Security of Tenure Bill: Possible Effects on the Enthusiasm of Millenials toward Employability

By Vitsy A. Sencil, Lorraine Pastrana, Lotus Mae G. Bongco and Jensaye Jairah B. Federez

Chapter 1

Background of the Study

Endo refers to short-term employment practices in the Philippines. “Endo” and “5-5-5” are colloquial terms for illegal contractualization where the “end of contract” is deliberately and repeatedly set by employers at five months. Under the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD 442), employers may employ people under a probationary status of not exceeding six months. Under this system, the worker’s employment contract ends before the six month by their employer. After the six months, employees then become regular workers, entitled to several health, security, and insurance benefits prescribed by law. Some examples of such benefits contractual workers don’t get as compared to regularized workers are the benefits of having an employer and employee SSS, Philhealth, and the Pag-ibig housing fund contribution, unpaid leaves, and the 13th Month Pay, among others.

Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello III said, “a total of 3,377 companies were found to be involved in labor-only contracting practices. Of the figure, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) said 767 companies are engaged in labor-only contracting, while 2,610 companies are suspected. From June 2016 to April 2018, DOLE was able to inspect only 99,526 companies out of the 900,000 establishments nationwide due to manpower constraints. DOLE said that 224,852 workers are yet to be regularized under the establishments said to be involved in illegal contracting.” Jollibee Food Corporation topped the list, with at least 14,690 workers yet to regularized. Jollibee is followed by pineapple grower Dole Philippines Inc with at least 10,521 workers yet to be in permanent positions, and PLDT with at least 8,310.

According to the 2015 Integrated Survey of Labor and Employment (ISLE) of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), an estimated 7 million Filipino workers in the country are in precarious employment conditions that usually fall under either the exploitative end of contract (ENDO) or labor-only contracting (LOC) arrangements. International Labor Organization saying as much as 7 to 10 million Filipino workers are still contractual.

Last year 2019, DOLE was able to regularize at least 125,000 of the 200,000 contractual workers target. There are an estimated 1.3 million contractual employees in the country.

Contractual work has been one of the most problematic schemes concerning labor relations in the Philippines since the worker is deprived of certain rights and security of tenure (Macaraya, 1997).

In some cases of companies such as Philippine Long Distance Telecommunication Company (PLDT), Coca-Cola Bottlers, Purefoods Corporation, and Philippine Airlines, which illustrates the employee-employer relationship that abuses its labor contractualization are still questionable for their practices about the security of tenure and other benefits that should be given to the employee. Without clearly identifying the rights of the employees against contractualization practices, it would have led to the violation of their rights to organize and bargain collectively, right to have social security, health care, and housing benefits, and right to security of tenure. (Mendoza, 2016)

The researchers, through a qualitative research method, want to explore the possible implications of the Security of Tenure Bill to the performance of the contractual workers and the reason for it to retain or not their job.

Through analyzing the result of the survey and finding out its connection with the Security of Tenure Bill, the intentions and opinions of the contractual workers will be seen with regard to contractualization. At the same time, a better understanding can be deduced regarding their own contexts.

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to find out and analyze the possible effects of Security of Tenure Bill to the employees as they do their job and the reason for keeping or not their occupation. 

          Specifically, this study sought answers to these questions:

1. What are the possible implications of the Security of Tenure Bill to the longevity of employees and their satisfaction with its work?
2. What are the factors affecting employees to stay or not to stay in his/her job?

Significance of the Study

The findings that were obtained in this study can be beneficial to the following:

Contractual Workers. They and their job are the focus of this study. It is for them to find out the factors or reasons affecting them to stay or not to stay on their job. Also, to know the opinions of the other contractual workers about their job from the survey gathered.

Employers. This study will open the minds of the people who are the ones who hire and accept employees. They would get to know how contractual workers think about their job and its reason for staying or not staying to them. The results will help the employers or those in a high position in the purposeful understanding of this study.

Government. The results of the study can be a great example to the lawmakers, for they will have data that can strengthen their ideas and decide on the said bill above. More importantly, this study can open new insights for new laws that they will make to make our society better and sustainable.

Law Students. This study will deepen the knowledge and love of the law students towards laws and bills that are discussed in this study. More importantly, this study can contribute a lot to law students who want to study bills and laws which are not yet passed.

Teachers. This study will be of great help to the teachers when they consider studying this work. This study may contain additional information about employment and effects of contractualization to the contractual workers, which will be of great help to teach this to students and as a reference to its own research study.

Future researchers. This study will give them some insights necessary for their future study. This study may also be used for reference in their research about the employment and economic growth of our country.

Definitions of Terms

Contract – it is a meeting of the minds between two or more parties, whereby one party binds himself with respect to the other, or where both parties bind themselves reciprocally, in favor of one another, to fulfill a prestation to give, to do or not to do (Pineda, 2000).

Contractual Employee- includes one employed by a contractor or subcontractor to perform or complete a job, work or service pursuant to an arrangement between the latter and the principal (DOLE D.O. No. 18-02, 2002).

Contractualization – refers to the practice of hiring employees within a specific time or for several months only (Azucena Jr., 2016).

Employees – A person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979).

Employer – has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed (Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979).

Employment – a contract between two parties, one being the employer and the other being the employee.

Employee Retention – Employee retention is concerned with keeping or encouraging employees to remain in an organization for a maximum period of time (Kossivi, et. al., 2016).

Security of Tenure Bill – a bill that totally prohibits contractualization and all its forms, including all fixed-term employment. (House Bill No. 4444, 2016)

Delimitation of the Study

This study has limited itself to only contractual workers who work in a different industry. It centered between males and females from ages twenty-three (23) to thirty-eight (38) with some who are previously employed in the following industries: Computer, Telecommunication, Manufacturing, Construction, Retail, Education, Healthcare, Hospitality Management and Rearch and Development and some who are currently employed in the various industries aforementioned.

