Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Ady TD Achmad, Robert Sidauruk
Several worker unions perceived that the recent Minister of Manpower and Transmigration (Minister) Circular Letter No. SE.04/MEN/VIII/2013 (Circular Letter) is unable to address the ongoing polemic on the appropriate outsourcing mechanism and worker protection.
Mummad Rusdi from Indonesian Worker Union Confederation contended that the Circular Letter does not provide a clear separation on work/job description between service provider and service recipient in outsourcing scheme.
He asserted that the implementation of the outsourced work must be done in separate with the place where the service recipient company is located.
“We have nothing against outsourcing mechanism provided the service is not performed in service recipient company office or factory,” says Rusdi.
Rusdi also raised the issue on the authority granted by the Circular Letter to business association in determining work flow activities. This provision will be the ground to decide certain services that can be outsourced.
“Such authority should be possessed by the Government to avoid policy that only favorable to employer,” says Indra.
Likewise, Indra Munaswa, Secretary General for Indonesian textile workers associations, showed his disagreement if workers can be outsourced merely because they provide a service that considered a “supporting activity” based on the work flow activities.
Indra suggested that the determination must go beyond the work flow activities, such as whether the service recipient company possesses the absolute control of the worker.
“If the service recipient company possesses the absolute control over the worker, then it cannot be categorized as an outsourced service,” says Indra.
On employer’s side, the Circular Letter is also considered insufficient to settle the outsourcing debate. Hasanuddin Rachman, Head of Industrial Relations and Advocacy at APINDO (APINDO), said that the Circular Letter is derived from Ministerial Regulation No. 19 of 2012 on Requirements for Outsourcing, which has never been discussed at a National Tri-Party Cooperation Institution meeting (LKS-Tripnas) between companies, workers, and the Government.
“The Circular Letter is derived from regulation that was drafted against the appropriate procedure”, adds Hasanudin.
(hot/kc)
Ady TD Achmad, Robert Sidauruk
Several worker unions perceived that the recent Minister of Manpower and Transmigration (Minister) Circular Letter No. SE.04/MEN/VIII/2013 (Circular Letter) is unable to address the ongoing polemic on the appropriate outsourcing mechanism and worker protection.
Mummad Rusdi from Indonesian Worker Union Confederation contended that the Circular Letter does not provide a clear separation on work/job description between service provider and service recipient in outsourcing scheme.
He asserted that the implementation of the outsourced work must be done in separate with the place where the service recipient company is located.
“We have nothing against outsourcing mechanism provided the service is not performed in service recipient company office or factory,” says Rusdi.
Rusdi also raised the issue on the authority granted by the Circular Letter to business association in determining work flow activities. This provision will be the ground to decide certain services that can be outsourced.
“Such authority should be possessed by the Government to avoid policy that only favorable to employer,” says Indra.
Likewise, Indra Munaswa, Secretary General for Indonesian textile workers associations, showed his disagreement if workers can be outsourced merely because they provide a service that considered a “supporting activity” based on the work flow activities.
Indra suggested that the determination must go beyond the work flow activities, such as whether the service recipient company possesses the absolute control of the worker.
“If the service recipient company possesses the absolute control over the worker, then it cannot be categorized as an outsourced service,” says Indra.
On employer’s side, the Circular Letter is also considered insufficient to settle the outsourcing debate. Hasanuddin Rachman, Head of Industrial Relations and Advocacy at APINDO (APINDO), said that the Circular Letter is derived from Ministerial Regulation No. 19 of 2012 on Requirements for Outsourcing, which has never been discussed at a National Tri-Party Cooperation Institution meeting (LKS-Tripnas) between companies, workers, and the Government.
“The Circular Letter is derived from regulation that was drafted against the appropriate procedure”, adds Hasanudin.
(hot/kc)