Petitioners’ Witness Says Job Creation Law Deprives Workers of Their Rights
Image

Chairman of the central executive board of FSP LEM SPSI of Bekasi Regency/City Yosep Ubaama Kolin testifying as a witness for the Petitioners of case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 on the material judicial review of the Job Creation Law, Wednesday (2/7/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.


JAKARTA (MKRI) Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into Law has deprived workers of their rights, said chairman of the central executive board of FSP LEM SPSI of Bekasi Regency/City Yosep Ubaama Kolin testifying as a witness for the Petitioners of case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023. The material judicial review hearing of the Job Creation Law for cases No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 and No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Wednesday, February 7, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Yosep’s testimony also answered a question by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih on the difference between the Manpower Law before and after amendment through the Job Creation Law in the eyes of workers.

“I believe (the Job Creation Law) is a form of deprivation of our rights as workers. It is as if the Government’s paradigm is that workers cannot be prosperous. When talking about the Job Creation Law, the Government always says that it’s good that non-permanent workers are given severance pay, but that deprives workers who have previously worked of their rights because their severance pay is reduced,” Yosep said.

He also revealed that the stipulation of minimum wage of 2024 had lacked dialogue among the elements of the Wage Board due to the limitation set by the Government Regulation (PP) No. 51 of 2023 on the amendment to PP No. 36 of 2021 on Wages. The calculation of regency minimum wage (UMK) increases used data prepared by the Central Statistics Agency and the calculation formula for UMK increases as laid out in PP No. 51 of 2023.

Yosep also said that in the stipulation of the 2024 minimum wage, sectoral minimum wage had not been discussed. Consequently, as an employee of PT Dharma Precision Parts since 2002, he had difficulties trying to lobby for wage increase in 2024.

“This is because the collective worker’s agreement in which [I] work uses the margin between the current year’s sectoral minimum wage and the previous year’s as one of the parameters for wage increases. Likewise, in 2023 and 2022, there is no stipulation regarding sectoral wages so the wage increase in that year applied the same system as that in the previous year,” he said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, and the other constitutional justices.

Also read:

Hundreds of Workers Allege Job Creation Law Facilitates Layoff  

Hundreds of Workers Affirm Arguments for Case on Job Creation Law 

Court Rules to Separate Formal and Material Review of Job Creation Law

Govt: Formulation of Job Creation Law Following Legislation

House: Job Creation Law to Maintain National Economy’s Stability

Petitioners’ Experts: Job Creation Law Not Urgent

Aan Eko Widiarto: Job Creation Perppu Defies Constitutional Court’s Ruling

Petitioners’ Expert: Job Creation Law Unqualified for Omnibus Method

Revision of Job Creation Law Serves to Follow Up on Court’s Ruling

Formal Petitions Rejected, Material Review of Job Creation Law Continues

Govt Discusses Limit of Non-Permanent Contracts in Job Creation Law

Expert: Workers Unions Important for Balance in Industrial Relations 

The case No. 40/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by 121 petitioners, consisting of ten workers’ unions and 111 individuals. Among the unions are Federasi Serikat Pekerja Kimia, Energi, dan Pertambangan Serikat Pekerja Seluruh Indonesia (FSP KEP SPSI); Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PP IP); and Federasi Serikat Pekerja Indonesia (FSPI). They allege that the Job Creation Law is legally flawed. They question the House’s approval of the stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation into law. They assert that this means the House approved the president’s justification of the compelling crisis situation for the stipulation of the perppu. In addition, the enforcement of Article 81 of the Job Creation Law has led to actual or at least potential losses in the part of the Petitioners and could lead to the loss of job. It essentially facilitates layoffs and changes in manpower as regulated in the articles of the Law has degraded state protections for workers, which was previously regulated appropriately in Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower. The Court has previously rejected the Petitioners’ formal petition through a decision handed down on September 18, 2023 while the material petition continues.

Also read:

Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Challenged

Petitioner of Temporary Employment Agreement in Job Creation Law Adds Work Experience

Court Rules to Separate Formal and Material Review of Job Creation Law

Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 61/PUU-XXI/2023, private employee Leonardo Siahaan, argues that as a person in productive age, despite not having been employed, he would potentially work. He realized that Article 56 paragraph (3) of the Job Creation Law means that the extension of temporary employment agreements (PKWT) clearly has no fixed term and number of extension time, thus highly susceptible to exploitation of workers. Seeing the a quo article, employers could think they can extend PKWT contracts for more than 10 years and even more than 2 times when, in fact, the old Manpower Law clearly stipulates that the maximum term for a PKWT is 3 years and it can be extended only once. This means the employment term of the elderly could have been extended continuously until they become a permanent employee.

The Petitioner argued that companies can set longer employment terms in PKWT arbitrarily. Not to mention, the a quo article means employment terms can be extended indefinitely without companies having to make employees permanent. In the petition, the Petitioner explains that the a quo article generally regulates that the end of PKWT is based on two things: the end of employment term or the end of the work. He also explains that Law No. 13 of 2003 on Manpower and the Government Regulation (PP) No. 35 of 2021 on temporary employment agreement, outsourcing, working hours and break time, and employment termination.

Author       : Sri Pujianti/L. A. P.
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.


Wednesday, February 07, 2024 | 14:58 WIB 28
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2