The fifth judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower, Tuesday (11/15/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Tuesday, November 15, 2022 | 16:48 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the fifth judicial review hearing of Article 1 point 15 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 in the plenary courtroom, where the Petitioners presented two witnesses: Andriko Sugianto Otang of the Trade Union Rights Centre (TURC) and Erika Rosmawati Situmorang of Bitra Indonesia.
Before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (chair) and the other seven constitutional justices, Andriko revealed the vulnerable conditions of homeworkers who he had been assisting since 2013. These homeworkers, he said, took on a variety of odd jobs such as sewing shoes, attaching sequins or beads, removing threads for the apparel industry, and weaving rattan for the furniture industry. They are generally required for the production process of certain parts of products that cannot be done by machine. Homeworkers are selected by business owners or employers because of their efficient cost and their role in accelerating production. However, the majority of these homeworkers tend to have very low incomes and are even poor or economically vulnerable They often experience exploitation, such as long working hours and payment below the minimum wage since they do not have bargaining power. This, Andriko asserted, is not yet regulated in laws and regulations.
“As far as my experience assisting [homeworkers], employers employ them primarily to evade responsibilities set in the Manpower Law and at the same time transfer risks and responsibilities normally falling on the employers to the homeworkers,” he said.
Andriko revealed that these homeworkers’ homes also serve as their work location as well as warehouse. They are also typically required to provide the equipment themselves, although some have it provided or lent by the employers. They also bear the burden of other aspects of production such as electricity, maintenance of equipment, cost of transport for picking up supplies and delivering final products.
“Homeworkers receive pay based on units, or what we call piece rate. The difficulty faced by homeworkers include finding out detailed information of the components of their pay, since they do not receive pay slips from their employers,” he revealed.
Also read:
Five Homeworkers Challenge Manpower Law
House Explains Definitions of Businessperson and Employer in Manpower Law
No Legal Basis
Next, Erika Rosmawati Situmorang said that there have been efforts to create a legal protection for these homeworkers by discussing with the North Sumatera DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) and the Legal Bureau of the Provincial Government of North Sumatera a proposal of regional regulation on manpower in the province, including the legal protection for homeworkers.
A special committee on the draft of regional regulation on manpower has been established, which involves stakeholders such as the Manpower Office of North Sumatera Province and its regencies/cities, homeworkers, workers/laborers unions, the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), representation of companies that employ homeworkers, and academics. This regional regulation will be issued soon.
“On March 5, 2020, during a visit to the Ministry of Home Affairs, it was discovered that there had not been any national legal basis on homeworkers and their rights and obligations. Therefore, it was only stated that regulations on homeworkers may be made as long as they do not go against legislation and standard procedures,” Situmorang said.
Also read:
Work Relations of Homeworkers and Formal Workers Should Be Equal
Expert: Narrow Definition of Manpower Disregards Homeworkers’ Rights
Five homeworkers—Muhayati, Een Sunarsih, and Dewiyah (Petitioners I-III) from Jakarta and Kurniyah and Sumini (Petitioners IV-V) from Cirebon—filed a material judicial review petition to challenge Article 1 point 15 and Article 50 of Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. The Petitioners of case No. 75/PUU-XX/2022 are not employed by companies but receive orders of goods/services from intermediaries. In 2017, the Petitioners had an audience with the Ministry of Manpower to question protection for homeworkers as employees and their work relations based on the Manpower Law but the Ministry said the term “homeworkers” was not recognized in the Law.
They believe homeworkers can be categorized as workers following the definition of workers in the Law, but they were considered not having work relations. However, the Ministry of Manpower believed that the characteristics of homeworkers did not meet the requirements for workers within work relations as referred to in Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law. Therefore, they believe the Manpower Law has not provided legal protection to homeworkers.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the entire petition and nullify Article 1 point 15 of the Manpower Law if not interpreted to mean “An employment relation shall be defined as a relationship between an employer and a worker/laborer, which deals with aspects relating to job description, wage, and orders” and Article 50 if not interpreted to mean “Work relations occurs due to work/employment agreement between the employer and the worker/laborer.”
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 11/16/2022 15:43 WIB
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Tuesday, November 15, 2022 | 16:48 WIB 364