Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal and collective privilege against Wage Order No. NCR-07 for inciting Filipino workers to rebellion. This is not only an atrocity against labor. It is a travesty of the laws of the land on wages.

The Wage Rationalization Act (RA 6727) which created the Wage Boards is supposed to rationalize the granting of wage increases. It was enacted after the workers general strike of 1989.

As a labor leader, I do not consider RA 6727 as ideal, to say the least. The leeway it granted to the Wage Boards has become loopholes against labor.

But this time, the Wage Boards are guilty not only of grave abuse of discretion or malevolent mischief. Wage Order No. 7 is a complete mockery of Congress. It made RA 6727 not only irrational but a ridiculous piece of legislation.

Under this law, there are ten criteria in determining wages. Foremost is the "demand for a living wage". Among the last is the "capacity to pay" of employers.

Wage Order No. 7 used only one criterion -- the "capacity to pay" of the majority of employers.

The fact that not a single cent of wage increase was granted to the vast majority of workers proves that a single criterion was used by the Wage Board in total disregard of the "capacity to buy" of the workers.

Whoever denies that every single worker needs a raise should be shot on sight. The effect of inflation is across-the-board. The value of wages have been eroded by price increases.

How come the Wage Board did not order a single cent of increase for the majority of workers? It means one thing: They do not give a damn to the "capacity to buy" of workers. Their only concern is the "capacity to pay" of employers.

Is Wage Order No. 7 consistent with the letter and spirit of RA 6727? Is this the meaning of "rationalizing wages" -- by using a single criterion based exclusively on the "capacity to pay" of employers?

Is Congress willing to explain to our workers at the gates of the Batasan that this is the correct application of the law on wages, and admit that this is the law it authored in 1989 to "rationalize" the wages of workers?

If Congress will declare that Wage Order No. 7 is faithful to the letter and spirit of RA 6727, then I withdraw my accusation against the Wage Boards. I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Congress.

If Congress will see nothing wrong with employers paying wages based exclusively or primarily on their "capacity to pay", then it should also allow workers to buy their means of subsistence based on their "capacity to pay".

We should allow workers to go to supermarkets, select the items they need, and buy these products based on their capacity to pay. If the cashiers or the owners will insist that this cannot be, the workers must ask: Why is this not possible when government allows employers to buy labor based on their "capacity to pay"? If this is not "double standard", if this is not "class bias", how then do we define "unfair" and "unjust"?

The alibi of the Secretary of Labor is more ridiculous than his wage order. What he is saying is low wages are good for the workers since cheap labor is better than no work. The Secretary of Labor has become the apologist of capital. What he says is familiar to the ears of every workingman. This is the usual blackmail line of all employers.

The reason cited for not giving a single cent of increase for the majority of workers is it will push the owners to shutdown or retrench. Labor is a factor in production along with machines, raw materials, etc. In fact, this is the most vital factor. The question is: Are owners of capital paying the price of machines based on their "capacity to pay?" Are they paying the price of raw materials based on their "capacity to pay"? If they cannot afford the price of these factors of production, then they have no business doing business. But the truth is they buy machines, raw materials, etc., based on their market prices with no adverse effect on their profits.

In fact, the costs for these factors are much higher than labor costs. How come when it comes to labor as a factor in production, they refuse to pay its price based on its real value? How come they insist that they be allowed by government to pay labor based on their "capacity to pay", or else they will shutdown or retrench? Is labor so unique as a commodity that it can be bought and paid not on its real value or price but merely on the "capacity to pay" of the owners of capital who are the buyers of this unique merchandise?

Labor is indeed a very unique commodity. It is not an ordinary merchandise nor the output of a beast of burden but that of a human being. It is unique for it is the only commodity in the world which creates value greater than its own and this is what we call profit. But instead of becoming more valuable than other commodities by virtue of its uniqueness, labor is being paid way below its real value. Is it because its owner is only a lowly worker that do not deserve a decent life?

Capitalists do not threaten to shutdown or retrench because of the rising prices of machines, raw materials, etc. But everytime the workers cry for wage increase, they threaten them with the spectre of unemployment. Why? A wage increase will affect their rates of profit. This is the plain and simple reason why they vehemently and viciously oppose wage increases. "Capacity to pay" is only an alibi, a euphemism in defense of capital's rate of profit.

