Gender issues and pro women labor laws in the work place

The women employees in the Philippines are doing very well. Many of them are occupying top corporate positions, like that of a president, CEO, COO, general manager, directors and managers. And they really deserve it. They are given equal opportunity, and even a favored and preferential treatment, when labor and social legislation are to be primarily considered.  It has even been said, and perhaps, rightly so, that in the Philippines, the gender discrimination is in reverse. The women are the favored ones. They are afforded much protection, at times, to the eyes of some, too much protection, to the extent of patronizing them. Thus, that there is even a danger that employers may yet find it more burdensome to hire women in the work place. The pro-women advocates may therefore be better advised to reflect deeply on the implications of pushing for more pro-women labor laws and social statutes. The efforts may boomerang against the women sector.

Under the Labor Code, the DOLE Secretary is mandated by law to establish standards that will ensure the safety and health of women employees. No mention of male employees. The law requires that women employees should be provided with seats during work hours. There is even a requirement to establish a nursery in each work place where nursing mothers who are working can bring their babies and breast feed them during work breaks. The law also requires each of certain establishments to maintain a clinic or infirmary to provide free family planning services to the employees including the application of contraceptive pills and IUDs. The Church will not like this but Article 132 of the Labor Code precisely provides for incentives in bonus schemes to encourage family planning among female workers. This law is vintage 1974, hence, cannot be deemed to be a new invention of the government.

The Labor Code also prohibits strictly any form of discrimination against women personnel. Under the law discrimination is declared unlawful, and appropriate penalties are provided for. It is an act of discrimination on the part of any employer to pay lesser wages and benefits to some solely because they are women. Likewise, it is unlawful to favor a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sex. Aside from a criminal charge, the woman victim may institute an independent civil action, including a case for damages and other affirmative reliefs, if warranted by the facts. There are no parallel legislation for male personnel. Company owners therefore may go to jail for violating these laws.

The Labor Code also, (Article 134) declares it to be unlawful for an employer to require, as a condition for employment, or for continuation of employment, that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate explicitly or implicitly that, upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman merely by reason of her marriage. The leading case on this is the one involving an airline flight stewardess who married in violation supposedly of the Company Rules and Regulation that explicitly prohibited marriage among female flight attendants during their airline career. That airline rule was declared null and void by the Supreme Court. Thanks to that lady, Claudine Zialcita. There were other cases also won by the women personnel in many other companies.

The Code also declares it unlawful to deny any woman employee the benefits provided by law or terminate the employment of women employees for the purpose of preventing her from availing of the labor standard benefits under the law. It is also a criminal offense to dismiss a woman employee because of her pregnancy. Again, it is unlawful to refuse female employees from reporting to work after her maternity leave. Unknown to most people, women who work in any night club, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar, and similar establishments are employees in the eyes of the law. They should be reported as employees to and should enjoy benefits from the SSS, Philhealth, PAG-IBIG, and other relevant agencies. Although not many are complying, the fact is, there are laws which government may enforce.

Under Article 158 of the Code, the law requires that concrete measures shall be taken to ensure that an alternative to night work shall be made available to women workers. A woman worker shall not be dismissed, except for just or authorized causes, provided said cause is not connected with pregnancy, child birth and child care responsibilities. Above all, women workers are not only entitled to 60 days for natural delivery of a baby, or 78 days in case of delivery by cesarean section. Women are also entitled to additional 10 days leave for being a victim of violence by husband or boyfriend (RA 9262), as well as another 7 days leave for being a solo parent. They are even entitled to 60 days of another leave for undergoing hysterectomy, ovariectomy, and mastectomy.

Now, the question is: Would employers be still motivated to hire more women workers? That is my question and my concern.