 It focused only on analyzing the longevity and satisfaction of employees to its job and the factors affecting why they want to stay or not in their job. This only used document analysis and survey to gather the necessary data. 

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

History of Contractualization

The Labor Code of the Philippines was drafted in 1974 and signed into law by former President Marcos as Presidential Decree 442. It was promulgated on May 1, 1974 and took effect on November 1, 1974. The PD 442 includes a provision on Labor Contractualization and subcontractualization (Official Gazette, 1974).

During those times, the increase in population, insufficient job creation, including history of inappropriate economic policies lead to higher unemployment and underemployment rate in the country. Average unemployment rate of 4.5 percent in 1970 surge to 11.4 percent in early 1989 (Dolan (Ed.), 1993, p. 166).

As a response to the economic challenges, Republic Act 6715 was passed into law in 1986 under the administration of the late-President Corazon C. Aquino. The said law was principally authored by ex-Senator Ernesto Herrera, and was dubbed as “Herera Law”, is the first major revision of the Labor Code. However, the said amendment did not touch Article 106 to 109 on contracting and subcontracting labor (Mendoza, 2017). 

Since then, the Code has undergone many revision, however, it has failed to protect the workers from abuse and exploitation resulting from contracting and subcontracting. According to Atty. Jose Sonny Matula, President of Federation of Free Workers (FFW), “Article 106 was intended to balance the interest of capital and labor, but as the years go by, it was used by capital to circumvent the worker’s constitutional right to security of tenure”. Ecumenical Institute for Labor Education and Research (EILER), also noted that contractualization was once a limited work arrangement for janitorial and other casual jobs but is now becoming the routine, or a widespread practice “across all economic sectors, from manufacturing to wholesale and retail trade up to business-process outsourcing.”

The Labor-only Contractualization

The Labor-only contractualization as defined by the Labor Code, is “where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him” (Labor Code, 1974).

The Code also provides that the Secretary of Labor and Employment “may make appropriate distinctions between labor-only contracting and job contracting as well as differentiations within these types of contracting and determine who among the parties involved shall be considered the employer for purposes of this Code, to prevent any violation or circumvention of any provision of this Code” (Labor Code, 1974).

The DOLE issued Department Order No. 3 (series of 2001) explicitly prohibiting the practice of labor-only contracting. In 2018, an Executive Order that emphasized the prohibition against illegal contracting or subcontracting of labor was issued.

Under such practice, the phrase “end of contract” or Endo was coined. It was also referred to as “5-5-5” which means that employment only lasted for five months. This is because, under the Labor Code, employers may employ people under the probationary status before the six-month period, after that period, he will become regular workers, entitled to several health, security, and insurance benefits prescribed by law (Labor Code, 1974). By practicing contractualization and sub-contractualization, employers can evade those necessary expenses pertaining to the benefits of a regular employee.

Abuse of Labor Contractualization

Amidst the protests of different labor unions calling to end contractualization, the Security of Tenure bill was vetoed by the President Rodrigo Duterte. Nevertheless, in his veto message, he promised that he would protect employees right against abusive employment practices. However, he expressed concern to those businesses with “legitimate job-contracting.” He contended that the bill should not be oppressive for capital and management with possible “adverse consequences to the Filipino workers in the long term” (Official Gazette, July 2019).

Almost 9000 employees of the Philippine Long Distance Telecommunication Company (PLDT) was found out in 2017 to be contractual employees. PLDT’s contractual agencies are violating the provision of Labor Code by denying workers’ right such as the 13^th month pay. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) ordered PLDT to regularize their employees, however it was found out that some contracting agencies are legitimate labor-only contracting parties. However, PLDT appealed that shutting down all contracting agencies is not the real solution since it will displace the workers under those agencies.

The difficulty in providing the balance between the employer and employees’ interest regarding the labor contractualization have lead to the President’s decision to veto. However, there are certain cases where labor contractualization has been taken advantage by businesses with prejudice to the rights of the employees.

One case of labor contractualization involves route helpers who are assigned to Coca-Cola Bottlers’s trucks. They claimed that they were hired either directly by Coca-Cola Bottlers or by its contractors, but they do not enjoy the full remuneration, benefits, and privileges similar to the regular sales force. Coca-Cola Bottlers answered that there is no employer-employee relationship between them and the route helpers because the employees have a contract of services with Peerless and Excellent Partners Cooperative, Inc. In contrast, the employees claimed that they are working under the control and supervision of Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc., which means that Peerless was in the nature of a labor-only contractor because of its insufficient capital to provide services for Coca-Cola Bottlers, Inc. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Inc. v Dela Cruz et al., 2009)

In the case of Purefoods Corporation v National Labor Relations Commission (1997), the laborers are also regarded as an employee of an agency, rather than the corporation. Thus, the laborers filed a case against Purefoods to claim all the benefits that a regular employee should have because they are already regarded, such for doing the same job as those regular employees.

In the case of Philippine Airlines employees, where there is a complaint on unequal rights as compared to regular workers. Those employees were terminated and aimed to be re-hired by a contracting agency. This leads to a situation where regular workers are re-hired as contractual workers but now with minimum wages and no benefits. The sub-contracting agencies, which are “Sky Logistics” and “Sky Kitchen,” are regarded as “dummy corporations” as they do not have separate capital and resources from Philippine Airlines (PAL v Ligan, 2008).

The preceding cases illustrate the vagueness of the employee-employer relationship as a result of the abuses of labor contractualization. If such practice is not addressed, security of tenure and other benefits of the employees will remain questionable. Without clearly identifying the rights of the employees against contractualization practices, have led to the violation of their rights to organize and bargain collectively, right to have social security, health care, and housing benefits, and right to security of tenure. This is depriving them to have hope for their future and hope to have a decent life (Mendoza, 2016).