I do not think the government is so stupid as to swallow hook, line and sinker the blackmail line of employers. The government is aware of its own statistics. Wage increase is only 0.2 % as a factor in the shutdown or retrenchment of companies. Companies are going bankrupt not because of wage increases but as a result of the financial crisis and cut throat competition spawned by globalization. This is not the fault of our workers. Why should they be penalized with low wages?

I am certain that the economic advisers of the President are aware of their own data. But what they provide the President with are not the pertinent statistics but the scarecrow of the owners of capital and the scapegoat of militant unionism. They make a fool of the President threatening the workers with this capitalist blackmail.

If the single criterion of the Wage Boards is the capacity to pay of employers, the sole reason for the owners of capital for opposing wage increase is their rate of profit. The question, therefore, is: Is the right to profit so sacred as to deserve greater protection from the State than the right to life of the workingman?

Workers sell their labor to earn a living. Employers buy their labor to earn a profit. The owner of money hires workers to amass wealth. The toiling class works to survive even in poverty. The cry of the working class comes from dire need. The ruthless response of capital is based on amassing bigger profits.

Who then deserves greater protection from the State in these times of crisis? Why must the State hold sacred the privilege of capital to wealth and profit while depriving the ordinary worker the dignity of earning a living wage?

This brings me to the second mortal sin of the Wage Board. Wage Order No. 7 not only used "irrational" wage standards in violation of RA 6727. It is a virtual abolition of the minimum wage provision, the very essence of RA 6727.

According to Wage Order No. 7, the "prescribed minimum wage" in Metro Manila is now P223.50 as a result of its P25.50 mandated wage adjustment. But at the same time, it excluded the vast majority of workers from this mandated wage increase and allowed the majority of employers to pay less than the prescribed minimum wage!

A minimum wage means that this is the lowest amount of wage legally allowed by government to be paid by any employer to any employee. Of course, there can be "exceptions", but this minimum wage standard should be applied as the "general rule". In an advanced country, it may happen that only a minority of workers receives the minimum wage because the majority receive a pay above the minimum. But it is completely ludicrous if the majority is allowed to receive pay less than the "prescribed minimum wage". To allow the majority of employers to pay the majority of employees less than what is mandated is to virtually abolish the minimum standard prescribed by law and make this law ridiculous.

If the economic advisers are making a fool out of the President, the Wage Boards are also making Congress a house of fools. If what they did to RA 6727 is correct, and valid, then we better tell the workers that we hereby declare the minimum wage law abolished.

But I tell you; this will spark a workers revolution! To be treated as an ordinary merchandise and not as a human being is bad enough for the workers. But to abolish the minimum wage and allow market forces to dictate the price of labor is asking for a revolution. If we allow this to happen, the day will come that we will see workers in wet markets with discounted price tags on their heads like the ancient slaves at the dawn of civilization. Some call this policy "deregulation". I prefer to call it as plain and simple vulgar economics.

Price is the money-form of value and wage is the price of labor as a commodity. The law of supply and demand explains the rise and fall of prices. As a rule, owners of commodities do not sell their products below their cost of production. They sell their products above their costs. Otherwise, there is no profit and money is not transformed into capital. The law of supply and demand affects the rate of profit but prices of commodities usually do not fall below their cost of production.

A businessman who sells his product below its cost is an aberration. He is no longer in business but in ruins. But for the average worker, to get a wage equal or above the value of his commodity, is not the rule but the exception. The value of his commodity is in constant aberration. No wonder his life is always in deprivation.

Since society ruled by capital treats labor as a merchandise, is it too much for the lowly worker to insist that it be priced and be paid just like any other commodity?

The demand for a living wage is not a demand for a just wage or a fair price. The average worker is not asking for an equitable distribution of wealth but simply an exchange of equivalents, the universal application of the law of value of capitalist society. They sell to the owners of capital the use-value of eight (8) hours of labor. The owners of capital must pay them the exchange-value of this amount of labor. They are not asking a price above its cost of production unlike all other commodities that are sold above their cost to allow their owners a margin of profit.

The average worker is simply asking that his 8-hour labor be paid at its cost of production. What is the universal standard for the average cost of eight (8) hours of labor? It is the value of his means of subsistence, the current cost of living of an average worker's family.

