...at ano naman kaya ang maiiwan natin sa susunod na henerasyon?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Mandatory insurance benefits recruiters, not OFWs
Mandatory insurance benefits recruiters, not OFWs
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:27:00 11/16/2009
MANILA, Philippines—The proposed mandatory insurance for all overseas Filipino workers will benefit recruiters principally and OFWs only incidentally, the Center for Migrants Advocacy said Monday, opposing a move in Congress to legislate it.
The proposal, which is contained in the proposed law to amend the Migrant Workers Act or Republic Act 8042, is expected to be tackled at the bicameral conference committee meeting on Wednesday.
CMA executive director Ellene Sana said the proposed mandatory insurance is really meant to insure the recruiters against their obligations to OFWs who find themselves in trouble abroad.
“And that is unfair to the workers,” she said.
Miguel Bolos, a member of the CMA board and who had worked in Saudi Arabia for 25 years before returning home for good, said that the proposal puts a third party in OFW protection.
“With this proposal, there is more room for the recruiters to wiggle out of their obligations. Dati ang kalaban lang ng OFW, recruiter; dito, magiging recruiter at insurance company na (While OFWs used to tangle only with recruiters, it’s going to be recruiters and insurance companies with this proposal),” he said.
“And we know how insurance companies try to minimize their pay-outs,” he added.
Both Sana and Bolos also pointed out that if this amendment passes, the liability of the recruiter to the OFW would be further diluted.
For instance, instead of getting full payment for the unexpired portion of the employment contract, the fired OFW may get much less depending on the provisions of the insurance contract.
Sana said the proposal, initially made by recruiters to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration several years, has been turned down by the POEA again and again.
She said even the Office of the Solicitor General, whose legal opinion the POEA sought, rejected the idea of mandatory insurance for OFWs.
“Even the executive branch turned it down, so why try and legislate it?” she asked.
Sana also said that with only 26 percent of OFWs leaving the country through recruitment agencies, insurance fees will ultimately be shouldered by the OFWs themselves.
“Let’s not burden the OFWs with more fees. Other parts of the proposed amendments already provide for protection to the OFWs,” Sana said, adding that the employment contract specifies a repatriation mechanism, including a plane ticket home, as well as access to grievance mechanisms.
Bolos said that while insurance in general is good, “the way they’re doing it is not.”
“The recruiters don’t need a law to get insurance for the OFWs they’re sending abroad. They can do it voluntarily,” he said.
By Veronica Uy
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:27:00 11/16/2009
MANILA, Philippines—The proposed mandatory insurance for all overseas Filipino workers will benefit recruiters principally and OFWs only incidentally, the Center for Migrants Advocacy said Monday, opposing a move in Congress to legislate it.
The proposal, which is contained in the proposed law to amend the Migrant Workers Act or Republic Act 8042, is expected to be tackled at the bicameral conference committee meeting on Wednesday.
CMA executive director Ellene Sana said the proposed mandatory insurance is really meant to insure the recruiters against their obligations to OFWs who find themselves in trouble abroad.
“And that is unfair to the workers,” she said.
Miguel Bolos, a member of the CMA board and who had worked in Saudi Arabia for 25 years before returning home for good, said that the proposal puts a third party in OFW protection.
“With this proposal, there is more room for the recruiters to wiggle out of their obligations. Dati ang kalaban lang ng OFW, recruiter; dito, magiging recruiter at insurance company na (While OFWs used to tangle only with recruiters, it’s going to be recruiters and insurance companies with this proposal),” he said.
“And we know how insurance companies try to minimize their pay-outs,” he added.
Both Sana and Bolos also pointed out that if this amendment passes, the liability of the recruiter to the OFW would be further diluted.
For instance, instead of getting full payment for the unexpired portion of the employment contract, the fired OFW may get much less depending on the provisions of the insurance contract.
Sana said the proposal, initially made by recruiters to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration several years, has been turned down by the POEA again and again.
She said even the Office of the Solicitor General, whose legal opinion the POEA sought, rejected the idea of mandatory insurance for OFWs.
“Even the executive branch turned it down, so why try and legislate it?” she asked.
Sana also said that with only 26 percent of OFWs leaving the country through recruitment agencies, insurance fees will ultimately be shouldered by the OFWs themselves.
“Let’s not burden the OFWs with more fees. Other parts of the proposed amendments already provide for protection to the OFWs,” Sana said, adding that the employment contract specifies a repatriation mechanism, including a plane ticket home, as well as access to grievance mechanisms.
Bolos said that while insurance in general is good, “the way they’re doing it is not.”
“The recruiters don’t need a law to get insurance for the OFWs they’re sending abroad. They can do it voluntarily,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To: http://pusongpinoytayo.blogspot.com
Posts
All Comments