House Bill No. 6908 / Senate Bill No. 1826

In 2019, the Congress submitted House Bill No. 6908 / Senate Bill No. 1826 which explicitly prohibits labor-only contracting and broadens its meaning by specifying the requirements for job contractors who may be allowed to do job contracting. House Bill 6908 or the “Security of Tenure bill” does not have the purpose to abolish contractualization completely, but rather it seeks to clarify the distinction between job contracting and labor-only contracting.

The House Bill proposes the following distinction of a business to qualify as legitimate labor contractors:

• The contractor should have an independent business, separate and distinct from the principal employer;

• The contractor should have a paid-up capital or capitalization of at least P5 million;

• The contractor should have an undertaking of financial capacity and compliance with all labor laws and regulations;

• The contractor should have sufficient knowledge, experience, skills, or competence in the field of contracted job, work or service;

• The contractor should have regular employees, and possession of equipment, machinery or tools necessary to perform or complete the job, work, or service contracted out;

• The contractor should have control over the performance and completion of the contracted job, work, or service; and

•  The contractor should pay the license fee of P100,000.

Thus absence of the criteria will classify a business operating as a labor-only contractor. This is with exemption to overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), workers on probation, relievers, project employees, and seasonal employees, however, they “…shall enjoy the rights of regular employees for the duration of the engagement, project, or season, respectively.”

The bill also has its provision for securing the tenure of workers that workers cannot be terminated or dismissed without “just cause” and without due process.

Human capital adds value to a company as the knowledge, skills, assets, and experiences that an individual has. Every employee has not the same value. That will depend on their knowledge, skills, and assets. Human capital is characterized by factors such as a person’s experience, tenure, education, training, and health (Samoszuk, 2017). In any company, the greatest asset is the people. The company gains when its employees perform well and the company’s disadvantage if they don’t. For that reason, companies give their employees the benefits as mandated by the labor code. This will increase the satisfaction of their employees to perform well in their jobs. One of the benefits of a regular employee is the security of tenure.

An employee who has proven his worth, or who simply has had a long-term relationship with the employer, will be given security of tenure. This is basically a faithful commitment to an employee by an employer. Tenure is beneficial for both organizations and employees, such as leave opportunities, creative freedom, stability, and expertise. (Kokemuller)

A study conducted within different European sectors between 1992 and 2002 showed that employment tenure had a positive effect on the productivity of an employee, at the aggregate level. Other empirical studies reviewed show similar relationships between tenure and productivity with tenure having a positive effect on productivity for intermediate lengths of tenure and thereafter decreasing. Though eventually decreasing, the positive relationship between tenure and productivity indicates a bunch of qualities in the employment relationship other than just the number of years a person stayed on the job. A study suggests that job training is an essential component in the operation of the firms or in innovative industries, and stability in employment is necessary for job training. (Auer, Berg, & Coulibaly, 2004)

Employees acquire human capital by gaining job knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences over the course of their career development (Myers, Griffith, Daugherty, & Lusch, 2004; Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999). This acquired human capital and development to oneself that contributes to the company is rewarded by organizations, such that it enables employees to obtain better jobs as well as to be successful and excel in their positions (Becker, 1964). The organization shapes its employees from the moment they were joined. They are molded their organizational members such that they come “to appreciate the values, abilities, expected behaviors, and social knowledge essential for assuming an organizational role and for participating as an organizational member” (Louis, 1980, pp. 229-230). With accumulating organizational tenure, employees (a) become increasingly familiar with their role and the organizational norms, culture, and goals (Chatman, 1991); (b) gain organization-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities (Tesluk & Jacobs, 1998); and (c) acquire social acceptance, role clarity, and self-efficacy (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007). Those employees, who internalized the organizational culture and norms and matched the organizational demands to a higher degree, gain organizational tenure, and fit in better. They are likely to show elevated performance because they have been developed accordingly to what the organization needs. (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman & Johnson, 2005). Longer-tenured employees typically have stronger expertise, along with broader and deeper knowledge in their fields as compared to newly hired employees with little to no experience. To encourage them to develop new skills through a process called cross-training, some organizations give tenure to employees. This gives employees more credibility and confidence and makes them more qualified for current or future positions (Kokemuller).

Henri Fayol’s management principles are universally accepted as guidelines for managers to do their job according to their responsibility. One of which is the Stability of Tenure of Personnel, which says that although it could take a lot of time, employees need to be given fair enough time to settle into their jobs. An employee needs time to learn his job and to become efficient. The employees should have job security because instability leads to inefficiency. Successful firms usually had a stable group of employees. (Fayol, 1916)

One of the more obvious positives of tenure for both employer and employee is stability. (Kokemuller) For the employer, recruiting and training a new employee requires time and money (Merhar, 2016). When a large percentage of your workforce or management team leaves frequently, new personnel must be hired as replacements. These replacements will have to be trained and educated about the organization and their role in it. They need to become accustomed to the policies, procedures, and culture of the organization. Their initial productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency will probably be substantially less than the employees they replaced. This cost the organization time and money that is best expended elsewhere (Grimsley, 2016). On the part of the employee, he doesn’t have to constantly look over his shoulder with a feeling of uncertainty about his career and position. It encourages employees to commit to their organization and their work (Kokemuller).

The abolishment of the contractualization of laborers will give workers job security and allow them to continue doing their jobs without worrying whether or not there will be employment waiting for them after their contract ends.

Chapter 3

Research Design and Methodology

Research Design

The qualitative method of research is employed in this study. According to Flick (2002), qualitative research emphasizes the entities of the words and meanings that cannot be experimentally examined through its quantity, amount, and frequency. To Fraenkel and Wallen (2003), qualitative research investigates the quality of relationships, activities, situations, or materials. In qualitative research, greater emphasis is in holistic descriptions of what goes on in comparing the effects of a particular treatment or on describing the attitudes or behaviors of people.  It takes place in natural settings employing a combination of observations, interviews, and document reviews of academic journals.