Fellow members of Congress! I stand before you to plead the case of labor. I appeal to your sense of justness and fairness: not for a just wage or a fair price for the labor of an ordinary workingman which, I grant, is a luxury our country cannot afford. All I am asking is to pay the average worker the value of his labor power and redeem for all workers the lost value of their wages eroded by price increases. This is what a legislated living wage and across-the-board wage increase mean.

Before we talk of how much, however, let us first settle two things: First, what should be the essential criterion for the valuation of average labor as a commodity? Second, what should be the approach in raising the real value of wages in accordance with this criterion? I strongly propose that only after we have settled these two basic requisites for a rational debate on the wage issue, can we begin deliberating on the quantitative and practical aspect of this wage dispute.

I am aware that I have antagonized the sensibilities of many of you in my prior privilege speeches. I extend my sincere apologies. But I pray and I plead. Please prove me wrong for whatever perception I have of Congress as an institution. I know these are hard times and we in Congress must make hard decisions. But amid the complexity of economics, one simple truth stands out: A happy worker is a hard worker. This is the key to economic progress and social justice. Let us give our workers a Merry Christmas, and they will work hard for our country in the coming millennium.

Mabuhay ang Uring Manggagawa!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

PAGE 5

PAGE 5

�!�2�~�¨6�©6�¯6�°6�±6�²6�³6�µ6�¶6�¼6�½6�¾6�¿6�À6�Ã6�Ä6�÷�ïèáÞáÙáÞ�áÞáÙáÞ�è�0J�mH��0J�

j�0J�U

CJ�OJ�QJ5�CJ�OJ�QJ�5�CJ"OJ�QJ��� �!�2�I�m�~��p�q�-�.�Ê�Ë�¶�·�Y�Z�¼�½�š › R�S�?
@




ñ

ü�ü�ú�ü�ü�ü�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷�÷��$�

��$
�"� �!�2�I�m�~��p�q�-�.�Ê�Ë�¶�·�Y�Z�¼�½�š › R�S�?
@




ñ

ò

Ä

Å

§

¨

Y�Z�·�¸�X�Y�q�r�c�d�1�2�""üùöóðíêçäáÞÛØÕÒÏÌÉÆÃÀ½º·´±®«¨¥¢Ÿœ™–"��Š‡„�~{x� èÿÿïéÿÿðéÿÿ½ëÿÿ¾ëÿÿ¯íÿÿ°íÿÿÈïÿÿÉïÿÿiòÿÿjòÿÿÇóÿÿÈóÿÿyõÿÿzõÿÿ\öÿÿ]öÿÿ/÷ÿÿ0÷ÿÿøÿÿøÿÿáøÿÿâøÿÿÎùÿÿÏùÿÿ†úÿÿ‡úÿÿdûÿÿeûÿÿÇûÿÿÈûÿÿjüÿÿküÿÿVýÿÿWýÿÿóýÿÿôýÿÿ°þÿÿ±þÿÿ¢ÿÿÿ£ÿÿÿ´ÿÿÿØÿÿÿïÿÿÿ
��/ñ

ò

Ä

Å

§

¨

Y�Z�·�¸�X�Y�q�r�c�d�1�2�""j"k"´-µ-òóÛ �Ü �Ä!�Å!�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü��$�""j"k"´-µ-òóÛ �Ü �Ä!�Å!�

#�

��

�"Íÿÿ³Íÿÿ´ÍÿÿÿÏÿÿ�ÐÿÿâÑÿÿãÑÿÿÔÓÿÿÕÓÿÿîÔÿÿïÔÿÿ5×ÿÿ6×ÿÿá×ÿÿâ×ÿÿ4Ùÿÿ5Ùÿÿ&Ûÿÿ'ÛÿÿLÝÿÿMÝÿÿUÞÿÿVÞÿÿáÿÿáÿÿ\âÿÿ]âÿÿEãÿÿFãÿÿ.äÿÿ/äÿÿlåÿÿmåÿÿ¶æÿÿ·æÿÿèÿÿ�/Å!�

#�

#�Ë%�Ì%�Ô&�Õ&�ú(�û(�ì*�í*�?,�@,�ë,�ì,�2/�3/�L0�M0�>2�?2�!4�"4�m6�n6�Ž6��6�¨6�³6�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ü�ó��&`#$„øÿ„
��$�"³6�´6�µ6�À6�Á6�Â6�Ã6�Ä6�û�ù�ð�û�ù�ù�í��$��&`#$„øÿ„
�
��

„h
�0

°Ð/ ° I!°"°#� $� %°