Bust those Unions

Manila Standard

Saturday, November 2, 1996

By ALEX MAGNO

SOME trade unions are hazards to public welfare. The PALEA – the union of Philippine Airlines employees — is one of those.

I have little sympathy for Philippine Airlines. But now, I have even less sympathy for its union.

Last Wednesday, the PALEA launched a wildcat strike. The strike brought instant misery to thousands of Filipinos.

The strike was obviously timed to cause maximum misery to the tens of thousands of Filipinos who use the airline. It was launched just as Filipinos prepared to remember their dead.

The first day of November, given our remarkable devotion to dead ancestors, is one of our most revered holidays. Filipinos travel far to visit the graves of their loved ones.

PALEA demonstrated not only the arrogance of those with the organized power to shut down vital services but also a certain callousness toward Filipino traditions when it launched its wildcat strike at the time that it did.

When jeepney drivers strike, they inconvenience commuters and force them to walk for hours to reach their destinations. When airline workers strike, the commuters cannot fly to the places they want to be at that time.

I was witness to the rage of commuters hit by the strike.

On a plane from Davao, we had to sit on the tarmac for what seemed like half the night before someone could be found to tow the plane to bay. Then we had to wait some more until some hands could be gathered to roll the staircase to the plane. After that, we had to sit in vigil for the cargo to be brought in.

Outside the terminal, the unionists were busy trying to make life even more miserable for the commuters. They setup barricades, disturbed traffic flow and thought up every inconvenience their sadistic minds could come up with.

I left the airport hating unions in general and the PALEA in particular.

Why are these guys hitting the ordinary commuter? For what — a few more pesos a day they expect to wrangle from a beleaguered company?

The PALEA justified their strike by accusing management of union busting. From where I stand, I think this union should be busted.

If the service of PAL is inefficient, it must be because its workers are inefficient. What this company needs is a massive transfusion of personnel so that a new batch of workers willing to do more for less might be given the opportunity to be employed.

The PALEA, according to news reports, charges the PAL management of violating "security of tenure." In the modem world, this has to be an obsolete concept. No enterprise should be bound to paying wages for workers who do not contribute value to the company.

The whole idea of trade unionism ought to be reviewed in the light of new demands for flexibility on the part of enterprises bent on maintaining their competitive edge.

PAL seems to be one of those companies that carries the baggage typical of newly privatized enterprises. It is overstaffed. Its critical operations are manned by people who still think and work like government bureaucrats.

I have not kept up with the details of the privatization process at PAL. I do know that the person who has now won control of the airline is not very popular in government circles, having established a reputation as a tax evader and a former crony of the deposed dictator.

It seems that the new management of this company has stuck its neck out by investing large sums in modernizing the fleet of a company that has walled the rim of bankruptcy and is saddled with antiquated aircraft. That valiant effort at refleeting and reinventing the company should at least be given an even chance.

The biggest hindrance to the modernization of this company, it seems, is a union with an antiquated mindset. A union that thinks nothing of inflicting misery on those who patronize the PAL's services.

Security overkill?

I hope the PALEA strike is not related to the frantic effort of a few fringe groups to disrupt the APEC meeting and bring embarrassment to the country.

These fringe groups, led by losers, have plowed up a host of issues tangential to the substance of the APEC meeting in order to rabble-rouse. They have agitated squatters by linking the process of restoring sanity to urban life with the APEC cleanup.

One group tried a repeat of the highly visible Asia-Pacific Conference on East Timor to undermine focus on the country's progress and the advance of regionalism during the APEC meeting. They have apparently received large amounts of foreign (possible European) funding to hinder the APEC process. The Europeans are somewhat anxious of APEC's potential to be a foil for their ageing industrial societies.

The Maoist leftovers have likewise raised foreign money to assemble the most backward-looking spokesmen for the peasantry in the country to denounce "imperialist globalization" during the APEC meeting. Filipino radical groups have come down to importing protestors to keep their political presence alive.

The leftist groups, scrounging for issues, have even resorted to outright lies in order to erect political hindrances to the success of the APEC meeting.

Last week, they accused government of resorting to martial law methods by (allegedly) imposing a curfew in the areas around Subic. It turns out that the allegation was based on the two year policy of one school in Zambales imposing a 10 p.m. curfew on minors.

The accusation levelled against the government was based on a malicious hoax.

Left with little else to throw against the government, the born-losers in the anti-APEC protest industry are now raising hackles against what they call "security overkill' in the preparations for the largest summit meeting ever to be held in this country.

On this theme, they have complained about everything, from the hiring of foreign security experts to train our personnel, the purchase of bomb-sniffing dogs, and through screening of personnel servicing the visiting dignitaries.

On this point, Sen. Orlando Mercado has said the most sensible thing: On a matter like the APEC summit, there can be no such thing as a "security overkill."

One small incident can mar the whole thing. One tiny oversight could ruin the country's reputation and undermine international confidence in our ability to do things correctly.

All of us will bear the cost of such oversight. All of us will reap the benefits of a successful summit.