Methodology

The survey and its results were analyzed and interpreted, focusing on the reason for the longevity and satisfaction of employees to its job and the factors why they will retain or not in their work. In addition, to see the connection between the result from the survey that correlates to the Security of Tenure Bill.

The data needed in this study was obtained through the use of a self-constructed questionnaire containing open-ended and close-ended questions. The said questionnaire was designed to obtain information from the participants through written responses. The researchers made use of open-ended questions to allow the respondents to freely express their ideas and provide additional information and made use of close-ended questions to easily code and statistically analyze the answers.

Document analysis is a social research method used to examine, evaluate, and interpret data or documents- both printed and electronic, focusing on the form, lexical, theme, and elements to give more understanding and gain knowledge about the particular study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).

The graphical presentation for the procedure followed in the conduct of the study is presented in Figure 1.

Figure. 1. Research procedure followed in conducting the study.

In gathering the data for the study, the researchers gave a questionnaire to random people in social media and in other places in order to get the information needed.

The participants were given information about the purpose of the study, particularly the reasons why they were invited. The researchers then explained to the participants that their participation would be voluntary and they were assured of the confidentiality of the information that they would provide.

After gathering information, the questionnaires were read. All data were analyzed and interpreted for the presentation of the result of the survey. The result was break down to reveal the interdependence in the objectives of the study.

The researchers made use of tables and frequencies in order to identify the variables that affect the enthusiasm of Millennials towards employment, specifically, contractualized employment.

After going through all these courses of action, the collected data were put together, analyzed thoroughly to produce a significant conclusion.

Chapter 4

Data Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation

In this section, the researchers summarize the data gathered using different tables with their corresponding interpratations on the different varaiables affecting the enthusiasm of millennials towards employability, specifically, contractualized employment. Furthermore, the results are supported with case study analysis.

Table 1 exhibits that a majority or 81.7% of the participants are of ages 23 to 27. Most of them belonging to this age bracket have not had previous job experiences and are still exploring job opportunities. The second range with the highest percentage is between 28 and 31 years old. Participants included in this age bracket are mostly employed in jobs that do not usually regularize the employees but offer them desirable benefits. The remaining 4 participants are already above 31 years of age. These are the participants that are fond of exploring different job opportunities for experience and may already have other sources of income available.

Job hopping is common among Millennials.Young people have always been, and probably will always be, job hoppers, regardless of what generation they belong to. Despite the stigma attached to it, job hopping can actually be a good thing (Alton, 2018).

People are more likely to change jobs when they are younger and well educated, though not necessarily because they are more open to a new experience. Researchers found that both individual characteristics and the labor market are factors in career mobility. The results of the study conducted show that people are more likely to change their organizations, industries, and occupations when they are younger, with the age effect being strongest (University of East Anglia, 2018).

Table 1. Age of Participants

Age	f	%
23-27 years old	49	81.7
28-31 years old	7	11.7
32-35 years old	2	3.3
36-38 years old	2	3.3
Total	60	100.0

In Table 2, it can be seen that a majority or 65.0% of the participants are female in which most of them are involved in occupations that require less muscle power and more on office or paperwork. The remaining 35.0% are male participants who are employed in industries that involve strenuous work.

Sexual differences are framed by gender roles, which are strongly enchained in society, and refers to the shared beliefs that apply to individuals on the basis of their socially identified sex (Eagly, 1987; Eagly et al., 2004). Men and women tend to specialize in different behaviors in most cultures, and this has led to different beliefs about what men and women can and should do (Wood and Eagly, 2010).

According to the Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1987), men would stereotypically be more oriented to work in the public sphere (breadwinner) and being encouraged by society to take up this role. Traditionally, it is expected that men would show agentic traits that will allow them to work in the public sphere providing support to their family. By comparison, women would stereotypically be more oriented to work in the private sphere (care-taker). Based on this traditional division of labor, it is expected that women would show communal traits and be oriented toward occupations related to care taking (i.e., nursering, teaching) and less orientation toward working in the public sphere, and when doing so, working in jobs compatible with their private sphere “responsibilities” (Cifre, 2018).

Table 2. Sex of Participants

Sex	f	%
Male	21	35.0
Female	39	65.0
Total	60	100.0

Table 3 shows that a majority or 53.3% of the participants are college graduates, 10% graduated with a degree, 10% are high school graduates and the least percentage or 8% of the participants have reached college but have not graduated. Education is generally good insurance against unemploy-ment, even in difficult economic times. In general, people with higher levels of education have betterjob prospects; the difference is particularly marked betweenthose who have attained upper secondary education and thosewho have not (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012). For some employers, the degree subject studied is not as important as the graduates’ ability to handle complex information and communicate it effectively (Knight &Yorke, 2002).

“Many feel that there is a skills gap between the manner in which students are prepared for the real world in a university setting and what they will need to be successful in the workplace and for life in general” (Shivpuri and Kim2004) . This skills gap discussion shifts the focus from workplace preparation to the responsibility of higher education (Cox & King, 2006). Employers want to hire students that are ready for the workplace. This apparent “skills gap” serves as a call to universities to consider incorporating leadership into programs to close the gap.

For a number of years there have been concerns raised by employers about the quality and adequacy of graduates in relation to their ability to fulfill the requirements of the posts they take up after graduation (Knight and York, 2002;Miller Smith, 2002;Hills 2003;Little , 2003;Lesslie, 2004). These concerns have been addressed in some companies by the provision of training courses in which graduates are brought ‘up to speed’ in specific areas required in their employment., for example, AstraZeneca has an extensive training course for new graduates which runs over one year and covers a variety of topics (Higher Education Academy Centre for Bioscience, 2003). Such courses take time and resource and smaller employers may find them difficult and uneconomic to put on, hence the desire for an “oven ready and self-basting” graduate (Atkins, 1999).

