Given that the looming transport strike this month will adversely impact the commuting public and disturb school and business activities, several initiatives have been announced from both the public and private sectors. Some private schools and companies, for instance, have decided to suspend synchronous classes and in-person office work, respectively. Some local government units have been reported to offer free rides and financial assistance to drivers, to which “Manibela,” the group that has called for this work stoppage, has criticized LGUs for doing so. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) has extended the deadline for the traditional jeepney phaseout to December 31 upon the direction/advice of Transport Secretary Jaime Bautista and President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Much has been said about this bold and necessary modernization program, which will ultimately lead to the phaseout of traditional PUV units, whose drivers are asking for a more balanced, transparent, and calculated implementation. As for Secretary Bautista, he said that affected transport groups will be given ample time to purchase new units in line with the PUV modernization program while traditional PUV units will continue to ply their routes if new units will not be available in those areas. Having worked with Secretary Bautista at the Philippine Airlines (PAL), I know that he will have a listening ear and flexible muscles to arrive at a win-win solution for all affected stakeholders. Meanwhile, President Marcos said that while the modernization program is a necessary first step to the shift to electric vehicles, it has to be implemented with a realistic timetable, hence the extension, twice already. On the part of the striking jeepney drivers and operators, they are still reeling from the adverse impacts of a double whammy—Covid-related transport restrictions and the unabated fuel price hikes, principally due to the war in Ukraine.
The scenario is altogether entrenched in the fabric of negotiations where a stalemate could be inevitable. Opposing parties with passionate sentiments for their respective beliefs laconically find themselves in a gridlock. Author Ken Gosnell offered biblical-based solutions in difficult negotiations, which can be used by “opposing” leaders in the transportation industry in negotiating a commendable modernization program and avert the use of paralyzing strikes. According to Gosnell, negotiations must start with a genuine understanding of the other side by considering their “why” before looking at your own side in keeping with what the Bible tells us in Philippians 2:3—“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” At PAL, recent collective bargaining agreements (CBA) have been concluded with painstaking union negotiations led by the triumvirate of FASAP leaders in the persons of Bob Anduiza, Andy Ortega, and Ricky Montecillo. While last year’s CBA can be seen as long overdue as the pandemic threatened PAL’s very existence, these FASAP leaders understood the dire financial situation of PAL and, more importantly, the needs of the riding public first, before considering the earnings and retirement benefits of their union members. I can only surmise that FASAP chose not to wield the union power to strike during these past few negotiations because of its mindset of putting the interest of PAL and of the country first before FASAP. As a result, both FASAP and PAL managed to live out the message enshrined in 1 Corinthians 10:24—“Try to do what is good for others, not just what is good for yourselves.” As a side note, kudos to erstwhile FASAP VP Andy Ortega who was recently appointed as Chairman, Office of Transportation Cooperatives—joining forces with his former “opposing side,” now DOTr Secretary Bautista.
Armed with that “other side first” mentality, forward planning helps in anticipating these push-and-pull factors in any negotiation. The inherent animosity between government and the companies it seeks to regulate will admittedly impact the outcome of the discussion. Thus, leaders from both sides must develop and adopt a deliberate and time-driven strategy to slowly cultivate a middle ground in the implementation of this modernization program. Constant dialogue helps, but transparent exchange of information is key to uphold the principles of fairness and justice. Most importantly, anger and hatred are stumbling blocks to negotiations, which can be a negotiator’s nightmare. And in our case, it has already ripened much earlier than expected. With the transport groups crippling the commuting public through a weeklong strike versus the cancellation of provisional authority for the non-complying parties to the PUV modernization program, a standoff has indeed blossomed albeit uninvited. As to which side of the table should win is a matter best left to the mature experts and not to the onion-skinned participants.
One “blog” I read said one can’t force another side to negotiate a “win-win” deal. And although a deadlock may be created intentionally to achieve a “win-lose” deal (great for one side, awful for the other), it can easily result in either no deal at all, or even a mutually bad “lose-lose” outcome. Hence, a far more different remedy is necessitated, and one that entails a more selfless attitude from the opposing parties. If only all the stakeholders can adopt an “other side first” mentality, chances are we will be generating a modern and responsive transport modernization program that not simply jettisons a legacy of World War II (our the traditional jeepney) but enables and equips the men and women behind its wheels, all for the common good. We are in the age of astonishing automotive innovations for fuel efficiency, aerodynamics, safety and feature comforts. Perhaps the opposing parties in this apparent deadlock can start by looking into the other party’s “whys”, per Author Gosnell. Why do they object? Why do they insist? If we walk along the essence of the 1 Corinthians 10:24 verse, mindful of what is best for the other person and not only of what is best for ourselves, then a win-win solution is never far-fetched. A huge chunk of the success equation rests in the indubitable partaking of the transport sector, drivers and operators in general. If this strike is a stumbling block that cannot be hurdled even by hardball negotiations, then we might as well consider ourselves as vestiges of a vintage style hardball negotiation—unapologetic and bereft of a will to move forward.
A former infantry and intelligence officer in the Army, Siegfred Mison showcased his servant leadership philosophy in organizations such as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Malcolm Law Offices, Infogix Inc., University of the East, Bureau of Immigration, and Philippine Airlines. He is a graduate of West Point in New York, Ateneo Law School, and University of Southern California. A corporate lawyer by profession, he is an inspirational teacher and a Spirit-filled writer with a mission.
For questions and comments, please e-mail me at sbmison@gmail.com.