The present conditions of science workers in the Philippines deserve a serious and in-depth examination. Discourses have usually been dominated by professional scientists and researchers based in research institutions and the academe. While the benefits from these discussions have resulted in policies that have provided relief to many scientists, engineers, and researchers, it seems to exclude a sizable portion of the workforce that makes knowledge production through research possible.
In the department in the University of the Philippines (UP) where I am working for instance, there are about 150 to 200 research personnel at any given time, over 80% of whom are considered as “labor-only contractors” or UP parlance, “non-UP contractuals,” those whose contracts explicitly impose a “no employer-employee relationship” policy. Many are employed in various research projects led by members of the faculty. These project personnel directly contribute to their supervisor’s and UP’s research output, regardless of what their day-to-day tasks are and whether they end up as co-authors in publications. Notably, many of these project personnel are also graduate students in our department, whereas a handful are enrolled in other departments. Unfortunately, there is no publicly available information for the whole UP system, so for now we can only speculate how many people UP employs in its research projects.
Our department has more than 20 full-time faculty, many of whom have multiple research projects ongoing, either as principal investigators or collaborators. It would be impossible for them to be as productive as they need to be without hiring assistants. They are known to be prolific contributors to their respective fields. In fact there have been many professors then and now that were inducted to the National Academy of Science and Technology, a prestigious group of people who have supposedly made significant contributions to science and technology in the country.
There are only about 20 research assistant job items available in our department, as a result, some professors cannot hire one. To get help in their research, some take in and mentor graduate students. But there is a dearth of MS and PhD scholarships available. If our country needs thousands of people with PhDs, as many technocrats and academics have been saying, the number of scholarships being offered should be around that number as well. But even with the limited number of scholarships available, universities have not been able to fully maximize these programs. There are a myriad of reasons for this, but in my view the most fundamental reason is the inaccessibility of STEM education and resources to our youth coupled with the immediate need for most college graduates to get a well-paying job after graduation to help their families. STEM careers, especially in the academe, aren’t really known to pay well, much less offer job security.
Recently, some government scholarship programs have increased support to scholars, which is great, but from what I’ve heard they almost always never get their funding on time. If this is the case, only those who can afford to survive for months without income or support can be a full-time student. Prospective students who are broke, have families to feed, or come from poor families are likely to be discouraged from applying, which is absolutely ludicrous since they should be the people getting priority access to scholarship programs.
In practice, most research projects in UP are actually driven from the labor of science workers. But a common problem among science workers is their employment status. UP employs thousands of workers to perform core and essential tasks, without ever giving them proper and permanent job items. They are deprived of the benefits due to them, and their rights as workers are brazenly violated. This is both shameful and ironic; while UP showers itself with accolades and paints itself as a beacon of hope for our nation, as an institution has continued to be a blatant violator of labor rights. Non-regular workers who have served UP for so long should be given permanent positions in the university, unconditionally and as soon as possible.
The employment status of project personnel, however, presents a conundrum, both for project proponents and labor organizers. Ideally, a project personnel performs tasks related to their project; therefore, their tenure is tied to the project’s duration. However, many project personnel are also graduate students who are expected to leave the university as quickly as possible. There are only a handful of tenure-track positions available in UP at any given time anyway, so almost all of them will have to find employment elsewhere. Arguably, allowing highly trained personnel to leave is against the best interests of UP’s scientists. They would want to have their personnel work for them for as long as they can so that they can use the expertise their staff built through the years. It would seem that a UP academic’s career is beset by a great contradiction: the professor whose job is to equip students so they can leave school as quickly as possible with the skills they’ll need for their future careers, and that of an employer who wants to hoard as many skilled and talented people as possible to work for them for as long as they can. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the whole academic community. Unfortunately, science workers have no say in the matter. So while academics struggle to find which role to play in the knowledge production industry — that of a contributor to knowledge production or as an intellectual capitalist — we science workers should not wait. We must assert our rights now.
How scientists design their research projects and the subsequent roles played by people who will work there needs to have separate and exhaustive discussions. Initially, we can view this matter in employment terms. Project personnel in UP and most other government offices are hired through Contract of Services[1]. Government rules define this as “…the engagement of the services of an individual, private firm, other government agency, non-governmental agency or international organization as consultant, learning service provider or technical expert to undertake special project or job within a specific period.[2]” Employment under this mode comes with a “no employer-employee relationship” clause, which relinquishes the hiring office of all its responsibilities as an employer. Essentially, one is a “consultant” for the hiring entity.
Now, this presents another set of complex and uncomfortable questions for scientists, in the context of scientific research. If one’s contribution to every knowledge product is fundamental, where is the line drawn? If a project pays another person to do the research, can we consider the research to still be the principal investigator’s? Is there a point where a project’s principal investigator should no longer be credited for the work done, even if they wrote the proposal and the funds are under their name? The scientific community needs to confront these questions now, among many others, not a day too soon.
How do we recognize if a project staff is a consultant or an employee, and therefore eligible to receive the benefits due? This is crucial since there are many personnel doing high-risk work on behalf of the university. They go out to the field to collect samples, or ride planes to operate sophisticated instruments, or dive underwater in the ocean for hours; a broken engine or a busted oxygen tank is all it takes to put a person’s life in the balance. They risk their lives for an institution that doesn’t even recognize them as their own.
Parents, particularly mothers, are inordinately disadvantaged. They don’t have access to affordable daycare services, for instance, and therefore would have to spend more than regular employees. There are no adequate facilities for new mothers. If they wish to enroll their child in UP Integrated School, they will have to compete with other non-UP applicants since they are not considered employees. Given the limited slots available for non-UP applicants, this significantly reduces the odds of their child getting accepted.
We have to acknowledge that, aside from tenure-track faculty and researcher positions, there are no other career options in UP for aspiring scientists. Jobs in research projects have no way up or out, so those can’t be considered a stepping stone either; it’s a dead-end job. If this is the case, then why are so many young people offering a significant amount of their prime years to UP? After two or three years, why don’t they just leave for greener pastures? Do they really have a choice? Are they blinded by youthful idealism? Who enjoys the fruits of their labor, passion, and idealism? Or perhaps there really aren’t any available options?
Philippine jurisprudence is well-established on determining the existence of employer-employee relationship. There is a “four-fold test” used to determine if there exists an employer-employee relationship or not, regardless of what is written on the contract[3]. It looks at the following:
· the selection and engagement of the employee;
· the payment of wages;
· the power of dismissal; and
· the power to control the employee’s conduct, or the “control test”.
The “control test” is the most significant point among the four. It indicates how much control the employer has over the methods by which the work is accomplished. So, if a scientist has direct control over how a research assistant does their work, then they should be considered as employees. If not, then who controls the creative and intellectual processes and activities of a research project? Shouldn’t there be an honest discussion as to how much work was done by whom, and to whom it will be attributed? Otherwise, aren’t they just outsourcing science?
References
[1]CSC-COA-DBM Joint Circular №1, s. 2017. Accessible at: https://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2017/Joint%20Circular/CSC-COA-DBM%20JOINT%20CIRCULAR%20NO.%201%20(1).pdf
[2]Ibid.
[3]DOLE Department Order №147–15, s. 2015. Accessible at: https://blr.dole.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/do_147-15_s2015.pdf