Corporate Instability and Anti-Filipino

Workers who do find jobs in the Philippines find that they face another big hurdle after being hired: contractualization.

Big businesses, whether foreign or local, have long mastered the fine art of labor flexibilization in employment, assisted no end by a President and a government that is thoroughly sold out on the scheme. Based on the 2003 admission of Donald Dee, President of Employers Confederation of the Philippines(ECOP), 7 out 10 firms in the country practice contractualization. Some of the worst “contractualizers” among companies are also among the biggest, such as Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco’s San Miguel Corporation (SMC) conglomerate (1,100 regulars out of its 26,000 total workforce); Henry Sy’s SM Shoemart (1,300 regulars of 20,000); and Manny Pangilinan’s Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (4,100 of 10,000). Such widespread destruction of tenurial security in labor has had a profound impact on Philippine workers’ freedom to exercise their trade union and other democratic rights. Most of all, massive contactualization has greatly reduced the variable capital for wages, with the monopoly capitalists seeking ever-increasing superprofits in the face of the current world capitalist crisis of overproduction.

A Failure to Communicate

Through informal channels and the encouraging results of the meeting with Shahab last December 2008, the Nestle distributor got the impression that Nestle is ready, able and willing to abide by its credo and “do the right thing” based on its Core Values of Honesty, Integrity and Fairness. The renewal on 9 February 2009 for another year of the distributor contract in spite of various identified sales, marketing and operating improvement needs continued the feeling of good will and high hopes for the amicable resolution of the FDI issues.

But in a meeting last 24 February 2009, instead of allowing the Finance and Risk Management guys to meet and “re-look” at the Forensics Audit findings and conclusions, as initially agreed to, Shahab merely restated that for NPI, “FDI is a closed case.”

Instead of acknowledging that some NPI managers might have acted unfairly and unethically and kept key information from senior management, Shahab merely pointed out the distributor's mistakes. He said his key learnings from his reading of the Audit Report were: FDI did not follow procedures defined in the extensive Distributor Agreement, failed to communicate and use the appropriate forum for grievances, delegated authority to employees without “check and balance” thus allowing the fraud and mismanagement to continue. Bill Borbe added that as key learning FDI should have done their “numbers crunching” and if the numbers did not make sense, then FDI should have resisted the “pressure” from the NPI managers. After patiently waiting for several months to find an amicable resolution to the FDI issues while the distributor kept on hold other options. The tough-luck distributor felt betrayed and manipulated when Shahab said that NPI cannot do anything about FDI because the case is already in the lawyers’ hands.

Oh, shit! Nandu, you should have resolved this before! Now we're fucked.

The Department of Trade and Industry has stepped into the picture of anti-trust perpetuated by the bullying Nestle and FDI, its much-maligned distributor.

Nestle wants to go to court for one simple reason – the courts of Makati are in their pockets! Yes, them judges from the financial capital are all corrupt. Why else do you think they’re rich? They can all be bought out. But the thing is - the distributor has not gone to court so how can it be a legal matter?

The other option for the Swiss cheats is to wait until the government of PGMA steps down then the DTI’s current head, Peter Favila, who believes that this is a case of anti-trust, moves elsewhere.

That is not in good faith, brothers. Fuck the mission statement, Jerry Maguire. It was just a mission statement.

DTI stepped in because they believe that it is something that is dangerous – all this corporate bullying. Nestle fears this because is they pony up the damages, every wronged distributor will declare open season on the Swiss. And hey! What war have these fuckers won? That’s why they are neutral. They are faggots. They try to buy out people with their money and Hershey’s bars, And Swedish porn. Oh wrong country.

But there is one rule that does make this a perfect reason for DTI to step in – M.O. No. 69 on the Unfair Trade Practices covered by the Revised Penal Code.

Take Action!

http://www.babymilkaction.org/action/nestlefairtrade.html

What do you stand for?

Marcee Tidwell (shouting to Jerry Maguire) What do you stand for?

Dorothy Boyd: How about a little piece of integrity in this world that is so full of greed and a lack of honorability that I don't know what to tell my son! Except, "Here. Have a look at a guy who isn't yelling 'Show me the money." Did you know he's broke? He is broke and working for you for free! Broke. Broke, broke, broke. I'm sorry I'm just not as good at the insults as she is.

Marcee Tidwell: No, that was pretty good.

The problem between Nestle and FDI is the multinational:

- Imposed unreasonable quotas under constant threat of termination

- Pulled out of its products from the market in an unreasonable and non-transparent manner

- Instigated and fueled a price war

- Condons tax evasion

- deliberately delayed just claims for reimbursement. Something that is highly oppressive and is done in total and abject bad faith

Is Nestle's word stronger than oak?

Jerry Maguire: I'm still sort of moved by your "My word is stronger than oak" thing.

After FDI complained about the illicit affair of Nestle’s employee affected their business, instead of helping out, Nestle’s Boy Ceballos, the Regional Sales Manager, informed its aggrieved distributor that the company was severing ties with them.

