is the subject of my Trade Tripper column in this Friday-Saturday issue of BusinessWorld:
When I wrote that article last week ("No to the
Kasambahay Bill"; Sept. 14, 2012), I was expecting huge anger from the
readers about the position and the arguments I made. Gratifyingly
instead, aside from a few who expressed quite eccentric views, the
overwhelming response I got was agreement to my objection to the
Kasambahay Bill. This article is meant to clarify and further discuss
why I believe the Kasambahay Bill, at this time and as it stands, is a
bad idea.
Emphatically, the biggest objection is not merely the minimum
wage requirement but fundamentally the idea of fairness, a fairness
deserved as well by the employer. Again, this is not to go against the
idea that a proper wage should be given for a proper day’s work.
A reader who agreed to my objection to the Kasambahay Bill,
nevertheless, expressed discomfort at my seeming "generalization" of
maids. My response was: not so. If there was any generalization made, it
was made by the Kasambahay Bill of the middle class. And the
generalization done was quite negative: that the middle class abuses,
underpays, and commits violence against household help. But that is
simply not true. Most Filipinos who hire household help are decent
people who, as our culture makes pretty clear, treat such household help
as members of the family.
This negative generalization of the middle class ignores the fact that
middle class employers practically have no remedy against erring or
malicious maids. Sue them for damages? But lawsuits cost lots and what
money could the maids pay the damages awarded with anyway? Will the
police be willing to hunt down maids who, because they simply felt like
it, abandoned their employers? In fact, the system is so skewed against
the middle class that, with just minimal exaggeration on my part, maids
feel they are entitled to get away with any infraction or incompetence
simply by uttering "’sensya na po."
But this negative generalization also ignores the fact, which I pointed
out in last week’s article, that "ordinarily in this country, maids that
are found working well are compensated generously." As one reader
mentioned to me, because of their maids’ demonstrated loyalty and good
work, their family went to the extent of funding their education and
even took them to their Hong Kong vacation. Another reader said they
funded the maid’s family business in the province. These stories cannot
be overemphasized enough considering they (the readers’ families)
themselves admitted are "not rich."
Clearly, the issue is not about withholding deserved compensation to the
household help. It is about genuine fairness. And it is also "fair" to
say that a lot of household help are "generally untrained, a good number
of which work lazily or with a bad attitude." I quoted Beth Day
Romulo’s 1987 book Inside the Palace: "The little maids who flood
into Manila from their parents’ farms in the provinces are apt to be
pleasant and honest, but also untrained, inefficient, unmotivated -- and
clumsy." Note, she was writing from the perspective of a quarter of a
century ago. But as one reader wrote to me, having grown up with maids
in the house, he is bothered at the fact that the quality of maids (and
the service they give) has steadily worsened through the years.
Obviously, there are abusive employers, as the recent newspaper
headlines show us. But these abusive people are currently in jail,
awaiting trial. What does that tell you? That there are laws currently
in place already that protect household help for whom abuse is heaped.
The real objection to the Kasambahay Bill then, to repeat, is fairness:
why give to maids, at considerable burden to the middle class, extra
rights, professional’s privileges, and statutorily imposed compensation
without requiring from them the commensurate professionalism and
accountability?
One reader argues that the Kasambahay Bill actually will enable
household helps to be responsible and professional. But that’s
ridiculous. As anybody who actually managed people would know, you never
give a reward or promotion in the hopes that such person will step up
and match the reward or promotion. It never happens. It will actually
encourage that person to continue behaving or working badly or even
worse. Rewards, rights, privileges are given for good work or behavior
already done and with the concomitant responsibility to keep doing so.
To do otherwise is precisely to encourage a "paternalistic entitlement
society."
If the Kasambahay Bill must be passed, it is suggested at the very least
to strengthen the reportorial provisions of the Bill to help protect
future employers. This means including a national computerized database
for getting mandatory references before a maid is hired. That way, if a
maid decides to unjustifiably abandon her employer, robs or steals, or
does bad work, such maid can be immediately identified and perhaps
"blacklisted." It will give a bare minimum of protection for the
employer and encourage greater accountability for household helps.
