The year 2007 started with some good news about the country’s economic performance.

Among other economic accomplishments, government reported that:

First, the exchange rate of the peso against the US dollar closed at 49.03 in 2006, the highest in nearly six years.  And the peso continues to show sustainable strength.

Second, the Bangko Sentral reasonably expects foreign exchange remittance of overseas Filipino workers to post a staggering new record of almost US$12 billion for the year 2006 as soon as all the data are in. And government anticipates a 10 percent increase in such remittances this year. By the way, the figure only reflects remittances coursed through the banking system and formal channels.

Third, the Department of Labor and Employment reported that as early as November 2006, the country had already breached the one million mark in terms of documented deployment of Filipino workers abroad. It represents an increase of no less than 12 percent compared with the previous year.

One need not be an economist to understand that the first was the result of the second and third accomplishments.

There is no dispute that a peso getting stronger each day is music to the ears of government not only because it strengthens the country’s gross international reserves.  More importantly, it significantly eases the pressure brought about by the country’s huge foreign debt. It also means lesser peso spent for the import of essential commodities like crude oil.

As of 2004, the Commission on Filipino Overseas estimated at least 8 million Filipinos already staying abroad. By adding the number of Filipinos leaving the country for greener pastures in another land two years after, it is fair to say that there are at least 10 million Filipinos away from home as of the year 2006.

Using conservative and basic mathematical assumptions, if all the 10 million Filipinos abroad had put in the US$12 billion foreign remittance in 2006, it means that each of them remitted only US$1,200 for the year, or US$100 per month. What does this mean then?

First, it could be that Filipinos overseas do not trust the country’s economy enough, or perhaps the way the government manages it, that they would rather have rather leave behind in the country where they stay a substantial part of their foreign earnings. In which case, the receiving country becomes the real beneficiary of the diaspora.

Second, it could also mean that the so-called record breaking foreign remittances in 2006 is just a tip of the iceberg because overseas Filipinos would rather remit their earnings through underground channels than the usual banking system that is perceived to take advantage of the workers’ money to earn more money for the banks.

If these first and second assumptions are not correct, then it is possible that no less than 10 percent of the country’s population are unfortunately toiling abroad with their sweat and blood but chose to just close their eyes as they earn pitiful and meager salaries simply to keep the economy of their respective families afloat.

If from the extrapolation earlier shown that each overseas Filipinos only remit US$100 per month, it may be too much to assume that on the average each of them earns at least US$500.  But even the amount of US$500 is only about P25,000 per month.

Meanwhile, the continuing appreciation of the peso also diminishes the purchasing power of the families of the country’s overseas Filipinos.

The current situation of the Philippine economy therefore is a great contradiction.  Behind the good news is the bad news that the country has a ‘camouflage’ economy, with the harsh realities waiting to unfold in the future.

It is ironic that Labor Day celebrations have become the vehicle to highlight the oppressive and inhumane condition of the working class in the country, and anywhere in the world. 

Peter McGuire, the apparent “Father of Labor Day”, began working at age 11 in the streets of New York City sometime in 1863 to help support his family. In those days, many children had to do factory work for low pay 10 to 12 hours a day, even when they were sick and exhausted physically. From that experience, an adult McGuire staged strikes and mounted mass actions to call attention to, and protect, the rights of workers. For his ‘adventurism’, McGuire became known as “disturber of the public peace”.  His mass-led actions culminated in the first Labor Day parade in New York City on September 5, 1882, which US Congress later recognized as a federal holiday.

Even May 1, acknowledged as Labor Day by many countries, was conceived out of a violent labor protest in Haymarket Square in Chicago in 1886, resulting in the death and injury of workers and policemen. This event led the World Workers Central Organization during its 2nd Congress in Paris, France, to declare and commemorate May 1 as Labor Day in 1889.

The Philippines marks Labor Day with the traditional activities, promises and rhetoric assuring a better condition for Filipino workers. Enigmatically, many labor issues that confront McGuire centuries ago have persisted to the present time. Perhaps, this is because labor is always outsmarted by capital in its interface with production. This leaves the government to act as a fulcrum to strike a balance between the many conflicting interests of labor and capital. The government is expected to play an unenviable role in breaking the impasse between these sectors. Government apathy in this regard has led to poverty, hunger, economic collapse, breakdown of peace and order, bloodshed, or even uprising and revolution.

The labor situation in the country demands greater challenges for the government.  In a research prepared by the Commission on Filipinos Overseas, there are at least 7.7 million Filipinos abroad as of December 2003, most of them working for foreign employers.  This influx of Filipino workers abroad puts a pressure on the government to protect their interest to the hilt. If it is difficult enough to harmonize the interest of labor and capital within the country, how much more between our Filipino workers overseas and their employers in a foreign country?  The problem becomes more complicated if we take into account the differences in migration, labor, and socio-economic policies between a foreign state and our country. And this is further complicated by discrimination, prostitution, illegal migration and recruitment, exploitation, corruption, complacency of some diplomatic and consular officials, and indifference, plain and simple.

Given the enormity of the perennial concerns of the Filipino workers, here and abroad, is there any reason to call for a celebration? Or perhaps, it may be more fitting to view May 1, Labor Day, as a commemoration of the continuing struggle of the working class that would seem endless in the course of time.