The state and employment relations in the Philippines

Abstract

Employment relations in the Philippines feature significant formal rights and protections for workers on the one hand, and feeble enforcement of these by the state on the other. This is not explained by weak state capacities, separate from political logics. Hence, with some modifications to accommodate the character of the Philippine state, this article applies Hyman’s conceptualisation of ‘three broad and often contradictory’ logics to state power across the areas of labour standards, labour relations and labour policy participation. Across these, legitimation concerns – both domestic and international – have shaped much of the formal architecture of employment relations in the Philippines, whilst pacification and accumulation priorities tend to underlie lax state enforcement of labour standards, employer impunity with respect to unfair labour practices, extrajudicial violence against leftists, as well as the legal restrictions on strikes. International actors – the United States and the International Labour Organisation – have also determined the formal architecture, but in ways that stress associational freedoms over associational strength. This has left the mainstream of the labour movement with significant organisational interests in the status quo, despite its attendant weaknesses.

Demobilised or dormant? Exploring pro-strike attitudes among employees who have never joined a strike

“…Employers have continued a fierce anti-union opposition, especially after the financial crisis of 1997–1998 (Frenkel and Kuruvilla, 2002). Employers’ illegal practices towards militant workers and violence against leftist promoters of labour unrest have significantly expanded to date, with impunity for the perpetrators (Hutchinson, 2016; ITUC, 2018). This climate of strong oppression of labour unrest, impeding political rights and civil liberties as outlined in Table 4, has been cognitively embedded in Filipino workers in their assessment of strikes, which are considered almost invariably as detrimental actions, being out of their repertoire of contention .…”

“…This result can be understood through closer insight of how the political power has put in place repressive forces towards strikes in this country. The Philippines has always privileged economic growth over the empowerment of unions, workers and their rights (Frenkel and Kuruvilla, 2002;Hutchinson, 2016). Export-oriented industrialisation in the 1960s and 1970s was then followed by a full embrace of globalisation, characterised by a high level of foreign direct investment and a number of export processing zones (Frenkel and We calculate pro-strike attitudes from the World Values Survey data (2012-2014).…”

Regulatory pluralism and the resolution of collective labour disputes in Southeast Asia

“…Collective labour disputes may also give rise to broader societal conflicts, such as in cases where the impact of collective conflict is felt by consumers and communities (Euwema et al, 2019: 5). Workers’ collective action may also have important political ramifications and has historically been regarded as an important driver of social change and economic progress for working people (Hyman, 1989; Kelly, 2015).…”

“…These actors may perform a variety of distinct roles in dispute resolution (see further below). In many Southeast Asian countries which have experienced periods of authoritarian government, the executive government also has a long history of intervening directly in collective labour disputes often through the use of military or police force (Ford, 1999;Hutchison, 2016).…”

Industrial relations in emerging economies

“…Labour markets in these countries continue to be characterized by high levels of unemployment, underemployment and informal employment. The lack of broader social transformation, together with job and income insecurity, function as primary constraints on the institutionalization of work and employment relations, and the subsequent contribution of these institutions to development (for the example of the Philippines, see Erickson et al, 2003 andHutchinson, 2016). These conditions lead to a questioning of the role that industrial relations plays in development.…”