Table 3. Educational Attainment of Participants

Educational Attainment	f	%
Elementary Level	0	0.0
Elementary Graduate	0	0.0
High School Level	0	0.0
High School Graduate	10	16.7
College Level	8	13.3
College Graduate	32	53.3
With degree	10	16.7
Total	60	100.0

Table 4 indicates that all of the participants of this study are employed.

Table 4. Employment Status

Employment Status	f	%
Employed	60	100.0
Unemployed	0	0.0
Total	60	100.0

Table 5 shows that all of the participants of this study are contractually employed. 

Table 5. Type of Employment

Type of Employment	f	%
Permanent	0	0.0
Contractual	60	100.0
Trainee	0	0.0
Total	60	100.0

Table 6 shows that most or 33.3% of the participants are educators, followed by those in construction services enuring to 26.7% of the participants. There are 8, or 13.3% of the participants that belong to retail services, 8.3% are in computer services, 6.7% belong to telecommunication services and research and development services respectively, and the remaining 5.0% are in healthcare services.

Table 6. Type of Employment Industry

Type of Industry	f	%
Computer	5	8.3
Telecommunication	4	6.7
Manufacturing	0	0.0
Construction	16	26.7
Retail	8	13.3
Education	20	33.3
Healthcare	3	5.0
Hospitality Management	0	0.0
Research and Development	4	6.7
Total	60	100.0

It is indicated in Table 7 that a majority or 45.0% of the participants have been working for their current employers for more than 1 year, 36.7% have worked for a span of 6 months to 1 year,and the remaining 18.3% have worked for 5 months and below.

Table 7. Length of Current Employment

Length of Time	f	%
5 months and below	11	18.3
6 months to 1 year	22	36.7
More than 1 year	27	45.0
Total	60	100.0

Table 8 shows that most of the participants or 55.0% of them have been previously employed and the remaining 45.0% have not been previously emloyed.

Table 8. Previous Employment Status

Status	f	%
Previously Employed	33	55.0
Not Previously Employed	27	45.0
Total	60	100.0

It is shown in Table 9 that a majority or 33.3% of the participants have been previously employed in healthcare services companies, followed by 24.2% of the participants that belonged to construction services.

Table 9. Type of Previous Employment Industry

Type of Industry	f	%
Computer	0	0.0
Telecommunication	0	0.0
Manufacturing	5	15.2
Construction	8	24.2
Retail	3	09.1
Education	6	18.2
Healthcare	11	33.3
Hospitality Management	0	0.0
Research and Development	0	0.0
Total	33	100.0

Table 10 indicates that a majority or 54.5% of the participants have worked for their previous employer for more than 1 year, 36.4% have worked for 6 months to 1 year and the remaining 9.1% have worked for 5 months and below.

Table 10. Length of Previous Employment

Length of Time	f	%
5 months and below	3	9.1
6 months to 1 year	12	36.4
More than 1 year	18	54.5
Total	33	100.0

It is shown in Table 11 that a majority or 45.5% of the participants have left their previous employment because their contract ended, 39.4% left because they were unsatisfied with their jobs and the remaining 15.1% were laid off or displaced. 

Table 11. Reason for Leaving Previous Employment

Reason	f	%
Contract ended	15	45.5
Unsatisfaction	13	39.4
Laid off/Displaced	5	15.1
Total	33	100.0

Table 12 exhibits that most or 68.3% of the participanrs are happy with their current employment and the remaining 31.7% are unhappy. 

Table 12. Satisfaction Towards Current Employment

Job Satisfaction	f	%
Happy	41	68.3
Unhappy	19	31.7
Total	60	100.0

Table 13 shows that 56.7% or most of the participants are justly compensated by their current employers and the remaining 43.3% are unjustly compensated.

Table 13. Job Compensation Satisfaction in Current Employment

Compensation Satisfaction	f	%
Justly Compensated	26	43.3
Unjustly Compensated	34	56.7
Total	60	100.0

It is indicated in Table 14 that a majority or 61.7% of the participants are willing to stay with their current employer, 30% are unwilling and 8.3% are unsure yet.

Table 14. Willingness to Stay with Current Employer

Willingness	f	%
Willing	37	61.7
Unwilling	18	30.0
It depends	5	8.3
Total	60	100.0

Table 15 shows that a majority or 70.0% of the participants are willing to be regularized by their current employer, 20.0% are unwilling and the remaining 10.0% are unsure yet.

Table 15. Willingness to be Regularized by Current Employer

Willingness	f	%
Willing	42	70.0
Unwilling	12	20.0
It depends	6	10.0
Total	60	100.0

It is exhibited in Table 16 that a majority or 61.7% of the participants considered just compensation to be the top factor affecting their job satisfaction with their current employment, 38.3% chose nature of the job and relationship with co-workers, 31.7% chose company benefits, 26.7% chose relationship with supervisor, 21.7% chose involvement in decision making, 18.3% chose company policy, 0.40% chose not too stressfu lworking environment, and 0.10% chose employee recognition, job security and career growth.

Job privacy and good terms of perks and rewards are relatively important to gain motivation of an employee (Shruthi, no year). This statement has been supported by Morris (2009) that employees tend to increase their work effort in order to achieve rewards given by superior. The higher the amount of reward can lead to higher motivation in employee’s extrinsic effort to achieve it.

Well motivated and committed employees feel that they are highly valued by their organization and that they are playing an important role in the organization that helps the organization to meet its goals and objectives. (Shore and Martin, 1989; Meyer, Paunonen,  Gellaty, Goffin and Jackson, 1989). Employee motivation and willingness to work is very  important for an organization’s success. A committed and motivated employee with an  intensely high level of job involvement is measured as an important asset to an organization. Keeping the employee motivated, committed and involved in the job is always rewarding to a business as a motivated and committed employee is more productive and higher productivity leads to higher profits (Denton, 1987).

