Under the law, contractual employees are those whose employment is contractually fixed for a

certain period. Contracting of the job is now the norm of different companies, establishments,
businesses or industries. Even regular jobs can be contracted out provided that it must be done in good
faith and requires the exigencies of the business. It has to be because the legitimate aim of business and
management is its survival, expansion and dominance. Unfortunately, it is allowed by law and it is
impelled by business economics to take lawful measure to realize these aspirations. Business create
jobs. When a business collapses, labor protection collapses with it, people will lose their job.

One of the reasons a company opted to contract a regular job is because of cost saving program.
Like for example, the services rendered by the mechanics became redundant and superfluous, and
therefore terminable. The company merely exercised its business judgment or management
prerogative. In the absence of any proof that the management abused its discretion or acted in a
malicious or arbitrary manner, the authorities will not interfere with the exercise of such prerogative.

The company cannot be denied the opportunity of promoting efficiency and attaining economy
which are essential for its existence. If they would be denied of such opportunity, I’m sure that plenty of
companies will die and many workers will lose their job. That is why our government now does not
prohibit contracting out almost all jobs for the reason that it would help companies to realized profits
and minimized expenses and contributes to the economic growth of this country. The downfall is that
many workers will be prejudiced as their rightful benefits provided by law are not granted to them.
Many workers are angry and furious about this kind of system. They disgusted the government for not
giving them enough protection in order for the workers to get what they deserve and to their employers
for not giving them importance and denied them with their salaries and benefits. But what can the
government do? They are constrained with the problem of which of the two to prioritize, the welfare of
workers or the welfare of their employers?

For me, I’m not totally in favor of the idea of abolishing the contractualization of workers in the
Philippines as it would create an imbalance in our business sector but also to the economic growth of
our country. These are the reasons why I am not in favor of abolishing contractual workers in the
Philippines. First, if contractualization is disallowed by the government or by the law, business sector
would be chaotic as they will not attain their main objective, to realize profits. It is difficult for one
company to exist considering also the fact that they have plenty of competitors if they would not adopt
this kind of strategy to minimize their cost, especially when it comes to salary and the purchase of
materials for its operation. No business will continue to remain in the business world if they would
always lose profits. The worst result is that company experiencing this kind of result will eventually shut
down or file a bankruptcy and its employees will be jobless. Second, in abolishing contractualization, our
economic growth will be likely affected. Since companies will close their operations, that means the
government will not earn profits by way of tax to support its self and the people who depends on the
government for their everyday living. Many government projects will be forestalled that could help
many people especially the poorer of the poorest who will be benefited by this projects. Third, by
abolishing conractualization, it will not invite foreign investors’, they are likely to be discouraged in
investing in our country as it is not a friendly country to create businesses. These investors will create
jobs for the Filipinos and the reason why many Filipinos are not jobless. Without these foreign investors,
many peoples will be unemployed as the government cannot provide jobs for all the Filipinos. I am not
saying that the government is incompetent to provide the needs of its people but with the help of
private entities, they can provide jobs for the Filipinos, in return they want to have a return of income.
Lastly, it is advantageous in the part of the company to contract a job as they will be at ease. Let me
conceptualize it in capsule form. If they will contract a job, they will not be burdened by the employees’
demand in terms of wages and benefits for a longer period of time if the job to be done can be made for
a specific period of time. The most that the company can do is to give to contractual workers what the
law provides for them. Different companies must see to it that they would not violate the law by
contracting a job.

Therefore, I must say that contractual of workers should not be abolished entirely but the
government must find ways to segregate what jobs can be contacted and what jobs cannot be
contracted. I know that it is difficult for the government to segregate jobs but they are paid by people’s
money to do this difficult job. As much as I know, our laws does not prohibit contractual of workers. The
law is clear that contracting out a job, work, or service that results in termination of regular employees
and reduction of work hours is allowed when done in good faith and justified by the exigencies of the
business. I will say it once and for all that contractual of workers is necessary because survival,
expansion and even dominance are legitimate aims of business and management and it is allowed by
law and impelled by business economics to take lawful measures to realize these aspirations. Business
creates jobs. When a business collapses, labor or workers are the ones who will likely be affected. Labor
protection collapses with it. Efficiency and economical operations are recognized as valid, lawful reasons
for contracting out jobs, even those being done by direct-hire regular employees provided that the legal
bars must not be transgressed in order to protect the workers.