Makabayan bloc opposes 2-year probationary employment period proposal

Makabayan bloc lawmakers on Thursday opposed the proposal of their fellow House minority member to extend the maximum prescribed period of probationary employment from six months to up to two years.

Probinsyano Ako party-list Representative Jose "Bonito" Singson Jr. has earlier filed House Bill 4802 extending the probationary employment period to up to 24 months, arguing that the current six-month period is not enough to assess whether an employee is qualified for regularization.

The measure will also allow probationary employees to have continuous employment for more than six months, enabling them to qualify for some of the mandatory benefits under the law, he said.

But Bayan Muna party-list Representative Ferdinand Gaite said that the measure will only violate the concept of security of tenure for workers, which he said should be provided at the earliest time possible.

"Made-defeat yung purpose ng provision na sa pinakamaagang panahon, bigyan ng kasiguraduhan sa trabaho ang manggagawa bunga na nga rin ng pakinabang ng employer sa manggagawa. At the shortest possible time, dapat gawing regular yung empleyado," he said.

Gaite said their initial research showed that probationary employment period in other countries normally take only three to six months. The case should not be any different in the Philippines, he said.

"Normally, naglalagay ng probational employment period para titignan kung sa bahagi ng employer, suitable ba yung manggagawa doon sa trabahong ibinigay sa kanya. At the same time, ito rin ang paraan para sa manggagawa na makabisa niya yung trabaho na nakaatas sa kanya," he said.

"Sa ganitong paraan, yung period of probationary employment ay pansamantalang panahon para siya ay maging regular. Sobrang tagal yung 24 months," he added.

For her part, Gabriela Women's Party Representative Arlene Brosas said extending the probationary employment period will not in any way address contractualization, unemployment and underemployment, which she said are the main problems of workers nowadays.

"Ang mangyayari, lalo lang magkakaroon ng paglabag doon sa karapatan ng mga manggagawa, kasi pinapatagal mo lang siya na temporary," she said.

"Ang kahilingan ng mga manggagawa ngayon ay regular na trabaho para lang sa ganun ay mabuhay nila ang kanilang pamilya," she added.

ACT Teachers party-list Representative France Castro, meanwhile, said that the measure will only worsen the conditions being experienced by some workers.

"Tutol kami dito dahil pagpapalala pa ito nung masidhing kalagayan na ng ating mga manggagawa na walang seguridad sa trabaho, karamihan ay minimum wage. Grabeng pagsasamantala na ito sa mga manggagawa," she said.

The proposal to extend the probationary employment period seems to not sit well with House Committee on Labor and Employment Eric Pineda himself, saying that though it is required for some employees, it may not be suitable for all types of jobs.

"To extend the probationary period for certain types of jobs is not necessarily one of the contentious issues surrounding the proposed Security of Tenure bills, as promised by the President. In fact, probationary period was never an issue in the first place between the labor and employer sector when the SOT bill was deliberated during the 17th Congress," he said.

Pineda said the main issue for both employees and employers is on the practice of contractualization which to him, "cannot be completely prohibited."

He said he will make sure that all sides will be heard in this issue to come up with a policy "that will benefit our workers and at the same time, a law that will not severely affect the employer sector," as required by President Rodrigo Duterte.  —LDF, GMA News