Table 16. Factors Affecting Job Satisfaction with Current Employment

Factors	f	%
Just Compensation	37	61.7
Company Benefits	19	31.7
Not Too Stressful Working Environment	24	0.40
Employee Recognition	6	0.10
Nature of the Job	23	38.3
Company Policy	11	18.3
Involvement in Decision Making	13	21.7
Relationship with Co-workers	23	38.3
Relationship with Supervisor	16	26.7
Job Security	6	0.10
Career Growth	6	0.10
Working Experience	20	33.3

It is shown in Table 17 that a majority or 65.0% consider unsatisfying company benefits as the top factor that affects their job dissatisfaction with their current employment, 61.7% chose unjust compensation, 31.7% chose no job security, 28.3% chose too stressful working environment, 25.0% chose no employee recognition, 20.0% chose nature of the job and company policy, 18.3% chose no involvement in decision making, 16.7% chose no career growth, 15.0% chose no relationhip with co-worker, 11.7% chose no relationship with supervisor, 3.3% chose bad woking experience.

Job dissatisfaction is an important issue for many people including managers, customers and employees, as well as a matter for organizations. This is because, in general, job dissatisfaction probably contributes to several issues such as mental and physical health, lower level of turnover and absenteeism (Jha & Bhattarcharrya, 2012). Voluntarily turnover has been detected as the serious problem for some companies in Asia such as Malaysia, Taiwan, etc (Ahmad & Bakar, 2003). Ramlal (2004) views that job hopping has become a culture for many employees in Asia. These show the employees that are having unpleasant feelings about job may lead individuals to search alternative mechanisms in order to reduce the dissatisfaction (Jha & Bhattacharrya, 2012).

Table 17. Factors Affecting Job Dissatisfaction with Current Employment

Factors	f	%
Unjust Compensation	37	61.7
Unsatisfying Company Benefits	39	65.0
Stressful Working Environment	17	28.3
No Employee Recognition	15	25.0
Nature of the Job	12	20.0
Company Policy	12	20.0
No Involvement in Decision Making	11	18.3
No Relationship with Co-workers	9	15.0
No Relationship with Supervisor	7	11.7
No Job Security	19	31.7
No Career Growth	10	16.7
Bad Working Experience	2	3.3

Chapter 5

Summary of Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapters summarizes the study by highlighting the research conducted on the topic. The conclusions given were drawn from the results of the data gathered from the participants and the observation of the researchers to the participants.

Summary of Findings

This study was undertaken with the general objective of finding out what variables affect the enthusiasm of the Millennials towards employability, specifically, contractualized employment in Bacolod City. As their are cases of job misplacement and job vacancies, especially in industries that require a lot of manpower, the factors that affect the willingness and satisfaction of Millennials to stay with their employer are considered important.

The findings of this study would serve as reference for the Millennials themselves, the possible Millennials who will be engaged in the corporate world, the companies involved in different industries and even academies.

The researchers made a case study analysis to gather necessary information and made use of a qustionnaire as a rsearch isntrument in data gathering. The following salient findings were generated:

1. As to the soci-economic profile of the participants

Findings show that a majority or 81.7% of the participants are of ages 23 to 27, 11.7% bare of ages 28-31, 3.3% belong to ages32-35 and also 3.3% belong to ages 36-38. Among them, most or 65.0% are female and the remainig 35.0% are male. In terms of educational attainment, a majority or 53.3% of the participants are college graduates, 10% graduated with a degree, 10% are high school graduates and the least percentage or 8% of the participants have reached college but have not graduated.

• As to the factors affecting the job satisfaction of the participants

The results of the survey show that a majority or 61.7% of the participants considered just compensation to be the top factor affecting their job satisfaction with their current employment, 38.3% chose nature of the job and relationship with co-workers, 31.7% chose company benefits, 26.7% chose relationship with supervisor, 21.7% chose involvement in decision making, 18.3% chose company policy, 0.40% chose not too stressfu lworking environment, and 0.10% chose employee recognition, job security and career growth.

• As to the factors affecting the job dissatisfaction of the participants

Research shows that a majority or 65.0% consider unsatisfying company benefits as the top factor that affects their job dissatisfaction with their current employment, 61.7% chose unjust compensation, 31.7% chose no job security, 28.3% chose too stressful working environment, 25.0% chose no employee recognition, 20.0% chose nature of the job and company policy, 18.3% chose no involvement in decision making, 16.7% chose no career growth, 15.0% chose no relationhip with co-worker, 11.7% chose no relationship with supervisor, 3.3% chose bad woking experience.

Conclusions

The researchers came about the following conclusions:

1. The researchers conclude that age is one of the factors that affect the enthusiasm of the participants towards employability, specifically, contractualized employment since a majority of the participants who are engaged in this type of employment belong to the youngest age bracket for Millennials.
2. The researchers conclude that sex can also be a factor since a majority of the participants involved in contractualized employment are women.
3. The researchers conclude that educational attainment can be considered as a factor since those who have attained higher eduation are mostly likely to be engaged in job hopping and contractualization.
4. The researchers conclude that experience in previous employment can be considered as a determinant factor since those who were unsatisfied with their previous employment tend to engage in job hopping and contractualization.
5. The researchers conclude that the type of industry worked for in their previous employment may be considered as a determinant factor since most of the participants tend to look for opportunities in other industries.
6. The researchers conclude that the length of time spent working with previous employer can be considered as a determinant factor since those who were previously employed for a longer time tend to engage in job hopping and contractualization.
7. The researchers conclude that experience in the current employment can be considered as a determinant factor since those who are satisified with their current employment intend to stay and be regularized by their current employer.
8. The researchers conclude that the type of industry being worked for in their current employment can be considered a determinant factor since a majority of those who enjoy the current industry they are working for intend to stay and be regularized by their current employer.
9. The researchers conclude that the length of time spent working with their current employer can be considered as a determinant factor since those who are employed for a longer time intend to stay and be regularized by their current employer.
10. The researchers conclude that the following are considered as determinants of job satisfaction of the participants in their current employment (from top to bottom)