Is this the way Nestle treats its partners who they allegedly deal with in a fair manner? Or is affair matters the more accurate term?

Jerry Maguire: I'm still sort of moved by your "My word is stronger than oak" thing.

The oak is corporate drivel. You know – people like the sound of platitudes. Makes them sound true, human, reasonable, responsible, and most especially, like real corporate bullshit.

Whenever a distributor is forced to max-out its bank credit lines, any further delay in collections of trade receivables is disastrous.

But NESTLE progressively imposes stretched sales volumes, it leaves the distributor with a choice of two evils: 1) to ignore the sales results imposed by NESTLE, and 2) to grant substantial discounts to customer.

The first option leaves to the termination of the distributorship contract while the second sinks the distributor deeper in debt.

So it is not a win situation for the distributor. Only NESTLE.

The Philippines lacks anti-trust laws to protect small businessmen. But what is an anti-trust law?

The definition of an ANTI-TRUST LAW:

Legislation enacted by the federal and various state governments to regulate trade and commerce by preventing unlawful restraints, price-fixing, and monopolies, to promote competition, and to encourage the production of quality goods and services at the lowest prices, with the primary goal of safeguarding public welfare by ensuring that consumer demands will be met by the manufacture and sale of goods at reasonable prices.

Antitrust law seeks to make businesses compete fairly. It has had a serious effect on business practices and the organization of U.S. industry. Premised on the belief that free trade benefits the economy, businesses, and consumers alike, the law forbids several types of restraint of trade and monopolization. These fall into four main areas: agreements between competitors, contractual arrangements between sellers and buyers, the pursuit or maintenance of monopoly power, and mergers.

Why aren’t there any anti-trust laws in the Philippines?

To date, the Philippines do not have a comprehensive and developed legislation relating to anti-trust and monopoly activities. However, there are several anti-trust bills pending before the Twelfth Philippine Congress. They are as follows:

1. Senate Bill (“S.B.”) No. 175 - An Act creating the Fair Trade Commission, prescribing its powers and functions in regulating trade competition, and monopolies and for other purposes;

2. S.B. No. 1361 - An Act providing for more effective implementation of the Constitutional mandate against monopolies, combination and restraint of trade and unfair competition by redefining and strengthening existing laws, processes and structure regulating the same, and for other purposes;

3. S.B. No. 1600 - An Act prohibiting monopolies, attempt to monopolize industry or line of commerce, manipulation of prices of commodities, asset acquisition and interlocking membership in the board of directors of competing corporate bodies and price discrimination among customers, providing penalties therefore, and for other purposes;

4. House Bill (“H.B.”) 1906 - An Act declaring unfair trade practices as acts of economic sabotage. HB 1906 declares the following acts as economic sabotage and provides criminal sanctions for the same: (i) smuggling; (ii) technical smuggling; (iii) misclassification of importation; (iv) dumping, and (v) other forms of unfair trade practices.

5. H.B. No. 198 - An Act creating a special body that shall regulate and exercise authority over monopolistic practices, combination in restraint of trade and unfair competition and appropriating funds therefore; and

6. H.B. No. 2439 - An Act penalizing unfair trade practices and combinations in restraint of trade, creating the Fair Trade Commission, appropriating funds therefore, and for other purposes.

The most significant of these bills is S.B. No. 175, proposing the passage of the “Fair Trade Act” or an Act Creating the Fair Trade Commission, Prescribing Its Powers and Functions in Regulating Trade Competition and Monopolies and For Other Purposes. This bill consolidates all anti-trust laws into one law and establishes a Fair Trade Commission (“Commission”), an executive body that will enforce the Fair Trade Act. Generally, the bill seeks to prohibit monopolies and cartels and other practices which diminish, impair or prevent competition and free trade. It defines absolute monopolies, relative monopolies and trusts which may constitute prima facie violations of the law.

Anti-trust is defined as a merger, acquisition of control or any act whereby companies, partnerships, shares, equity, trusts or assets are concentrated among competitors, suppliers, customers or any other business entity. Under enumerated circumstances, the bill, if passed into law would require prior notification to the Commission before trusts are formed.

There are also laws of general application that are relevant to the regulation of anti-trust and monopoly activities.

The Philippine Constitution outlines the state policy of regulating or prohibiting monopolies when the public interest so requires. No combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition are to be allowed.

In relation to this policy, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines penalizes parties entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce, as well as penalizes those who prevent, by artificial means, free competition in the market. It also imposes penalties on parties who monopolize any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or who combine with any other persons to monopolize said merchandise or object in order to alter the prices thereof or who spread false rumors or make use of any other artifice to restrain free competition in the market.

The Civil Code allows the recovery of damages in cases of unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises. There are also other laws on unfair competition pertaining to the protection of intellectual property rights.

An octopus in the garden (with apologies to the Beatles)