JEDDAH, 17 October — Members of a service exporters group in the Philippines are offering to pay $10 more in insurance for every worker they deploy abroad to “enhance” the available protective mechanisms for Overseas Filipino Workers.
Under the proposal of the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. (PASEI), the amount would be in addition to the $25-insurance fee they pay the Overseas Workers Welfare Office (OWWA) for each worker.
PASEI President Victor Fernandez Jr., who is currently in the Kingdom, said the proposed program would cover the payment of unpaid claims of OFWs from their foreign employers, repatriation expenses of OFWs in distress, and a $100 subsistence allowance for six months for OFWs who get “stranded” in their place of work while fighting for their claim against their employers.
Fernandez was part of the business delegation of ex-President Fidel Ramos who visited the Kingdom early this month.
In cases where a foreign employer pays only part of the OFW’s “legitimate” claim, he said, the balance will also be answered by the Comprehensive Overseas Workers Claim Assurance Fund (COWCAF) to be created under the plan.
In the repatriation portion, OFWs who need to be sent home during emergencies like war or other civil disturbance in their place of work would also be covered.
“If we have this program, we will stop talking about where the government would get money to repatriate our workers in the event of war because insurance agencies would take care of the expenses,” Fernandez said in an interview with Arab News.
Fernandez said their offer, however, should be covered by a legislation making it mandatory for each placement agency to pay.
For lack of a competent government agency to handle the fund, PASEI proposed that the additional amount be also paid to the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA).
He said at least two congressmen have expressed interest in the proposal, with Zamblaes Rep. Ruben Torres, a former labor secretary, reportedly promising to file a bill.
Asked what made the placement agencies thought of making the offer, Fernandez they will also stand to benefit from it.
“We are not doing this out of charity. We are doing it because we believe that apart from providing welfare to our workers in distress, it will also give relief to placement agencies as well as the government,” he said.
Recruitment agencies would benefit, he said, because the COWCAF will answer for the foreign employer’s liability instead of the Joint and Solidary Liability (JSL) being paid by licensed recruitment agencies.
Under the JSL provision of existing Philippine law on overseas employment, should the foreign employer of an OFW fail to pay what is due the employee, the recruitment agency would be held liable.
Fernandez said this rule is “not only unfair and unjust but also injurious to licensed recruitment agencies because we are being made to pay for the sins of an erring employer?” he argued.
“The existing policy encourages some bad foreign employers to run away from their obligations because they know the recruiters could be made to pay for their transgressions.”
On the contention by some that placement agencies are supposed to send workers only to responsible employers, he said this argument itself is unfair because the Philippine embassies, consulates and labor offices abroad are supposed to vet employers.
“Even a man and a woman would not be able to tell during courtship whether or not the other would be a good husband or wife,” he argued.
Isn’t this a ploy for recruitment agencies to merely pass on the additional $10 contribution to the worker while wriggling out of the Joint and Solidary Liability rule?
Fernandez’s answer is that the measure would be of no cost to the OFW because it will not be added to the placement fee.
If it’s good, why don’t the placement agencies just go ahead and provide insurance for the workers they recruit for work abroad?
“Unless the program is made mandatory, it is bound to fail because not all recruiters might comply,” Fernandez answered.
Besides, he said, they want to be given relief from the JSL, which continues to “strangle” the legitimate recruiters but which does not make any dent on the illegal ones. “We are not running away from the JSL, but simply passing on the risk to companies such as insurance and bonding firms which are in the business of taking risks,” he said.
He further emphasized that the provision they are seeking would not remove the liability of recruiters for their own sins, such as when a recruiter overcharges the OFW or collect fees for non-existent jobs.
Fernandez said PASEI is seeking the support of OFW groups and individuals as well as legislators for their proposal because they have not been able to get any favorable action from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
He said the three-pronged proposal is not really a new idea but they have revived it as part of their observance of 2002 as “The Year of the Overseas Employment Providers.” He said PASEI first brought up the idea during the time of Administrator Reynaldo Regalado, an appointee of ousted President Estrada, but they were told to just do it if they want to without involving the POEA. “It seems that they want the easy way out, which is to blame licensed recruiters for any problem that may arise. But this is not solving the problem,” he said.
Fernandez said that rather than continue blaming each other, the government, licensed recruiters, OFWs and the government could “work together in finding a solution beneficial and acceptable to all.”
“We believe that in our proposal, everyone would be happy — distressed OFWs will benefit from the claim, repatriation and subsistence allowance provisions; placement agencies would be freed from answering for violations they have nothing to do with; the government would be relieved of a perennial problem; and other OFWs would be relieved of repeated fund-raisers that cause donor fatigue.”
He said PASEI is open to questions or suggestions to improve their proposal. PASEI may be contacted through e-mail with these addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], or through telefax nos. (632) 725-7030, 725/7028, 725-7024, or 724-9986.
Fernandez said queries or suggestions may also be directed to him via e-mail addresses [email protected] or [email protected], or via telefax nos. (632) 724-8972 or 725-3676.
