Like their counterparts from Europe and North America, the trade unions in the Philippines and in the Asia-Pacific are worried over the displacement impact of the ceaseless technology revolution taking place in the world today.
In particular, jobs associated with the global value chains (GVCs) of the multinationals such as semiconductor assembly, shoe manufacture and offshored customer service are vulnerable to the threats of “re-shoring”. Adidas, which used to have a giant factory in Novaliches in the 1980s and which has some facilities in China, was able to set up in 2017 shoe factories in Germany and USA using 3D printing or additive manufacturing technology. The cheap labor advantage of Factory Asia is now being eroded by advances in robotization, automation and artificial intelligence (AI).
The job displacement impact of the technology revolution is fully chronicled in the following studies:
• McKinsey Global Institute (2017) — about 60 percent of all occupations have at least 30 percent of constituent activities that can be automated.
• Chang and Phu study for ILO on Asean (2016) — 56 percent of jobs in the five industrially-developed Asean countries are at risk of automation in the next 20 years.
• World Bank report on “Digital Dividends” (2016) – two-thirds of jobs in the developing world are susceptible to automation.
Is it not time for the Department of Trade and Industry to re-think industrial strategy? The country cannot rely simply on what some economists and technocrats have been proposing upgrading Philippine participation in the GVCs of the MNCs. As it is, the Philippines’ participation in industrial GVCs such as electronics and auto parts assembly is quite limited compared to Thailand and now Vietnam. With industry 4.0, the government goal of gaining more and better jobs in these GVCs is not as promising as what these technocrats and economists are saying. In the case of the call center/BPO sector, the displacement threat coming from software robotization (e.g., chat-bots) and DIY technology is very real.
Yes, we need not give up jobs in these sectors. But it is clear: we need to strategize or re-strategize industrial development in a more holistic manner, taking into consideration the fact that the existing international division of labor in industrial production as represented by the GVCs is changing.
In the meantime, there are other issues on the technology revolution that unions are trying to air. In a meeting held in Hanoi conducted by the Asia-Pacific Organization of the UNIGlobal Union, the trade union organizers expressed the following concerns:
First, jobs are becoming more precarious and employers are hiring more and more atypical or non-regular workers. This is so because the new technology renders the skills of routine workers, those in the assembly lines or those doing repetitive tasks, less and less important. As a result, the bargaining power of these workers on compensation, tenure and work hours is reduced.
Second, the non-regularization phenomenon covers too the emerging proletariat under industry 4.0 — the online freelancers and the on-demand workers such as the Grab and Go-Jek drivers. They are now considered contractors, not employees. Hence, for social security coverage, they themselves have to pay for their premium contributions. When accidents happen, they have no employers to turn to.
Third, many workers find it hard to keep up with the changes in technology. Governments often talk about skilling opportunities – upskilling, re-skilling and side-skilling – for those affected by technological changes. However, the reality is that skilling cannot happen overnight. Those aged 40 and above find it difficult to adjust to the new technology and acquire new skills in an instant or hastily developed training courses. The problem is aggravated by the failure of many employers to inform their employees in advance of forthcoming changes in the work organization even if such changes have been in their drawing boards months ahead of time. In general, there are no worker-focused transition programs, and no digital road maps for the workers.
So what are the unions’ proposals?
First, they demand that genuine and sustained social dialogue with industry and government on job and work adjustments under industry 4.0 should be undertaken.
Singapore, with its tripartite digital road maps and programs such as Future Skills for a Digital Workplace, is a good model on the conduct of social dialogue and what can be accomplished by all the social sectors working together in building up a competitive and job-full economy under the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
The dialogue process should tackle the feasibility and necessity of developing fully funded and comprehensive social safety nets for all workers, vulnerable or not to the technology revolution. These safety nets should cover the rules for work under industry 4.0, such as standards of work for those working at home and those hired online. The rules on work in the physical world should be complemented by rules on work in the cyber world.
Government should insure that industry observes real or genuine social responsibility in participating seriously in social dialogue and in the implementation of social or tripartite agreements. In this regard, the Philippines usually come up with beautiful tripartite social agreements on major social and labor issues, and yet, is unable to follow up on the observance by the parties on their commitment to these agreements.
The point is that labor should be treated as a true and reliable partner. And business should be considered the business of all stakeholders. This means labor should be prepared to assume responsibility too on the issue of productivity, as demonstrated by what Japanese unions do when they sign on to the technology-related productivity agreements in some industries such as the auto industry.
If job disruptions and displacements are unavoidable, the social partners should be able to develop programs or measures that make the transition humane and least painful to those affected. Win-win adjustment measures are easier achieved if there is communication and consultation among the social partners. Is this possible in the Maharlika country?