POEA MC-04 POLICY:PROTECTION MECHANISM OR PROTECTION RACKET?

Recently, after the new guidelines on direct hiring of Filipinos which by foreign employ-ers – the so called POEA MC-04 Policy set by Philippine Overseas Employment Administration took effect last January 15, had received different criticisms and protests from OFWs around the world. And in fact, due to the mounting protests and calls for scrapping, on February 14, almost a month after its implementation, the POEA decided to put on hold the said policy to further discuss the possible modifications in the memorandum as instructed by President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo.

The current suspension of MC-04 Policy shows a positive sign that the POEA and the Arroyo administration are listening to the cries of our OFWs but the suspension is not enough. The unity of our Filipino migrant workers will not stop unless MC-04 is scrapped or revoked.

What is POEA MC-04 Policy? What are its objectives and benefits to the Filipino migrant workers? Why is it that our OFWs around the world have shown their strong protest against it?

According to the detailed guidelines posted at DOLE website on January 19, 2008, the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s Memorandum Circular No. 4 (POEA MC-04) that was approved by the POEA board on December 18, 2007 requires foreign employers directly hiring Filipino workers to post a repatriation bond of $5,000 plus a performance bond of $3,000 or equivalent to the worker’s three months salary. The new guidelines also required foreign employer to provide with medical insurance to the worker at an amount equivalent to those provided to nationals of the host country.

The repatriation bond shall guarantee the actual cost of repatriation of remains of directly hired OFW following death from any cause, and actual cost incurred for repatriation from other causes such as violation or non-compliance with the contract among others. The performance bond shall guarantee payment of the employee's salary for the duration of the employment contract. The bond shall be secured from any Philippine bonding companies. Premiums for the bonds shall be paid by the employer.

Furthermore, if employers do not want to comply with the bonding and insurance requirements or with the standard employment contract will not be allowed to hire OFWs directly. But they may hire thru licensed placement agencies which are willing to assume responsibilities over the employees, including payment of salaries and other employment benefits. In this case, POEA MC-04 Policy seriously puts Filipino workers under the control of recruitment agencies and makes them vulnerable to overcharging and other malpractices of unscrupulous recruitment agencies. It also belies the fact that recruitment agencies are not there to protect OFWs but are in fact accessories to, and even promoter of many cases of abuse.

On the same website, DOLE Secretary and POEA Board Chairman Arturo Brion had stressed that the adoption of a stricter policy on direct hiring is aimed to strengthen the protection mechanisms for the OFWs. He further explained that the policy was meant to reinforce the provision of the Philippine Labor Code that prohibits direct hiring of Filipino workers, except for selected employers such as diplomats, heads of international organizations and other employers as may be approved by the secretary of labor and employment. In this case, POEA MC-04 Policy puts more severe restrictions for name-hired or direct-hired OFWs.

Jobseeker sectors that will be directly affected in this new policy are those applicants and workers under household services, ITs, Bankers, and other skilled category jobseekers. In South Korea, all future workers who will be directly hired under E-7 type visa, household services visa, and other professional jobs related visa will be directly affected.

Protecting OFWs who currently play as the living heroes of our country is the government’s main job. No question about that. It is its duty to create effective laws and policies that would sincerely provide benefits and welfare of all Filipino migrant workers. During the creation and approval of POEA MC-04 policy, they should have considered the negative outcome of this policy to all present and future OFWs. They should have realized that upon imposing the expensive bond payments may push foreign employers to recruit workers from other countries that do not impose bond payments, which will definitely result to loss of jobs and employment opportunities abroad.

Although the bond payments will be shouldered by the foreign employers but the big chances is that they shall also recoup recruitment costs from OFWs themselves, either through maximum exploitation of their labor or through direct deductions from their salaries.

For many OFWs, the said policy can be viewed as “ANTI-OFW” because it is not meant to protect Filipino migrant workers as it is squeezing more money from them in the name of protecting their rights. This policy could be another moneymaking venture of the current opportunist and corrupt government officials to further render OFWs as milking cows for their never ending greedy pockets.

Our OFWs do not need MC-04 Policy to protect their welfare, what they need are those embassy officials who have experience in labor-crisis management that would not compromise their rights especially of those having been economically, physically and sexually abused.

We need the real “protection mechanism”, not the shameless phrase called “protection racket”.