---

Applicant’s Expert Indrasari Tjandraningsih delivers her testimony at judicial review session on Act of Manpower, on Wednesday (12/8) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Dedy

 

 

 

AKATIGA Social Analysis Center’s Researcher Indrasari Tjandraningsih delivers minimum wage is mandatory given to workers. She delivers her statement at further judicial review session on Article 90 (2) Act Number 13 Year 2003 of Manpower and its elucidation.

The Constitutional Court holds the session on Wednesday (12/8), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. It reviews Case Number 72/PUU-XIII/2015.  

Indrasari explains, minimum wage shall be given to workers and regulates by law. “Thus, minimum wage is binding and mandatory to employers,” said her at the session.

Philosophically, minimum wage is an attempt to prevent arbitrary treatment to workers which possibly occurred due to excessive workers available in workers market. According to her, minimum wage policy has at least four principles, which is as wage protection compiled by involving workers and employers, however it determined by the State under recent economics condition and periodically reviewed.

Moreover, minimum wage policy is a part of social policy and an efficient mechanism to reduce poverty and revenue erosion in the poorest household. “The last is, minimum wage is one of the instruments which able to control wage distribution, in order to reduce income gap,” said her who presented as Applicant’s Expert.

She asserts, minimum wage policy is a State’s way to prevent worker exploitation, provide protection to workers’ feasible living, and reduce poverty.

Meanwhile, Applicant’s Witnesses Agung Sukma Rusdiana and Agus Septianto claim they suffer wage suspension. Agung who work in Bogor Regency (Kabupaten Bogor) claims he is paid under minimum wage for two years. He earns Rp. 2.002.000,00 per month since last two years, whereas Bogor Regency Minimum Wage policy (Upah Minimum Kota Tangerang) in year 2014 is Rp. 2.242.240,00.

“So, each worker loss is Rp240.242,00 per month. The worker is amounted to 510 workers at that time. So, total loss suffered by entire workers in 2014 is Rp. 122.523.420,00 per month multiplied by 12 month, the total is Rp. 1.470.281.040,00,” said Agung

In 2015, minimum wage in Bogor Regency is Rp. 2.658.155,00. However, the workers still earn the same wage with the previous year. According to Agung, the lack of wage payment continues to rise.

He claims his company is incapable to pay minimum wage for the last two years. However, there is no explanation on wage suspension agreement from his company. “At that time, I only told to sign. No further explanation,” said him.

Meanwhile, Agus who works in Tangerang City experiences similar suffering. He earns unfair wage for one year, which inappropriate with Tangerang City Minimum Wage policy (Upah Minimum Kota Tangerang). He says Workers Union has made agreement with the company regarding wage suspension, however, he never knows the content of the agreement.

Previously, the Joint Independent Workers Union (Gabungan Serikat Buruh Mandiri –GSBM) and the Awaken Workers Union (Serikat Buruh Bangkit –SBB) as Applicant assess the provision on Article 90 (1) Act of Manpower which regulates prohibition on wage payment under minimum wage, becomes optional by the provision on Article 90 (2) Act a quo and its elucidation. They assess the provision has open opportunity to suspend minimum wage payment.

The Applicant argues, suspension could be conducted in terms of payment time and payment amount, as stipulated in Article 90 (2) Act a quo. Employers and companies could suspend wage payment by paying minimum wage in accordance with previous minimum wage policy, paying higher than previous policy but lower than the new policy, or gradually increase minimum wage.

“Policy on wage suspension cause legal uncertainty. Minimum wage policy regulated by the State becomes uncertain because it is possible to disobey the policy. Wage received by workers might be below the standard of feasible living,” said Applicant’s Attorney Nikson Gans Lalu, on Wednesday session (17/6).

According to the Applicant, Act of Manpower regulates legal certainty regarding workers’ rights in industrial relations, including the right to gain appropriate wage. It is for prevent arbitrary wage payment which possibly committed by employers or companies.

Thus in the petitum, the Applicant requests the Constitutional Court to declare Article 90 (2) Act of Manpower and its elucidation contrary to the Constitution and have no legal binding. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---