• Just Compensation
• Not too stressful working environment
• Nature of the job
• Relationship with co-workers
• Working experience
• Company benefits
• Relationship with supervisor
• Involvement in decision making
• Company policy
• Employee recognition
• Job security
• Career growth

11. The researchers conclude that the following are considered as determinants of job dissatisfaction of the participants in their current employment (from top to bottom):

• Unsatifing company benefits
• Unjust compensation
• No job security
• Stressful working environment
• No employee recognition
• Nature of the job
• Company policy
• No involvement in decision making
• No career growth
• No relationship with co-workers
• No relationship with supervisor
• Bad working experience

Recommendations

The researchers came about the following recommendations:

1. Millennials should be open to job opportunities and experiences since each job opportunity given to them will add up to their knowledge and compentence.
2. Those who have unsatisfying job experiences should be open to look for other job opportunities. Otherwise, they will be hindering themselves for better learning, self-development and career opportunities.
3. They should be open to learn new skills and develop their communication, teamwork, and work relationships amongst their supervisors and co-workers.
4. Academies should provide workshops or activities that would equip their students with the necessary skills to make them job-ready. 
5. Companies should ensure that they provide just compensation, good company benefits, job security, not too stressful working environment, employee recognition, employee involvement in decision making, employee career growth, good working relationships amongst co-workers, good working experience, fair company policy and desirable working environment so that their employees would be willing to stay with them.

REFERENCES

Alton, L. (2018). Millennials Aren’t Job Hopping, Young People Are: 5 Things To Keep In Mind. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2018/01/22/millennials-arent-job-hopping-young-people-are-5-things-to-keep-in-mind/#4efa9c7510d8

Cifre, E., Vera, M., Sánchez-Cardona, I., & de Cuyper, N. (2018). Sex, Gender Identity, and Perceived Employability Among Spanish Employed and Unemployed Youngsters. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 2467. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02467

Denton, M. (1987). What Motivates Employees According to Over 40 years of Motivation Surveys. Degree Thesis, University of Sydney.

Eagly A. (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]

Eagly A. H., Wood W., Johannesen-Schmidt M. C. (2004). “Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: Implications for the partner preferences of women and men,” in The Psychology of Gender, eds Eagly A. H., Beall A. E., Sternberg R. J., editors. (New York, NY: Guilford Press; ), 269–295. [Google Scholar]

Jha, S. & Bhattacharyya, S.S. 2012. Study of Perceived Recruitment Practices and their Relationships to Job Satisfaction. Synergy 10(1):63-76.

Meyer, J. P., Paunonen, S. V., Gellatly, I. R., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (1989), Age and Tenure in Relation to Organizational Commitment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Operational Management, 14(2), 143-159.

Morris, R.Y. (2009). Employee Work Motivation and discretionary Work Effort. Master Thesis, Brisbane Graduate School of Business.

Ramlall, S. (2004), “A review of employee motivation theories and their applications for employee retention within organizations”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 5, pp. 52-63.

Shruthi, M. (No Year), “A Study on Stress Management of Employees at Syndicate Bank Hassan”.

Shore, L.M.F., Martin, H.J. (1989). Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Intentions. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 42(7), 225-238.

University of East Anglia. “Age and education affect job changes.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 July 2018. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180705205142.htm>.

Wood W., Eagly A. H. (2010). “Gender,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 5th Edn Vol. 1 eds Fiske S. T., Gilbert D. T., Lindzey G., editors. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.), 629–667. [Google Scholar]

Employees. (1973) Black laws dictionary.

Employer. (1973) Black laws dictionary.

Pineda, E., 2000. Obligations and Contracts. Central Professional Books.

Azucena, Jr., C. The labor code with comments and cases volume I (revised edition).

Deparment of Labor and Employment. http://www.ble.dole.gov.ph/downloads/issuances/DO_18-02_s02.pdf

P.M and Productivity. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/3705/13/13_chapter%203.pdf

Kossivi, B., Xu, M., Kalgora, B. (2016). Study on Determining Factors of Employee Retention. Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai, China https://file.scirp.org/pdf/JSS_2016053009190527.pdf

House of Bill No. 4444. http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB04444.pdf

Kokemuller, N. Positive Effects of Tenure. Retrieved from https://work.chron.com/positive-effects-tenure-10715.html

Samoszuk, S., (2017). Human Capital Theory: Characteristics & Investment. Retrieved from
https://study.com/academy/lesson/human-capital-theory-characteristics-investment.html

Steffens, N. K., Shemla, M., Wegge, J., & Diestel, S., (2014). Organizational Tenure and Employee Performance: A Multilevel Analysis. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1059601114553512#_i2

Fayol, H. (1916). Industrial and General Administration. https://iedunote.com/14-management-principles-henri-fayol

Grimsley, S., (2016). Stability Of Tenure Of Personnel: Principle, Overview. Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/stability-of-tenure-of-personnel-principle-lesson-quiz.html.

Auer, P., Berg, J., & Coulibaly, I., (2004). Is a stable workforce good for the economy? Insights Into the Tenure-Productivity Employment Relationship. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e577/0ee1d71b89cb4ef6a81874492b8ad161917d.pdf

Mehar, C., (2016) Employer Retention – The Real Cost of Losing an Employee. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.peoplekeep.com/blog/bid/312123/emploee-retention-the-real-cost-of-losing-an-employee%3fhs_amp=true

Myers, M. B., Griffith, D. A., Daugherty, P. J., Lusch, R. F. (2004). Maximizing the human capital equation in logistics: Education, experience, and skills. Journal of Business Logistics, 25, 211-232

Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226-251.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Tesluk, P. E., Jacobs, R. R. (1998). Toward an integrated model of work experience. Personnel Psychology, 51, 321-355.

