Mayo
I also didn't say that you said I can't speak english. I am just saying that: halos lahat dito sa thread na ito ay english ang ginagamit na wika kaya english din ang sagot ko.
Simple logic.
Ofcourse, I know how it feels to have
bond. I was also able to have a
bond before when I was sent abroad but I didn't have any problem with it since I know my rights as an employee. I am pro-tripartite because this is my stand: " Ang company, gustong magkaoroon nang mahusay na mga tauhan kaya gumagastos sila sa training para maging knowledgeable yung tauhan nila. Siyempre, kung walang
bond, paulit ulit na magtetrain nang tauhan which is magastos. Sinabi mo employer ka, hindi ba't lugi ka naman kung gumastos ka para sa isang buwang training ng employee mo tapos magreresign lang after 2 months? Yan yung point kaya pumapayag rin ang ating gobyerno na magkaroon ng
bond pag may training. Pero since alam ng government na may mga employer na umaabuso sa
bond kaya nireregulate nila ito na hindi pwedeng maningil ang employer ng
bond hangat hindi dumadaan sa korte. Ang korte naman, pinag-aaral niya kung makatarungan ba ang
bond na gustong hing.in ng employer o hindi. So kung ano lang talaga ang tunay na halaga ng training eh yun lang ang papabayaran sa empleyado minus pa dun yung mga buwan nga nagsilbi na siya sa company.
To make it short, even if it is written in the contract that the
bond is 1,000,000 but the court declared that the actual cost of the training is only 1000 so the employee will only have to pay 1000 and I don't see any injustice with the system. I believe the problem is that employees are scared to to fight for their right or they do not know their rights