By : Rashka Pratama *)
Rejection of the Draft Omnibus Law has drawn rejection from a number of parties, especially workers. This is because there is a misinterpretation of the draft law that is circulating so that there are several articles in the policy that are considered to reduce labor welfare. One of the articles that was warmly discussed was related to a specific time work agreement (PKWT).
Related to the employment agreement. In Law Number 13 of 2003, work agreements are discussed in Chapters IX articles 50 – 63. In the Government’s Employment Draft Bill there are 5 revised articles (56,57,58.61 and 62). In this article, especially article 56 paragraph 3 of a certain time work agreement is based on an agreement between the employer and the worker which is then regulated in a Government Regulation (PP).
In this section one article was added, article 61A, which regulates employers’ obligations to compensate workers. Workers who are entitled to receive this compensation after the cooperation period ends are workers who have worked for at least one year. There are also some articles which regulate cooperation between employers and laborers, namely article 59 which regulates details about PKWT provisions. So what’s new here is the provision of compensation for contract workers who work for at least one year.
As a result of this circulating issue, laborers have repeatedly resisted actions, both in the form of demonstrations and other actions. In fact, by doing this, it will not provide good input for the government. If it is felt that the regulation will be detrimental, workers should take the applicable legal channels and provide constructive input, not necessarily just refuse. However, it needs to be known, the purpose of the government in preparing the Omnibus Law is based only on improving the welfare of the community, especially laborers.