Category Archives: Advokasi

PLN’s Union Achieve in CBA Negotiation

Posted on by

“Unity will strengthen us. On the contrary, disunity will only weaken us.” The truth contained in this sentence is believed by Serikat Pekerja Perusahaan Listrik Negara (SP PLN). They experienced failure in building the unity. Consequently, they had to pay the price. For more than ten years, since the last CBA ended in 2012, SP PLN failed to negotiate the new one.

The last Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was agreed and signed in 2010. That was the CBA that applicable from 2010 to 2012. Finally, SP PLN succeeded in negotiating and then agreeing the CBA in 2010. It was the PKB that was valid from 2010 to 2012.  While it was still valid, the agreed CBA extended until 2013.

The CBA should had been renewed and renegotiated in 2013. However, due to the split, hence the leadership dualism, the negotiation failed to take place. The SP PLN was split into two unions: SP PLN third floor and SP PLN ninth floor. Beside, there are another fraction of workers that established another 3 more unions.

This split then weakened the union, so that they were unable to reach an agreement in the PKB negotiations. In turn, this has an impact on the interests of workers.

During the period where there was no CBA, the board of director issued regulations without any consultation with the union. Ironically, the issued directors’ regulations mostly harmed the workers. To name some, the provision about workers mutation, career system, and also a provision about prohibition for workers to marry co- workers. If a worker marries her/ his co- worker that works in PT PLN, one of them must resign.

This provision was actually a product of the old CBA that stated that the board of directors is allowed to create a system of Human Resources (HR) with a communication with the union. The clause ” with a communication” was interpreted as notification to the union after the provision was issued, not as consultation and then agreed by the union. The Communication can be done in written or oral manner. When it was done in oral manner, there was no proof/ evidence of it. On the ground that the the communication was done, the board of directors issued different provisions, specifically on the new HR provision during the time when CBA was non-existent.

In 2016, there was an attempt to renegotiate the CBA by the union. However, the negotiation did not complete, hence did not result in the new CBA. The main problem for this failure was the dualism of leadership on the union side.

Luckily, the leaders of SP PLN immediately realize that. Finally, the leaders of third floor and ninth floor SP PLN took a step to unite themselves just like before.

In 2019, the unification of the third and ninth floor happened after the dualism for ten years. As mentioned earlier, the unification was initiated by the members who wanted to unite. They were tired of the endless leadership dualism of trade union in PT PLN. On the other hand, the company kept issuing regulations that harmed the workers.

The Negotiation

The newly unified union’s priority was to formulate and negotiate the new CBA.

However, it was not that easy. Each union (beside SP PLN, it is existing 3 more unions) claimed that it was the rightful and held the mandate to represent the workers in the negotiation. Under this situation, the union held a membership verification in order to determine which union had the right to represent the members in the negotiation.

The membership verification resulted in SP PLN had the majority membership with 29,452 members. Together with SP PLN, there was another union that was decided to participate in the negotiation.

However, the problem did not end there. There were misconceptions between unions that slowed the negotiation process down. While the negotiation was still going, the management of PT PLN filed a lawsuit to Jakarta Selatan District Court to determine which union was to represent in the negotiation. The District Court rejected the suit as it was an industrial relation case, not a criminal one.

The next mezasure taken was to get a recommendation from the Ministry of Manpower on who or which union has the right to be in the negotiation. The Ministry of Manpower’s recommendation was for the unions to do membership verification. The result of the verification was SP PLN to represent the workers in the negotiation as other unions only had less than 10% membership each.

In essence, now SP PLN was the rightful representative in the CBA negotiation. And it was proven that with the support of all members and the negotiation team, the negotiation that was started on August 19 was concluded and signed on October 12, 2022.

The result was a CBA consisted of 15 chapters and 90 articles. The articles were formulated by the elaboration of several agreements discussed during the negotiations of 2016’s CBA, board of directors’ decisions issued during the absence of CBA, and the newest draft. It was acknowledged that the end product, the new CBA, wasso much better than the initial draft proposed by SP PLN.

Old and New CBA, What’s theDifference?

The Chairperson of SP PLN, Muhammad Abrar Ali, said that the result of the negotiation was fantastic. “The newly agreed CBA is beyond our expectation. It is so much better than the draft that we proposed. It all thanks to the solid members of SP PLN and also all the functionaries,” he said.

“I am optimistic that the CBA that was signed on 12 October 2022 would be able to improve the company’s performance, and it is a collective effort to accelerate the company’s transformation process. The agreed CBA became the momentum for PLN’s breakthrough. The union had been waiting for this momentum for more than ten years. Through this agreement, the management and union could then harmonized their mission and vision in order to achieve PLN’s objectives,” he added.

He also asserted that the CBA had helped to unite the union’s and the management’s vision and mission. Each had its own that many times are contradicting. However, after both discussed the company’s vision and mission, both parties then found that actually they had similar vision and mission.

“We could find it. We agreed that PLN is the heart of Indonesia, especially in managing the electricity. We work together to contribute to the nation and the state,” he added.

In the same occasion, the head of the Negotiation Team who was also the General Secretary of SP PLN, Bintoro Suryo Sudibyo, asserted that “Thanks to SP PLN’s negotiation strategy that the union could conviced the board of directors to agree to what we had proposed.”

“This is very encouraging. The most important is that this CBA’s orientation is to improve workers’ welfare that essentially is the right of the workers and their families. Even all the things that are related to nominal, it will be the minimum amount. It means, when PLN is in financial trouble, that will be the minimum amount that will be paid to the workers. But if the situation is better, the workers will receive a bigger amount just like what was agreed in the CBA,” he said.

Bintoro then mentioned in detail what are the differenced between the old and the new CBA.

In the old CBA, the remainder of annual leave (the days that is not taken by workers) can not be taken the next year. In the new CBA, half of the remainder of annual leave can be used in the upcoming year. For example, if a worker has a remainder twelve days of annual leave this year. He/she will have six days (half of the remainder) of extra annual leave next year. So the total of his/her annual leave next year will be eighteen days instead of twelve.

In the old CBA, the annual leave deducts workers’ workhours. But in the new one, it does not. The consequence of workhour deduction is the decrease of thier benefits. With the new applicable CBA that ensure workers do not loss their workhour due to leave, workers tend to take their annual leave now.

In the new CBA, a long period of rest is awarded every six years and the duration is three months. While in the old CBA, the validity period of long period of rest was two years, now, it is six years. It means that although it has been two years since the last long period of rest, a worker still could take the leave before the period ends.

In addition, the long period of rest would annihilate the annual leave in the old CBA. While in the new CBA, this type of rest does not deduct the number of annual leave nor wage. Meanwhile, the number of days of rest used to be a fifteen days cycle, now it is ten days of cycle. In other words, the long period of rest is ninety days in total can be taken nine times. Under old CBA, although the leave is only taken once and the number of days is less than fifteen days, then it is taken.

In the new CBA, there is also a recomposition. In the old one, the fix cost and variable cost are almost equal in number. Monthly payroll and bonus are also almost equal. Finally, it was agreed to be 70% fix cost and 30% variable cost. With the changes in the composition, at least there are three benefits. First, the uncertain cost become certain. For example, bonus. The old CBA said that if one received a disciplinary sanction, one would lose one’s bonus. The new one says that one will still get the bonus although one receive a disciplinary sanction because the bonus is a fixed cost. Second, the money that we get now is different from the the money that we will get tomorrow. Third, reduce the company’s actuarial burden. This is because the long term liability that used to be very big, now it si withdrawn forward.

Another difference is about maternity leave. The old CBA said that maternity leave is only three months, now, it is four months. The old CBA also said that maternity leave reduced the number of annual leave and workhour. The new one is the opposite.

For joint-holiday-leave, the new CBA does not reduce the number of annual leave and long period of rest. Even for workers who work during joint-holiday-leave will be awarded with compensation. For example, workers who work in Idul Fitri days or Chrismast. The old CBA said that no compensation for them as it is an obligation.

The old CBA said that workers only receive one holiday allowance ever year. Now, workers will receive two holiday allowance per year. Because the amount is minimum, there is a possibility to get more than once.

For dispensation or leaving work but does not deduct the wage, the new CBA makes a significant improvement. The old CBA said that for their wedding, a worker only got three days, but now they will get five days. It also applies for a worker who marries their childre off. They will get five days instead of three days off the work.

For husbands whose wives are giving birth, they only got two days leave. But now, they could ge a month without any wage deduction. For parents, parent-in-laws, wives, children whose family member(s) dies, they would get five days. It used to be only three days.

In addition to that, workers whose family member dies but in different city, they would get extra leave up to twelve days to account for the travel needed.

To take care of their sick parents/parent-in-laws/husbands/wives/children, workers get two days leave. For graduation (theirs or their children’s) they will get a day leave. These provisions did not exist in the old CBA.

When there is a force majeur such as natural disaster, workers are also entitled of a leave, maximum of a month.

The old CBA said that workers would receive 1.5 million rupiah per workers for glasses. The new one increases the amount to be 5 million rupiah per workers. While it used to be once in three years, now it is once in two years. It used to be only the workers who got the benefit, now it is also the family: husband/wife and children. But only for once.

There are also improvement in assistance and facilities for trade union. There are three assistance provided by the company. First, the check of system. Second, direct assistance that is calculated based on the number of the member, and third, trade union secretariat. There are three conditions to get those assistance from the company. The conditions are as follow: the number of member must be a least 10% of the total workers; second, the organizational structure on DPD level must be at least 50% plu sone from the parent unit; and third, a secretariat will be provided in the area where the union is registered.

Under this new CBA, SP PLN is the only union in PT PLN that is eligible for the assistance and facilities. Therefore, it is SP PLN who will receive facilities from the company in the form of direct assistance, check of system for membership dues, and secretariat. However, other unions who are not eligible for this are allowed to do their function in the industrial relation. They just will not receive any facilities from the company.

The agreed CBA regulates the age of retirement is 56. But now it is being discussed to change it to be 58 years or more. Therefore, the CBA says that should the ministry allow, the age of retirement is 58 years or more or will follow the decision. While the amount of pension also increase.

Working after retirement used to be based on the company’s need and willingness of the retiree. But now it is different. Other than based on the company’s need and willingness of the retiree, it is also based on the request of the retiree. So it does not have to wait for the company. It used to be bound and must wait until the end, but now, they can propose the new ones.

There are new benefits and allowance for performance incentive under the new CBA. Worekrs will get several types of allowance in addition to P1, which is the fixed income. There were only P2 and P3 for allowance, but now there is P2 1A, P2 1B. And there is also P2 1A, P2 1B, and also P3 1A dan P3 1B.

PLN did not cover the workers’ wives’ health insurance if the wives work in different company. Now, the wives who work in other company/office whose health insurance is BPJS  are included in the health insurance provided by PLN. Principally, anyone with health insurance that is lower than the one provided by PLN will be covered.

There was not any official travel, now there is. Workers who choose to work outside their areas, they will get official trave allowance. If his/her family member(s) dies, he/she will get official travel allowance to attend their funeral. The worker’s family who must travel to bury  her/him will also receive official travel allowance.

Another thing that the new CBA regulates is related to mutation. A worker who will retire in three months can propose a mutation/move to other area/city. He/she will receive the movement allowance. The company must not reject the request.

Workers who work under high risk condition, use a lot of physical force, when they turn 45 years old, they must be transferred to other position that does not require physical labor. Including workers who work in frontiers, outermost, and remoted areas, after two years, they have to be transferred to other areas which does not belong to the category of three. Prior to the CBA’s signed the union able to negotiate for the cancellation of pension age discrimination, therefore it will be no more pension age 46 for the HCMS employees. The decision benefited for more that 2000 employees

A worker can propose for a mutation based on their personal curcumstance such as to move with their husband/wife or children, or other specific reasons. Previously, workers who proposed a mutation/tranfer would be demoted. Now, they won’t be. Workers are allowed to propose mutation/transfer twice. Previously, it was only once. There were not any rules on when a worker would get an answer/decision on his/her mutation/transer request. Now, the company must answer or respond in 30 days at the latest. If there is not answers, the concerned official will receive a disciplinary sanction.

As for the categories of work accidents that result in death, total or partial permanent disability, burns, and work-related illnesses, insurance are provided. So they will not only get treatment, but also get benefits.

In the case of  a worker who experience a work accident either disabled or dies, assistance is given to the child’s education until they graduate from S1. Their children will also be given a priority to work in the company during an open recruitment.

Another thing that is new is that the company does not only guarantee physical health. But also mentally, in the form of psychological rehabilitation as needed.

Previously, umroh was included in training before retirement, now it is not included in training. Umrah is a separate facility. 1 time umrah allowance with husband/wife. Meanwhile, training ahead of retirement is a separate facility.

Working after Retirement

Will the new CBA at PT PLN (Persero) have an impact on the subsidiary companies? There will be an indirect effect.

This is due to the commitment in the CBA the subsidiary companies must provide the same welfare and career opportunities for workers who are assigned to work there. Those workers must not receive any lower benefits. Therefore,whether they like it or not, the subsidiaries must ratify PT PLN’s CBA and adjust to as well comply with the provisions in the new CBA.

There has been a communication that HR wants the union members who are assigned to subsidiaries to be members of SP PLN.

Closing

Currently, the technical guidelines for CBA implementation (juknis) are being discussed. It has been agreed in the CBA that the technical guidelines must be discussed and agreed upon with the unions, and will become effective as of October 2022 even though the discussions will end in 2023.

Some of the technical guidelines that are being discussed are the workers talent management system, career system, reward management system, performance management system, discipline regulations, and also the health care system.

So far, SP PLN has conducted socialization on the contents of the CBA to several main units. Majority of workers appreciate and welcome the new CBA. Even workers said they were satisfied with the contents of the CLA.

As a result, the membership of the SP PLN workers union has increased. Many workers then register as members of SP PLN. Workers believe that SP PLN is able to defend, protect and fight for the interests of workers.

Again, as written at the beginning of the article, this proves that unity will strengthen. As the slogan of the movement is often repeated, “Workers united cannot be defeated.”

Raturan Buruh TAD Geruduk Kantor Pusat PT. PLN (Persero) Tuntut Haknya

Posted on by

Ratusan orang buruh yang tergabung dalam Serikat Pekerja Elektronik Elektrik – Federasi Serikat Pekerja Metal Indonesia (SPEE FSPMI) menggelar aksi unjuk rasa di Kantor Pusat PT PLN (Persero) yang terletak di Jl Trunojoyo, Jakarta, Kamis (2/2).

Massa aksi berasal dari berbagai daerah seperti Lampung, Cirebon, Sumbar, Bogor, Indramayu, Purwakarta, Bandung, Makassar, Depok, Cianjur, Karawang, Tangerang, Sukabumi, hingga Bekasi. Mereka bekerja di perusahaan vendor PLN atau Tenaga Alih Daya (TAD) di Pembangkitan, Distribusi, Jaringan:  Pelayanan Handalseperti Penanganan Gangguan Alat Pengukur & Pembatas (APP), Penanganan Gangguan Sambungan Rumah (SR), Penanganan Gangguan Jaringan Tegangan Rendah (JTR), Penanganan Gangguan Gardu Distribusi, Penanganan Gangguan Jaringan Tegangan Menengah (JTM), Penanganan Gangguan Saluran Kabel Tegangan Menengah (SKTM). Serta Tenaga Alih Daya ( TAD ) di bagian retail atau bagian catat meter dan penagihan tunggakan pelanggan yang biasa disebut Biller.

Aksi ini dipicu oleh keluarnya Perdir PLN Nomor 0219 tahun 2019, maka telah mengakibatkan terjadinya penurunan upah TAD berupa penurunan upah pokok, Tunjangan Hari Raya, Tunjangan Hari Tua, Tunjangan Pensiun, Kompensasi pesangon, dan upah lembur.

Hal itu diperparah lagi dengan dikeluarkannya kebijakan yang baru dari PT. PLN (Persero ) melalui EDIR 019 tahun 2022 bahwa beberapa jenis pekerjaan di PLN memakai system Volume Based yang mengakibatkan tidak adanya kepastian hubungan kerja, kepastian upah, dan kepastian jaminan sosial.

Untuk Tenaga Alih Daya bagian Biller, selain terdampak terhadap hal tersebut di atas, juga terdampak atas perubahan kebijakan dari PLN atas periode pelunasan tagihan pelanggan. Di mana sebelumnya periode 6 bulan menjadi periode 1 bulan.

Setiap bulan harus nihil tunggakan pelanggan. Akibatnya, Tenaga Alih Daya terpaksa harus melunasi (menalangi) tagihan pelanggan PLN agar kinerjanya tidak buruk dan terhindar dari sanksi surat peringatan sampai PHK.

Lebih dari itu, di dalam pasal 33 Undang Dasar 1945 sudah ditegaskan, bahwa cabang cabang produksi yang penting bagi negara dan yang mengusai hajat hidup orang banyak dikuasai oleh negara. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut, sudah perlu diragukan lagi, bahwa listrik adalah cabang yang penting bagi negara dan menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak sehingga harus dikuasai oleh negara.

Penguasaan oleh negara sebagaimana dimaksud di atas harus kita maknai dalam kerangka konstitusi. Dalam hal ini kita bisa merujuk pada ketentuan dalam pertimbangan hukum putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi  No 001-021-0211/PUU-I/2002 terkait dengan pengujian UU no. 20/2002 tentang Ketenagalistrikan. Dsebutkan disana bahwa penguasaan negara dalam kacamata konstitusi haruslah berada dalam 5 dimensi: kebijakan, tindakan pengurusan, pengaturan, pengelolaan, dan pengawasan.

Ketika kita bicara bagaimana listrik bisa dinikmati rakyat Indonesia, ada beberapa tahapan yang harus dilewati, yaitu mulai dari pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, hingga retail atau penjualan. Oleh karena itu , penguasaan negara harus mencakup semua tahapan tersebut. Tetapi sayangnya saat ini telah terjadi privatisasi, karena semua tahapan tersebut sebagian diserahkan ke pihak swasta.

Seharusnya di semua tahapan tersebut dikuasai oleh negara melalui perusahaan BUMN, dalam hal ini PT. PLN (Persero) yang diberi mandat berdasarkan Undang undang untuk mengelola sektor ketenagalistrikan. Dengan kata lain tidak boleh diserahkan kepada perusahaan swasta yang akhirnya menyebabkan diskriminasi  dan pelanggaran terhadap hubungan kerja serta tingkat kesejahteraan terhadap Tenaga Alih Daya ( TAD ). Dalam jangka panjang privatisasi  akan berdampak kepada mahalnya tari listrik yang merugikan masyarakat luas.

Swastanisasi sektor ketenagalistrikan bukan saja pelanggaran terhadap konstitusi, tetapi juga menyebabkan ketidakpastian terhadap perlindungan K3, status hubungan kerja, dan menurunya kesejahteraan para buruh yang bekerja di sektor ketenagalistrikan.  Dan dalam jangka panjang, akan berakibat pada mahalnya tarif listrik.

Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut di atas, dalam aksi ini SPEE-FSPMI mengusung 7 tuntutan, berikut :

1. Tolak Penurunan Upah Pekerja/Tenaga Alih Daya (TAD)

2. Tolak Perubahan Status Hubungan Kerja Tenaga Alih Daya ( TAD )

3. Tolak Jenis Pekerjaan berdasarkan Volume Based dan Pola Kemitraan.

4. Tolak Dana Talangan Pelanggan PLN.

5. Stop Kecelakaan Kerja di Lingkungan Kerja PLN

6. Angkat Tenaga Kerja Alih Daya ( TAD ) menjadi pekerja di anak perusahaan PT. PLN

7.  Pekerjakan kembali 19 Tenaga Alih Daya (TAD) yang telah di PHK sepihak oleh PT. DKB di Lampung.

Hundreds of Outsourced Workers Held a Protest in front of PT PLN (Persero) demanding their fightful Rights

Hundreds of workers under the Serikat Pekerja Elektronik Elektrik – Federasi Serikat Pekerja Metal Indonesia (SPEE FSPMI) held a protest action in front of PT PLN (Persero) head office on Jalan Trunojoyo, Jakarta, on Thursday (2/2).

The protest mass came from different areas of the country such as Lampung, Cirebon, Sumbar, Bogor, Indramayu, Purwakarta, Bandung, Makassar, Depok, Cianjur, Karawang, Tangerang, Sukabumi, and Bekasi. They are the workers of PLN vendors, in other words,  PLN’s outsourced workers. They mainly work in the distribution, generation, network-grid:   Reliable Service such as Troubleshooting on Gauges and Circuit Breaker (APP), Troubleshooting on House Installation (SR), Troubleshooting on Low Voltage Network (JTR), Troubleshooting on Distribution Substation, Troubleshooting on Medium Voltage Network (JTM), Troubleshooting on Medium Voltage Cable Line (  Pelayanan Handal seperti Penanganan Gangguan Alat Pengukur &SKTM). Also participating, the outsourced workers in retail or workers who record the meter of electricity and debt collectors called biller.

The protest action was triggered by the inssuance of PLN’s President Regulation No. 0219 of 2019 that resulted in the the decrease of outsourced workers’ wages, holiday benefit, JHT, pension, severance payment and compensation, and overtime pay.

This situation was aggravated by the issuance of new policy under the EDIR 019 of 2022 that resulted in several jobs in PLN to be using volume based system. This new policy resulted in the loss of job security, the employment certainty, wage certainty, and also social  security.

The outsourced workers in retail section or called the biller experienced all of the above-mentioned changes. PLN’s new policy also changed the period of customers’ payment from 6 months to only a month.

The new policy sets that there must be no outstanding payment from the consumer side. Consequently, the outsourced workers must pay the outstanding payment every month so that they will not get bad review due to bad performance, hence they would not get any sanction or warning letter, or even termination.

Furthermore, article 33 of Indonesian Constitution of 1945 asserts that sectors of production which are important for the country and affect the life of the people shall be under the powers of the State. It is no doubt that electricity is a sector of production that is important and affect the life of the people and therefore must be under the power of the state.

Under the power of the state as mentioned above must be understood under the fram of the constitution. We can refer to the provisions in the legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision No 001-021-0211/PUU-I/2002 on judicial review against Law No. 20/2002 on Electricity. The provision said that under the constitution, the ownership of the state over electricity must be in five dimensions: policy, action, management, regulation, and supervision.

When we talk about how Indonesian can enjoy electricity, there are several steps from generation, to transmission, distribution, to retail or sale. Therefore, control of the state must also covers all the steps. However, unfortunately, today, some of the steps have been privatized, by handing them over to the privates.

The state must control all the sections through its State-owned companies (BUMN), in this matter is PT PLN (Persero). PT PLN is mandated under the Law to manage the electricity in this coutnry. In other words, electricity must not be handed over to private companies that could create discrimination and violate the employment relation the outsourced workers. Finally, the outsourced workers would lose their basic rights. In the long run, privatization will increase the price of electricity that will put more burden to the people.

Privatization of electricity is not just unconstitutional, but also worsen the OSH protection, violate the employment contract, and decline in the welfare of workers working in the electricity sector. Finally, it will also increase the price of electricity.

Against that background, SPEE-FSPMI demand the following:

1. Reject the decline of wage of workers and outsourced workers

2. Reject the alteration of Employment Agreement of Outsourced Workers

3. Reject the volume-based system and partnership system

4. Reject the bailout for PLN Customers

5. Stop Work accidents in PLN

6. Regularize the Outsourced Workers to be the workers of PT PLN’s subsidiaries

7.  Reinstate the 19 Outsourced workers who were laid off unilaterally by PT DKB in Lampung

Public Services International (PSI) Ingatkan Dua Hal yang Mengakibatkan Harga Listrik Mahal

Posted on by

Andy Wijaya selaku perwakilan Public Services Internasional (PSI) mempertanyakan, mengapa harga energi yang terjangkau tidak menjadi isu strategis dalam pembahasan Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) Preliminary Scoping Report Workshop yang diselenggarakan di Hotel Novotel Bogor pada tanggal 26-27 Januari 2023.

Pernyataan Andy merujuk pada paparan Masyita Crystallin dari Kementerian Keuangan yang menekankan Energy Transition Mechanism pada 2 hal yaitu just transition dan affordable, “Kenapa harga listrik yang terjangkau tidak menjadi isu pada sesi ini?” Tanya Andy Wijaya.

Lebih lanjut, Andy yang juga Sekretaris Jenderal Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PPIP) ini menyampaikan, harga energi baru terbarukan sekarang ini masih jauh lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan harga energi dari fosil, terutama batubara.

Mengingat eneri baru terbarukan juga akan dijual kepada masyarakat, tentu kita juga harus mengkaji dampak buruknya kepada masyarakat. Karena harga listrik yang mahal, akan membebani masyarakat.

Selain itu, lanjut Andy, Public Services Internasional (PSI) pernah melakukan beberapa study di Inggris, Afrika Selatan, dan Asia Tenggara.

“Study tersebut menyimpulkan, bahwa kepemilikan pembangkitan yang bukan oleh negara atau dimiliki oleh pihak swasta itu biasanya akan berdampak pada harga listrik yang semakin mahal,” ujar Andy.

Untuk itu, di tengah kondisi ketenagalistrikan Indonesia hari ini yang sedang over suplay, maka kedua hal tersebut harus menjadi perhatian serius oleh pemerintah. Karena bagaimana pun, persoalan energi terbarukan dan privatisiasi di sektor ketenagalistrikan akan berdampak pada mahalnya harga listrik.

The Adverse Impact of Privatization on Jakarta Citizen and Water Sector Workers

Posted on by

Instead of giving good impact, privatization has adverse impacts on the workers and citizen. In the first five years of water privatization in Jakarta, the price of water increased by tenfold. The price of water in Jakarta, at that time, was the most expensive in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, during the same period, there was not any increase in the number of new consumers in Jakarta. Meanwhile, there have had been labor disputes in the company. The dispute was brought to the Industrial Relation Court. Both facts were revealed by the  reasearch on the potential adverse impacts of the termination of privatization agreement between PDAM and its partners on water sector workers in Jakarta.

As it is known, the water privatization agreement in Jakarta that was signed in 1998 will end on February 1, 2023. However, in practice, there are several problems arose from that agreement termination. Some problems were already there even before the termination.

Since the beginning, the privatization agreement bear so many questions. There are doubts that the privatization was actually the answers to different problems faced by water sector: the quality, effectivity, and efficiency. This is understandable as since the beginning, the water privatization agreement in Jakarta was dominated by global capitalism interest due to multi-dimensional crisis hit Indonesia at the end of the nineties. 

Jakarta water privatization is considered unprocedural. The process also did not meet the precondition for a privatization to succeed, i.e. to benefit from the market to resolve the efficiency problem in public service sector. The water privatization contract in Jakarta also did not go through open bidding (it was more like a direct appointment which is laden with nepotism and corruption) and was not preceded by a systematic due diligence process to determine rational target.

A number of critics and lawsuits accompanied the privatization project. The critics and mainly concerned with the low quality of the service delivered to the consumers and also the high price. The study conducted by Amrta Institute for Water found that the water tariff applicable in Jakarta has increased tenfold and became the highest in Southeast Asia. The high price is suspected to be the cause of no increase in the number of new consumer in Jakarta.

In addition to economic problem, water privatization in Jakarta also failed to improve the quality of service the company provided. For example, media reported that there has been a decline on water quality delivered to the consumers. It reported that in the mid 1999 to 2001 about 8.5% water provided by PAM di Jakarta and cities around Jakarta was not drinkable and did not meet the standard of physical and chemical quality.

This study shows that there has not been any significant change in terms of water quality compared to before the privatization. A statistical data supports the finding. Up to December 2013, PAM Jaya received more than 53,000 complaints related to service. Out of that number, 74% was related to the dysfunctional water tap. PAM Jaya alrs recorded that there have been high number of leaks, around 42% (from the target of 38% only). New service scope is 60% (from the target of 66%), and water pressure (the amount of water that is received by consumers) is also under 50% (from the target of 100%).

A number of labor disputes occured during the first four to five years of the contract. The most prominent case is the remuneration problem. The amount of retirement fund given by partner company to workers who worked directly to them is different from the one given to PAM Jaya’s wokers whose status was assigned to work at the partner company (seconded). There three cases which ended up in the Industrial Relation Court (PHI). Those are: Case of Maisril et. al. (4 persons) 2014-2016, Ponimin et. al. (1,055 persons) 2008-2009, and Dondi Syahtriandi (2011-2015).

On February 1, 2023, the agreement or contract of privatization will end. However, there is a scepticism about whether or not the termination of privatization agreement on February 1, 2023 means that PAM Jaya will be remunicipalized: the return of the control over management and service of water to the hands of the public via the regional/provincial government.

A number of newly found facts show the tendency of new privatization in the form of unbundling of water service supply chain in Jakarta. A series of MoUs have been signed by representatives of different ministries witht the Governor of Jakarta. In October 2022, the new agreement on water production management was signed.

Some big private companies including the private company that previously was in the contract with PAM Jaya, are in the offer exchange of water privatization bidding in Jakarta and cities around Jakarta. There have been some questions about the transition process. The company claims that it has established a transition team as mandated by a clause in the privatization agreement of 1998/2001. However, there is not any valid information related to the composition of the transition team.

In order for the transition process to be smooth, there has to be improvement of inter-agency communication and between stakeholders. The problem with availability of communication media must also be handled seriously. The interviewed informan stated that there needs to be a responsive actions from the government side to ensure that the transition team is valid, representative, and work tranparently.

In addition to that, there are a number of potential labor problems arise during the transition period and before the end of the agreement on February 1, 2023. If the problems are left unattended and poorly handled, there is a possibility for legal disputes to emerge. The uncertainty will disrupt productivity and performance of water service in Jakarta which at the end, will violate the rights of the citizen overn quality public service.

There are at least four potential problems emerge during the transition period and after the the privatization agreement ends. First, a problem related to employment status. The termination of privatization agreement will have a concrete impact on the workers’ employment status in both partner companies. Although clause number 32.12 of the collective agreement  guarantees that workers in both partner companies can be recruited by PAM Jaya. Workers said that they had been asked to fill a questionaire and to sign a letter that they agreed to work in PAM Jaya. There are two clauses in the statement letter that workers find unclear. Those clauses are related to their employement status at PAM Jaya: first, a clause that said that workers are agree to be a permanent or contract workers at PAM Jaya; and second, workers must agree to participate in the recruitment process to able to work at PAM Jaya.

Both problems have raised a number of questions: for previously permanent workers at hired by a private companye, will they be contract workers in PAM Jaya later after the termination of privatization agreement? If workers must participate in the recritment process, does it mean that there are possibilities that they fail in the recruitment process? What will the consequence be?

The second problem is related to job loss compensation. The clause number 32.12 of the collective agreement implies that PAM Jaya has a prerogrative right to recruit workers and/or not after the collective agreement is no longer applicable. The question is what will happen to workers who are not recruited by PAM Jaya but already resign from the partner company?

A legal issue will arise, will workers be terminated/fired or considered as resignation? Who will be responsible to pay the compensation to the concerned workers; PAM Jaya or the partner company?

Third, the seconded workers. The seconded workers are in an uncertain situation. The Clause number 32.12 of the collective agreement says “All parties agreed that this the contact of Seconded Workers will end automatically with the change of employment status.”

Refering to that clause, the contract of seconded workers will automatically end exactly when the collective agreement expired. However, there is not any further explanation on how will the change of employement status for seconded workers be carried out: will they be automatically return to their original position at PAM Jaya just like before they were assigned to work at the partner company? Or, will they have new position and duties? How will the transition be? Those questions are left unanswered.

Next, the fourth, the deficit of human resources and its impact on the performance of public service. Based on BPS data in 2020, the number of water PAM Jaya workers is approximately 910,000,21, while the number of water sector workers in Jakarta up to 2020 is 2,200.

By assuming that the growth of water sector consumers is about 0.7%-0.9% per year, the ration of workers in Jakarta to the number of customers is 1: 410. That means each worker must provide a service to 410 customers (which mostly are households, companies, etc.).The deficit of human resources bears a big problem. Statistically, the number of workers in their retirement age is also significant. This matter must be handled seriously and must be included in the deliberation of transition team.

Unfortunately, although union existence in water sector in Jakarta is acknowledged by the company, however, workers are relatively excluded from the transition process. The communication with management were initiated by the union, not by the company. In the context of social dialogue, this situation hinders the possibilities of challenge solving in the win-win solution.

The explanation above is the summary of a research initiated by the Public Service International (PSI), a global union federation in public sector. The research was conducted to ensure the protection and fulfilment of water sector workers in Jakarta who are impacted by the remunicipalization process what will take place on February 1, 2023.

The reseach lasted for three months, from end of August to end of October 2022. The research objective is to support the struggle for equal rights to quality public service by fighting for the fundamental rights of the workers. Included in the research the socio-political context of Indonesia’s labor policies; identification of problems in fulfillment and protection of workers rights and union rights resulted from remunicipalization process of water company in Jakarta, and provided recommendations for PSI the take precautious steps in advocating the workers rights and union’s rights in the process of remunicipalization of water in Jakarta.

On 25 November 2022, 16 people representing SP PDAM Jakarta, Sekar Aetra and Sekar Palyja, gathered to launch the report and discuss further input for strategic actions.

Laporan RisetDownload
Research Report in EnglishDownload

Preparing to Face Workplace Dispute Settlement, Five Unions Parcitipated in Advocacy Training

Posted on by
Advocacy literally means mentoring support, suggestion, and defense. In the world of employment, advocacy is an activity or a series of activities in the form of suggestion, mentoring, statement of defense by union for its members or organizaton in response to a situation or problem.

It is very important for unions to have an advocacy skill, especially because advocacy is very critical to unions. In an employment relation, there is always a possibility for a ‘dispute’.

That is the backgroung of five unions participating in an advocacy training. The training titled “Developing Organising Strategy “Organiser’s Skills on Labour Laws and Dispute Settlement” located in 5G Resort, Bogor, on 7 – 10 November 2022. The five unions are: SPEE FSPMI, SP PLN, SP PPIP, SP PJB and SP SERBUK.

Suherman, one of the resource persons, explained that the first session of the training would discuss labor law and regulations in Indonesia in relation to industrial dispute settlement. The session also discussed the Basics of Labor Laws and the implementing and supporting regulations. Case studies were also included in the discussion. Along with Suherman, Mahfud Siddik and Aep Rianandar from Advocacy Team of the SPEE-FSPMI supporting this training as resource person.

Disputes between workers and employers basically happen with or without a violation of law that precedes. If a law violation precedes a dispute, there are several factors involved. Those factors are, among others, different understanding on labor law implementation (conflict of rights), a discriminative treatment by employer to workers; or, employers who do not fully understand the role and function of trade unions as a bagaining institution and workers’ representative.

Workplace dispute is avoidable. However, sometimes it is unavoidable due to several factors. First, a unilateral decision on sanction imposed by the employer regardless of the agreed regulation applicable in the company. The company only considers workers as a factor or production and are oriented to profit only (prioritize productivity). Second, failed negotiation as an effort to solve a problem due to bad and ineffective communication; and third, no recognizition for union as the institution that represents the workers in that workplace.

The next session discussed bipartite and mediation as parts of workplace dispute settlement. A dispute must be settled/negotiated between the trade union and management. After the trade union and management agree on the disputed matter, both will create a Collective Agreement. If the negotiation failed, both will go to mediation.

The session invited participants to do a mediation simulation. Participants were divided into two groups. One group played the role of the employers, the other the trade union/workers. The case used in the simulation was demotion of a worker accompanied by decrease in wage.

The simulation went well and was very interesting. Each group had a role, different problems, responses and answers. The session used undated legal terms and legal arguments.

The seminar about Understanding Dispute Settlement in the Industrial Relation Court (PHI) was delivered by Aep Risnandar. The seminar was followed by a simulation of a court session in the Industrial Relation Court (PHI).

In this session, participants acted like they were in a court session. They also tried to formulate their lawsuit, answer from the defendant, second declaration (replik), final reply from the defendant (duplik), provide evidences (documents and witnesses), conclusion, and final statement.

It is hoped that the training will improve the labor organisers’ knowledge and skills on Indonesian labor law and on how to do advocacy on workers’ rights vioilation in their respective workplaces in addition, organizers would be able to use their skill and knowledge to develop their organization’s organizing strategies.

Pembentukan Holding Subholding PLN Karpet Merah Liberalisasi di Sektor Ketenagalistrikan

Posted on by

“Kalau baru sanggup makan tempe, jangan dipaksa makan daging. Jangan sok-sokan ikut Barat.” Istilah ini disampaikan Ekonom INDEF Abra Talattov dalam diskusi bertajuk Seri Pembelajaran Serikat Pekerja: ‘Pembentukan Sub-Holding PLN Dari Kacamata Konstitusi dan Ekonomi’ yang diselenggarakan secara daring, Selasa (18/10).

Menurut Abra, negara-negara di dunia memang memiliki komitmen kuat dalam mewujudkan transisi energi menuju green energy. Tetapi masing-masing negara juga melihat kepentingan nasional. Khususnya bagaimana transisi energi harus bisa memenuhi tiga aspek: security, affordability, dan low emission.

Di mana transisi energy dilakukan dengan melihat kesiapan dan kemampuan masing-masing negara. Termasuk dari sisi keuangan negara, keuangan masyarakat, dan BUMN. “Tidak dipaksakan kita latah mengikuti agenda global. Padahal negara maju yang saat ini mengembar-gemborkan energi hijau juga menjilat ludah sendiri, dengan memanfaatkan energi berbasis fosil dalam jumlah besar,” tegasnya.

Transformasi holding dan sub-holding di PLN sudah menjadi keputusan pemerintah. Tugas kita sekarang adalah memastikan agar Geothermal Co dan New Energi Co tidak menyebabkan liberalisasi ketenagalistrikan. Karena, memang, ada dorongan untuk meningkat peran swasta yang lebih besar.

Abra menguraikan, bagaimana swasta diberi karpet merah untuk masuk di sektor ketenagalistrikan dengan dalih transisi energi. Salah satu strateginya adalah dengan pembentukan subholding. Menurutnya, memberikan insentif agar swasta membangun EBT tidak cukup. Karena listrik dari swasta, khususnya EBT, harus bisa terserap dan bersaing dengan listrik yang disuplay PLN. Dibutuhkan desain kebijakan agar swasta tertarik untuk masuk. Di sini terlihat jelas, ada kesadaran untuk mengundang swasta.

“Tetapi swasta pun tidak mau mengeluarkan investasi besar, tetapi tidak ada kepastian siapa yang akan membeli listrik mereka. Tidak ada kepastian penjualan kepada masyarakat. Kita tahu, PLN adalah BUMN ketenagalistrikan yang bisa mensuplay listrik sampai ke konsumen. Di sini ketemu jawabannya. Transformasi kelembagaan PLN tidak lepas dari konstelasi bagaimana bisa mendorong peran swasta lebih maksimal,” ujarnya.

Di sisi lain, potensi geotehermal Indonesia memang sangat besar, nomor 2 di dunia. Saat ini baru 2.132 MW yang sudah teroptimalkan, dari potensi 23,9 GW. Baru 8,9%. Inilah juga yang menjadi daya tarik swasta untuk bisa mengembangkan energi terbarukan sekaligus memanfaatkan potensi yang besar ini. Awalnya ada skenario dibentuk perusahaan baru, tetapi berhenti di tengah jalan. Dan sekarang menggunakan mekanisme holding dan sub-holding, termasuk geotermal co.

Di samping itu, potensi EBT yang lain juga sangat menjanjikan. Tenaga air, surya, angin, dan sebagainya. Di tengah potensi besar untuk dikembangkan, dari kapasitas pembangkit yang dimiliki PLN maupun kerjasama IPP yang setiap tahun bertambah, capacity faktornya relatif stagnan. Meskipun masih ada ruang untuk menambah pasokan lsitrik dengan meningkatkan capacity factor. Apalagi kalau ditambah pembangkit baru, termasuk EBT, maka over kapasitas akan semakin besar.

Ironisnya, meski EBT didorong akan tumbuh ambisius, tetapi kebutuhan untuk tetap menggunakan baturabara masih tinggi. Sampai dengan 2030, kebutuhan batubara diperkirakan mencapai 153 juta ton. Masih dominan. Tentu ini menunjukkan kita tidak serta merta menjalankan transisi energi tanpa melihat bukan hanya dari aspek lingkungan, tetapi juga dari sisi keekonomian yang masih sanggup kita jalani, Jangan juga memaksakan diri, yang diistilahkan Abra baru sanggup beli tempe sudah dipaksa makan daging.

Di sisi lain, subdisi dan konpensasi listrik masih besar. Tahun ini konpensasi listrik 41,0 T dan subdisi 59,6T. Tahun depan, subdisi listrik diperkirakan 72,3T. Ini belum termasuk konpensasi. Kesimpulannya, pembiayaan listrik tidak lepas dari supposrt atau dukungan dari rakyat melalui APBN. Jangan sampai pemerintah mengatakan ini uang nagara. APBN adalah pajak rakyat, uang rakyat,” ujar Abra.

Dengan kata lain, meski saat ini tarif listrik kita termasuk yang murah di ASEAN, hanya 1.445, tetapi itu berkat dukungan rakyat. Di Filipina yang menerapkan liberalisasi listrik sudah mencapai 2.616. Hal ini menunjukkan liberalisasi listrik membuat harga listrik semakin mahal dan memberatkan rakyat.

Bahwa liberalisasi listrik harus dihindari, hal ini juga ditegaskan oleh Praktisi Hukum M. Fardian Hadistianto. Liberalisasi listrik bertentangan dengan konstitusi.

Fardian menyampaikan, listrik merupakan cabang produksi yang penting bagi negara dan menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak. Dalam hal ini, kita harus memaknai penguasaan oleh negara dalam kaca mata konstitusi. Merujuk pada ketentuan dalam pertimbangan hukum ptusan MK No 001-021-0211/PUU-I/2002, di sana disebutkan. penguasaan negara berada dalam 5 dimensi: kebijakan, tindakan pengurusan, pengaturan, pengelolaan. dan pengawasan. Kelimanya bersifat kumulatif, satu kesatuan. Tidak boleh diterapkan hanya salah satunya.

“Kalau kita bicara bagaimana listrik bisa dinikmati rakyat Indonesia, ada beberapa tahapan yang harus dilewati. Dimulai dari tahapan pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, dan penjualan ke konsumen. Maka penguasaan negara harus dalam semua tahapan tersebut. Tidak bisa dimaknai hanya di tahapan retail saja, atau transmisi saja. Semuanya dalah satu paket,” ujarnya.

Kemudian dia menegaskan, “Karena pengejawantahan penguasaan negara mengamanatkan penyediaan ketenagalistrikan tidak boleh bersifat unbandling atau terpisah-pisah.”

Dengan demikian, pembentukan holding sub-holding PLN berpotensi kuat bertentangan dengan UUD 1945. Karena akan menyebabkan praktek unbundling dan hilangnya pengusahaan negara dalam usaha penyediaan ketenagalistrikan karena kepemilikan Geothermal Co dan New Energy Co tidak dimiliki secara langsung oleh PT PLN sebagai BUMN yang ditugaskan untuk menyelenggarakan usaha ketenagalistrikan.

Selain itu, ketergantungan dengan pembangkit listrik tenaga uap dan energi baru terbarukan dalam usaha penyediaan ketenagalistrikan yang jika diterapkan konsep holding sub-holding menyebabkan Geothermal Co dan New Energy Co merupakan perusahaan murni swasta dan lepas dari penguasaan PT PLN sebagai pengejawantanhan negara di sektor ketenagalistrikan.

Statement of PPIP and SPPJB on PT PLN (Persero)’s Subholding Formation

Posted on by

Persatuan Pegawai PT Indonesia Power (PPIP) represented by its chairperson, Dwi Hantoro Sutomo, and the secretary, Andy Wijaya, and the Serikat Pekerja PT Pembangkitan Jawa-Bali (SPPJB) represented by Agus Wibawa, the chairperson, and Ide Bagus Hapsara, the general secretary, gave a statement related to the launching of PLN (Persero)’s subholding formation on September 21, 2022

The news said that the Ministry of State-Owned Companies (BUMN) has officially established the Holding dor PLN (Persero)’s subholding. This corporate action resulted in the consolidation of PLN’s generation assets to be into two Subholding Generation Companies (Genco) i.e. PLN Indonesia Power (Genco 1) and PLN Nusantara Power (Genco 2).

This corporate act has caused the consolidation of PLN’s generation assets. PT PLN Indonesia Power which was known as Indonesia Power will manage 20.6 GW generation facilities. This subhodling will be the biggest electricity generation company in SouthEast Asia.

Previously, the President Director of PLN, Darmawan Prasodjo, said that the restructurization is a strategic step to adapt to future changes. Moreover, he added, the company’s target is 22.9 GW of generation facilities up to 2025.

To accelerate the transition to clean energy, PLN Indonesia Power as a generation subholding company will have subsidiaries. A subsidiary will focus on Geothermal (Geothermal Co) with capacity of 0.6 GW and a renewable energy generator, such as solar generator, wind, or hydro – generator (New Energy Co) with capacity of 3.8 GW).

In the video, the Union (Serikat Pekerja PT Pembangkitan Jawa Bali and Persatuan Pegawai PT Indonesia Power) responding the formation of PT PLN (Persero) Subholding stated the following:

First, the formation of Geothermal Co. and New Energy Co. each of which the subsidiary of PT PLN Indonesia Power and PT PLN Nusantara Power shows that the Sate no longer control the sectors of production which are important for the country. It is also inconstitutional by violating the Constitutional Court decision No. 111/PUU-XIII/2015 and No. 61/PUU-XVIII/2020.

Sectors of production which are important for the country and affect the life of the people shall be under the powers of the State.

Second, the formation of Geothermal Co. and Energy Co. is the a form of government’s authority abuse to PT PLN (Persero) under the pretext of energy transition.

Third, Persatuan Pegawai PT Indonesia Power (PPIP) and Serikat Pekerja PT. Pembangkitan Jawa Bali SP PJB have sent two letters to the majority shareholders i.e. PT PLN (Persero) President Director, to question the formation of Goethermal Co. and New Energy Co.. However, up to this date, there has not any good will at all and allegedly it is the violation of article 126 of Perseroan Law.

Fourth, asset transfer from PT PLN (Persero), a State-Owned Enterprise, to new entities whose share are now owned by the State (Geothermal Co. and New Energy Co.) can be considered as hidden privatization.

Based on the above points, the following is our statement:

  1. We reject the establishement of PT PLN (persero) Subholding, especially the joint-subsidiaries, i.e. Geothermal Co and New Energy Co.. This is a form removal of State’s control over national electricty/energy sector.
  2. We request PT PLN (Persero) to take over the role and resposibility directly in the transition process to new and renewable without having to transfer the assets to other business entities by creating subholding (the Geothermal Co. and Energy Co).
  3. We request to the majority shareholder of PT Indonesia Power and PT Pembangkitan Jawa Bali to comply with and obey the article 26 of Law on Limited Company (Perseroan Terbatas) during the process of subholding formation of PT PLN (Persero)

Video Statement: https://videopress.com/v/DDhhEPo2

Thank you,

PPIP Chairperson, Dwi Hantoro Sutomo: 0812-8643-9018
SPPJB Chairperson, Agus Wibawa: 0896-8750-0696
PPIP General Secretary Andy Wijaya: 0813-1115-1305
SPPJB General Secretary, Ide Bagus Hapsara: 0857-3102-0947

Pernyataan Sikap PPIP dan SPPJB Menolak Pembentukan Subholding PT PLN (Persero)

Posted on by

Persatuan Pegawai PT Indonesia Power (PPIP) dengan Ketua Dwi Hantoro Sutomo dan Sekretaris Andy Wijaya serta Serikat Pekerja PT Pembangkitan Jawa-Bali (SPPJB) dengan Ketua Agus Wibawa dan Sekjen Ide Bagus Hapsara memberikan pernyataan sehubungan dengan launching pembentukan subholding PT. PLN (persero) pada tanggal 21 september 2022.

Diberitakan, Kementerian Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) meresmikan pembentukan Holding Subholding PT PLN (Persero). Aksi korporasi ini  membuat seluruh aset pembangkitan PLN terkonsolidasi dalam dua Subholding Generation Company (Genco) yaitu PLN Indonesia Power (Genco 1) dan PLN Nusantara Power (Genco 2).

Aksi korporasi ini membuat seluruh aset pembangkitan PLN terkonsolidasi. PT PLN Indonesia Power yang sebelumnya dikenal lewat brand Indonesia Power akan mengelola pembangkit dengan kapasitas 20,6 GW. Subholding ini akan menjadi perusahaan pembangkit listrik berkapasitas terbesar di Asia Tenggara. 

Sebelumnya, Direktur Utama PLN, Darmawan Prasodjo menyampaikan, restrukturisasi ini merupakan langkah strategis guna bisa beradaptasi dengan perubahan ke depan. Terlebih, imbuhnya, perusahaan memiliki target pengoperasian pembangkit hingga 22,9 GW pada 2025.

Untuk mempercepat transisi energi bersih, PLN Indonesia Power sebagai subholding pembangkitan bersama PLN Nusantara Power juga akan memiliki anak usaha bersama yang fokus pada pembangkit panas bumi (Geothermal Co) berkapasitas 0,6 GW dan pembangkit energi baru terbarukan, seperti tenaga surya, tenaga angin dan tenaga hidro (New Energy Co) berkapasitas 3,8 GW.

Berdasarkan video pernyataan sikap Serikat Pekerja PT. Pembangkitan Jawa Bali dan Persatuan Pegawai PT. Indonesia Power ketika menanggapi pembentukan subholding PT PLN (Persero), disampaikan beberapa hal sebagai berikut:

Pertama, pembentukan geothermal.co dan new energy.co yang merupakan anak perusahaan bersama PT. PLN Indonesia Power dan PT. PLN Nusantara Power adalah contoh nyata hilangnya penguasaan negara dan bentuk pelanggaran konstitusi yaitu melanggar putusan MK No. 111/PUU-XIII/2015 dan putusan MK No. 61/PUU-XVIII/2020.

Kedua, pembentukan geothermal.co dan new energy.co adalah bentuk penyelewengan tugas pemerintah kepada PT. PLN (persero) dalam pemenuhan transisi energi.

Ketiga, Persatuan Pegawai PT. Indonesia Power dan Serikat Pekerja PT. Pembangkitan Jawa Bali telah membuat surat sebanyak 2 kali kepada pemegang saham mayoritas dalam hal ini adalah dirut pt. Pln (persero) mempertanyakan pembentukan geothermal.co dan new energy.co dan sampai saat ini belum ada itikad baik sama sekali dan hal itu diduga pelanggaran terhadap pasal 126 uu perseroan terbatas.

Keempat, hibah aset-aset BUMN dalam hal ini PT. PLN (persero) kepada entitas baru yang sahamnya tidak dimiliki oleh negara (geothermal.co dan new energy.co) dan selanjutnya bila dijual, patut diduga sebagai bentuk baru privatisasi terselubung.

Berdasarkan poin-poin tersebut di atas, dengan ini kami menyatakan sikap sebagai berikut:

  1. Menolak pembentukan subholding PT. PLN (Persero) bila di dalamnya masih terdapat struktur anak perusahaan bersama, yaitu geothermal.co dan new energy.co karena menyebabkan hilangnya penguasaan negara pada sektor ketenagalistrikan nasional.
  • Meminta PT. PLN (Persero) untuk mengambil peran dan tanggung jawab secara langsung pada transisi energi baru dan terbarukan tanpa mengalihkan kepada entitas di bawah subholding (geothermal.co dan new energy.co).
  • Meminta pemegang saham mayoritas PT. Indonesia Power dan PT. Pembangkitan Jawa Bali untuk tunduk dan patuh pada pasal 126 UU Perseroan Terbatas pada proses pembentukan subholding PT. PLN (Persero).

Terima Kasih

Ketua Umum PPIP, Dwi Hantoro Sutomo: 0812-8643-9018
Ketua Umum SPPJB, Agus Wibawa: 0896-8750-0696
Sekretaris PPIP Andy Wijaya: 0813-1115-1305
Sekjen SPPJB, Ide Bagus Hapsara: 0857-3102-0947

Mogok Kerja SERBUK PLTU Sumsel I, Sebuah Perjuangan Merebut Hak-Hak Pekerja.

Posted on by

Muara Enim – Selasa (26/7), Mogok kerja di PLTU Sumatera Selatan (Sumsel) I hari ini resmi dimulai. Para pekerja yang tergabung dalam SERBUK PLTU Sumsel I menghentikan aktivitas bekerja setelah beberapa kali perundingan antara SERBUK Sumsel I dengan Manajemen SGLPI, sebagai pemilik PLTU Sumsel 1, gagal mencapai titik temu.

Permintaan SERBUK PLTU Sumsel I agar pihak manajemen SGLPI dan Sub contractornya mematuhi norma-norma ketenagakerjaan terus saja diabaikan. Upah pekerja masih banyak yang di bawah UMK, PHK sepihak terus berlangsung, tak ada cuti tahunan yang diberikan kepada para pekerja, dan tuntutan untuk menyediakan fasilitas kesehatan yang memadahi tidak direspon dengan baik.

Berulangkali perundingan secara baik-baik telah ditempuh SERBUK PLTU Sumsel I, dari bipartit sampai dengan tripartit. Bahkan, Senin kemarin, perundingan melibatkan banyak pihak, ada selain SERBUK PLTU Sumsel I, Manajemen SGLPI, dan Disnaker, hadir pula aparat keamanan dan aparat pemerintah setempat. Deadlock! Oleh karena itu, tidak ada pilihan, demi hak-hak yang telah lama dirampas para pekerja memutuskan melakukan mogok kerja, yang itu sah menurut aturan perundang-undangan.

Mogok kerja ini rencana akan dilakukan sampai dengan tanggal 1 Agustus mendatang, sebagaimana disampaikan oleh Ketua Komite Wilayah SERBUK Sumsel, mogok kerja terpaksa ditempuh karena Manajemen terus saja abai dengan tuntutan para pekerja. “Andai saja perusahaan patuh terhadap peraturan perundang-undangan, mestinya mogok kerja hari ini tidak perlu terjadi.” Kata Bung Tajudin, menyayangkan sikap perusahaan yang tidak memenuhi tuntutan para pekerja.

Perwakilan Komite Eksekutif SERBUK, Muhammad Husain Maulana, yang hadir di tengah-tengah massa SERBUK Sumsel I terus memompa semangat para pekerja yang sedang mogok. “Kawan-kawan, kita di jalur kebenaran. Memperjuangkan apa yang mestinya menjadi hak kita adalah sebuah kewajiban, bukan sunah lagi hukumnya. Sekali lagi, ini adalah kewajiban.” Tegas Husain dan disambut teriakan ‘hidup buruh’ berkali-kali dari massa aksi mogok kerja.

Mewakili aspirasi massa, SERBUK Sumsel I, Tajudin mengatakan, masih membuka ruang perundingan dengan manajemen SGLPI, tentu saja hal itu untuk menghindari kerugian yang lebih besar bagi perusahaan. “Kami masih membuka ruang negosiasi agar persoalan tidak berlarut-larut. Tentu saja bukan hak-hal normatif kami yang dinegosiasikan.” Terangnya.

Union Questions the Regional Representative Council of Indonesia’s (DPD RI) motive on initiating the amendment to Law no. 21 of 2000 on Trade Union/Workers Union

Posted on by

The General Secretary of Persatuan Pegawai Indonesia Power (PPIP), Andy Wijaya, questions the Regional Representative Council of Indonesia’s (hereafter, DPD RI) motive on initiating the amendment to Law no. 21 of 2000 on Trade Union/Workers Union. The DPD RI’s tasks as stated by the 1945 Constitution is to propose to the People’s Representative Council of Indonesia (hereafter, DPR RI) a bill related to regional autonomy, relation between national and regional government, formation, expansion, and unification of areas, natural resources management and other economic sources, and in relation to fiscal balance between central and regional governments. Andy Wijaya told this when he spoke in a Public Hearing with Commission III of DPD RI in relation to inventory on initiative bill drafting on amendment of Law No.21 of 2000, on Monday (20/6).

Further, Andy said, unions currently tend to focus on the Employment Creation Law that already amended some of the clauses in the Labor Law. The Constitutional Court found at least three constitutional violation and stated that the Employment Creation Law must be cancelled. In other words, the revision of Law No. 21 of 2000 is not an urgency.

Meanwhile, if the Law No. 21 of 2000 is to be revised, the unions thinks that it must be based on:

First, the number of trade union/workers union membership that tend to stagnate since the Reformation 1998 but on the other hand, the number of union, federation, and confederation increased.

“An information from satudata.kemnaker said that up to 2020 there are 3,256,025 unionized workers in 10,746 unions/16 Federations/6 Confederation. This number is not much different from the Reformation era and relatively very small compared to the number of formal workers in 2021 that is more than 50 million workers as showed by BPS’ data,” said Andy.

“Even in some cases, there are overlapped unions in terms of membership and sectors. Even there are some unions who have similar or exactly same logos and emblems or even same registration number,” he proceeded.

Andy also thought that in order to strengthen the function of unions, there needs to be acknowledgment that unions are legal entitites who can act on the name of the organizations legally as other legal entities.

Second, there are efforts to stop or prevent the formation or establishment of unions in a company. Unions are considered to be obstruction to the harmony between workers and the company.

Third, lack of support from the government to the development of unions function.

Another important point is that the rights to union must be initiated since the very first day of a worker works. Besides, the right to union must be aligned with the permit regime of company establishment. A company permit mus also include informing workers to union and facilitate union formation in addition to BPJS subscription for the workers. A company must also include human rights enforcement, such as freedom of association.

“There also needs to be a regulation on quality and exclusive CBA that will benefit the members of the union,” added Andy Wijaya.

Currently, CBA in a particular company is also applicable to non-union members. This can be seen as one of the reasons why union membership is decreasing as being members of unions are not a “privilege”. We should hold on to a contract principle, i.e. the agreement only applies on the parties who agrees. There have been several regulations on this matter i.e. Law No. 13 of 2003 on Labor and Minister of Labor Regulation No. 28 of 2014. However, the amendment of Law No. 21 of 2000 could assert that a function of union is to form a CBA that is only applicable to its members.

Unions also have interests in supporting company’s productivity and growth to create common welfare.

“Another thing is that we found many employers who refuse to help unions with union dues by using COS mechanism. Therefore, unions must collect dues mannually to each and every member. This should not have happened if companies/employers are obliged to facilitate the collection,” he added.

Meanwhile, in responding the proposal of amendment of some clauses of Law No. 21 of 2000, Andy highlighted article 4 that seems to be using conlict paradigm in the relation between unions and employers. Therefore, there needs to be the employers’ perspective added, not just the legal norms related to the function and objectives of union.

“The existing norms on implementation of union function should also be supported by sanction so that the law is enforced and more meaningful,” Andy asserted.

In relation to regulaiton on federation and confederation, Andy thought that there must be clear sector differentiation between one federation with the other. There are even unions whose membership is multi and cross business sectors.

“Therefore, we think that union federation needs to be returned to the sector where they function and their membership are. This will also impact the representation in the tripartite institution and other similar institutions. In terms of confederation, we think that there should only be a few, maybe 2 or 3. Confederation is the the top of hierarchy of unions,” he added.

We propose for a protection. The chapter is now on protection, development, and monitoring. There should be protection on implementation union function that are not carried out by their partners, i.e. the company.

There should be a regulation on labor offices so that those office would be more competent and capable in taking action needed to protect unions. For example, regulation on how labor office must respond to a complaint on alleged union function violation so that it would not be a conflict. And then labor office would take a decisive action and impose a sanction.

“In short, what we want to say is that the law must also regulate labor office so that they would be more competent and capable,” added Andy.

Another problem to be discussed further is related to intimidation and obstruction to union activities and how they can be measured. For example, the company is not willing to negotiated the CBA, refuse to cut workers’ wage for union dues using Check off system, and not willing to give dispensation for workers to participate in union activities.

According Andy, those real cases should be regulated in the article 28 that is added in the law and that has correlation to article 43 of Law No. 21 of 2000. In addition, the mechanism of implementation of article 43 must be clarified and emphasized. As well as the relation between labor office and the police.

“Even the Law could just order local police offices to create a special for labor issue so that any complaint or reports from workers on any criminal violation can be responded better,” Andy added.

Herewith position paper that presented by bro Andy Wijaya during the workshop, please click here (bahasa Indonesia)