An interesting policy debate on the work-from-home (WFH) arrangement is consuming the DTI, DOF and PEZA. The WFH was adopted by a number of the call center-BPO sector firms in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It enabled these ecozone firms to avail themselves of PEZA fiscal incentives and maintain, even expand, business operations despite the government restrictions on workers’ mobility. PEZA and the IT and BPO Association want the “hybrid” WFH system retained. Per an earlier agreement with the DOF-led Fiscal Incentives Review Board (FIRB), CC/BPO firms are allowed to keep as much as 90 percent of their work force at WFH system until the end of March 2022.
On the other hand, the DTI and DOF, anxious to see a revival of the economy in sites hosting the CC/BPO firms, want an end to the hybrid WFH arrangement. The once swanky CC/BPO sites have become ghost towns. The DTI expects the spending by swarms of CC/BPO employees, who are generally paid above the minimum wage, to breathe life to the businesses of the building lessors and the micro-small enterprises that mushroomed in these CC/BPO sites.
There is great resistance to the DTI-DOF position. Not only among the CC/BPO firms but also among the IT/ICT employees themselves. For all the suffering it wrought, Covid had a positive and liberating impact on IT/ICT employees who are tired of the exhausting and time-consuming urban commuting and the drudgery of doing 8-hour night/day work in enclosed cubicles within high-rise air-conditioned buildings. At least, they are able to gain extra hours for family and enjoy a certain degree of autonomy and flexibility. In short, there is a better work-life balance.
The reality is that the WFH system is sweeping other non-CC/BPO service industries. Filipinos, together with the Indians, are leaders in the online freelancing business in Asia and in the world. There are thousands of Filipino teachers providing online English tutorials to Japanese, Korean, Chinese and other nationals. And a growing number of Philippine retailing and other service industries such as Shopee have been instituting hybrid WFH arrangements.
Of course, it is not all roses for WFH workers. First, the country has a terribly inefficient and undeveloped Internet infrastructure. Access to high-speed Internet connection is crucial in WFH arrangement. Not surprisingly, a major focus of the “great renegotiation” among the WFH employees and their employer principals is on how to develop the WFH facility at home. Employees generally ask for a high-speed computer plus allowances to cover the cost of Internet connection and electricity consumption at home.
Secondly, observance of labor standards are somewhat hazy or blurred. Under a less-publicized Telecommuting Act of 2018 (RA 11165), WFH employees are supposed to be entitled to the rights granted by the Labor Code to other workers. For example, a WFH employee should be accorded the same treatment given to an onsite employee such as having equal or equivalent work load, access to training, employee appraisal and so on. Similarly, a WFH should be given fair or equal treatment when it comes to pay or compensation, benefits and rest days. A WFH employee should also enjoy equal access to safety and health services.
Moreover, a WFH employee cannot be dismissed without an explicit “just” or “authorized” cause. Just cause refers to a serious infraction or violation of company rules. Authorized cause includes the following conditions: installation of labor-saving device, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses and closure or cessation of operation of business.
But is DOLE able to enforce the above provisions of the Telecommuting Act and the Labor Code? Not much is written about this.
However, a number of trade union leaders are wary of the proliferation of WFH arrangements and the inability of government, especially of DOLE, to monitor the work situation of those doing online work. First, the shift to telecommuting arrangement is supposed to be a byproduct of an agreement between the employer and the employee, meaning there is consultation-dialogue and there’s mutual consent in the adoption of this work system. And yet, there are no official monitoring reports on WFH work situation and if the envisioned employer-employee negotiation/dialogue is indeed happening.
Trade unions also complain that the WFH mode can be a means for the intensification of the work being done by an employee without the firm giving any corresponding income/compensation for such intensification. Are there metrics or standards to measure what is the ideal output per employee in a WFH system? What is fair and just work online? DOLE and ILO need to institute science-based studies on this topic.
To conclude, WFH and contractual distancing are new developments in the world of work. The global pandemic and economic crisis, together with the digitalization revolution, are pushing industries to go digital and arrange work in a hybrid fashion, with some reporting to a physical office and many to work from home. Is this the wave of the future? If so, it is better for DTI and DOF to go beyond their narrow call to go back to the pre-pandemic work-from-cubicles in high-rise buildings. They need to do a more serious development visioning of the way forward in an increasingly digital world.
And yes, DOLE, employers and the trade unions also need to sit down and discuss what are the terms of work engagement in this digital world.
Dr. Rene E. Ofreneo is a Professor Emeritus of the University of the Philippines.
For comments, please write to reneofreneo@gmail.com.