He is generally believed to be so “kuripot”. No wonder, the unions in his companies are always up in arms.

Now, give me a company whose owner treats his workers with contempt and I will show you what industrial restlessness means.

Many say: “Why not allow Philippine Airlines to sink?” Indeed, why not.

But alas, this case is imbued with national interest. If PAL closes shop, not only 2,600 workers will lose their jobs. All 7,500 of them, including Rivera, will walk on our streets, zombie-like and jobless.

And for this, the Philippines could lose face. Can you imagine the business repercussion if the government does not allow Asia’s first airline to exercise a valid prerogative because one of its unions happens to be allergic to, say, contracting out its catering services?

If PAL is only a bus company, then we can allow its buses to rot and find jobs for its drivers and conductors and mechanics somewhere else. Unfortunately, it is not. It is an airline carrying our national tri-color; a company that employs thousands and whose importance in the life of our country is strategic because it connects us to the world.

This lends PAL its national value, but it doesn’t mean it should not be disciplined. Its responsibility is not only to keep flying but, more so, to sustain and keep decent the lives of the people who make its planes fly, regardless of how late.

This is why the DOLE decision in this case was balanced. It weighed the importance of PAL as a company and the equally valuable asset of its people who run the airline.