Bauer, T. A., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707-721.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individual’s fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281-342

Philippine Official Gazette. (1974). Presidential Decree 442. Retreived from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1974/05/01/presidential-decree-no-442-s-1974/

Philippine Official Gazette. (2019). Veto message on Senate Bill No. 1826/ House Bill No.6908. Retreived from https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2019/07/26/veto-message-on-senate-bill-no-1826-house-bill-no-6908/

Dolan, Ronald E (Ed). (1993). Philippines: a country study (4^th edition). Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Washington, D. C. 20540

Mendoza, Psyche R. (2017). The labor movement: Impact of Herera Law after 28 years. Retreived from https://businessmirror.com.ph/2017/04/30/the-labor-movement-impact-of-herrera-law-after-28-years/

The Lawphil Project (2009).Coca-Cola Bottlers Inc. v Dela Cruz et. al., GR 184977.
Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=coca+cola+bottlers+v+dela+cruz

The Lawphil Project (2008).Philippine Airlines Inc. v Ligan et. al., GR 146408. Retrieved from https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_146408_2008.html

Mendoza, Raymund Democrito C. (2016). House Bill No. 4444: Explanatory Note. Retrieved from http://www.congress.gov.ph/legisdocs/basic_17/HB04444.pdf

Institute for Labor Studies. (2015) EXAMINING THE “5-5-5” ARRANGEMENT IN CONTRACTUALIZATION: A Study on the Repeated Hiring Practices of Firms in Selected Industries. Retrieved from PB%20s.2015%20No.%2005.pdf

Sicat, G., (2016) More on endo and employment. Retrieved from https://www.pids.gov.ph/pids-in-the-news/1749

Abao, C., (2017). ENDING “ENDO” AND “5-5-5”: WHAT’S WRONG WITH DOLE’S “WIN-WIN SOLUTION”? Retrieved from http://ateneo.edu/news/research/ending-endo-and-5-5-5-whats-wrong-doles-win-win-solution

Rey, Aika., (2018). Jollibee, Dole, PLDT among top companies ‘engaged’ in illegal contracting. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/203529-jollibee-dole-pldt-labor-only-contracting

Pasion, P., (2017). 62% of 2017 endo targets completed – DOLE. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/191321-contractualization-campaign-dole-yearender

Abenir, M. A., (2019). Contractualization and the rights of workers. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/views/imho/226656-contractualization-workers-rights

Cepeda, M., (2019). DOLE hit for lack of baseline data on contractual workers. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com/nation/239315-lawmakers-hit-dole-lack-baseline-data-contractual-workers

 

 

 

 

 

QUESTIONNAIRE

Security of Tenure Bill: Possible Effects on the Enthusiasm of Millenials toward Employability

University of St. La Salle

Bacolod City

 College of Law               Control No.:_______

1. Participant’s Personal Information
2. Age: ____________
3. Sex (please check): [  ] Male [  ] Female
4. Educational Attainment:  [  ] Elementary level            [  ] Elementary Graduate

[  ] High school Level [  ] High school Graduate

[  ] College Level                   [  ] College Graduate

[  ] With Degree (please specify): __________________

1. Participant’s Employment Status and History
2. Are you employed?: [  ] Yes   [  ] No
3. Under what employment type?: [  ] Permanent           [  ] Contractual [  ] Trainee
4. In what type of industry: [  ] Computer  [  ] Telecommunication  [  ] Manufacturing

[  ] Construction  [  ] Retail  [  ] Hospitality  [  ] Others (please specify): __________

• How long have you been employed in your present job? ______________
• Have you previously been employed by a different company?: [  ] Yes             [  ] No
• In what type of industry: [  ] Computer  [  ] Telecommunication  [  ] Manufacturing

[  ] Construction  [  ] Retail  [  ] Hospitality  [  ] Others (please specify): __________

1. How long have you been employed in your previous job? ______________
2. Why did you leave your previous employment?:

[  ] My contract ended

[  ] I was unsatisfied with my previous employer

[  ] I was laid off/ displaced by my employer

1. Participant’s Job Satisfaction
2. Are you happy with your present employment?: [  ] Yes        [  ] No
3. Are you justly compensated for your present job?: [  ] Yes    [  ] No
4. Given the chance, would you still want to be working for the same company after your contract ends: [  ] Yes   [  ] No
5. Are you willing to be regularized in your present job?: [  ] Yes           [  ] No
6. Factors Affecting the Participant’s Job Satisfaction
7. What are the factors that make you want to retain employment with your present company?(check all that applies):

[  ] Just compensation

[  ] Company benefits

[  ] Not too stressful working environment

[  ] Employee recognition

[  ] Nature of the job (enjoyable, interesting, challenging)

[  ] Company Policy

[  ] Involvement in the decision making

[  ] Relationships with co-workers

[  ] Relationships with supervisor

[  ] Job Security

[  ] Career Growth

[  ] Working Experience

1. What are the factors that discourage you in your present employment (check all that applies):

[  ] Unjust compensation

[  ] Unsatisfying company benefits

[  ] Stressful working environment

[  ] No employee recognition

[  ] Nature of the job ( unenjoyable, uninteresting, unchallenging)

[  ] Company Policy (too strict or too unjust)

[  ] No involvement in the decision making

[  ] No relationships with co-workers

[  ] No relationships with supervisor

[  ] No Job Security

[  ] No Career Growth

[  ] Bad Working Experience

Thank you and God bless!