ON December 13, 2018, Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III wrote a memorandum to Administrator Bernard Olalia of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which states:
“In the interest of the service and in view of the increasing welfare cases and labor issues among our Filipino workers in the Middle East, especially in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, you are hereby instructed to draft the necessary issuances on the following:
“Reducing the processing of accreditation of FRAs and verification of employment contracts including other employment related documents of POLOs in the Middle East by 10 percent within the first semester of 2019 and to continue until the end of 2019 specially those foreign recruitment agencies with wards admitted at the MWOFRCs.”
“Strict monitoring of the Philippine recruitment agencies of their deployed workers and stern reminder of their solitary liability in case of breach of contract pursuant to the POEA Rules and Regulations.”
“Strict implementation of the regulation on the ban on the deployment of minors and underage workers and impose the necessary sanctions on erring PRAs.”
“Strict implementation of the rules on the deployment of name-hires.”
Labor Secretary Bello knows fully well the travails of our domestic workers in the Middle East. He has been forwarding urgent requests for assistance to OWWA Administrator Hans Cacdac on a daily basis from dusk to dawn. And I say that without exaggeration.
This directive, however, comes at a time when the demand for domestic workers in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to soar. As part of the Saudization campaign, their government has given full priority to increasing the labor participation of women, which, in turn, has driven the demand for and costs in recruiting foreign domestic workers to historic highs. Filipino domestic workers are considered the best there is, and households across the Middle East are willing to pay a premium just to source their maids from our shores.
Thus, some would argue that this memo effectively takes away surefire sources of employment from jobless women in the countryside. Those of us who are more immersed in labor migration know that this has been done before but not in writing. There were times when the head office would instruct our labor attachés to go slow in the processing of contracts of overseas domestic workers—through verbal orders—to avoid potential bilateral disputes.
The secretary’s instructions, however, were written and made public for all stakeholders, including our partners overseas, to know. In this light, one can consider this a bold and welcome move from Secretary Bello. Of course, some overseas Filipino workers advocates, especially those based abroad, would predictably say, why only 10 percent? That calls for a longer, more vigorous debate among the different stakeholders.
Bello’s instructions on zero tolerance on the part of the POEA for agencies recruiting minors as domestic workers to the Middle East should have been observed far long ago. There is no reason—absolutely none—for a conscientious recruitment agency owner to deploy a minor to Saudi Arabia. This is qualified trafficking, which bears the penalty of life imprisonment. Swift action on the part of the POEA must be forthcoming and unrelenting.
In light of the 10-percent reduction policy, DOLE needs to offer viable local or safer overseas alternatives to prospective applicants. Without such alternatives, we may see more of these women move away from the legitimate recruitment process and into the filthy, greedy hands of human traffickers.
The 10 percent reduction can and should be a component of a grander plan to push for a higher labor participation rate for women, not through temporary employment programs but through solid partnerships with the private sector at all local levels. If we combine skills training, apprenticeship programs and gender development for income security, then our women have every reason to stay home.
First, we need to keep asking “why?”
Why do Filipino women continue to leave to work as domestic workers in the Middle East? Why do some of them, bearing trauma and invisible scars as ex-OFWs, still insist on leaving again as domestic workers? Why do some of them agree to pay the most dubious recruiter even to the point of selling their soul just so they could get away with a suitcase packed with dreams?
It is only when our policy-makers come to grip with the “whys” that we could get to the “hows”. How do we train as many women as possible so that they can gain portable, employable skills that would guarantee them safer and decent work? How do we encourage the leaders of commerce to embrace the hiring and retooling of women as part of their corporate social responsibility?
How do we convince and encourage our recruitment agencies to be more discriminating in their choice of markets and workers and foreign employers for the protection of our workers? What kind of incentives do they need to be able to transform their agencies into centers of excellence?
Let’s start these conversations soonest! Given the secretary’s memorandum, the ball is clearly now in POEA’s court.
****
Susan Ople heads the Blas F. Ople Policy Center and Training Institute, a nonprofit organization that deals with labor and migration issues. She also represents the OFW sector in the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking.