Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i don't agree. things that cause demotivation are different from the ones that motivate people to perform. this is based on extensive research on industrial psychology...low pay is certainly demotivating...but u can't be certain that u can cure incompetency and eliminate bad habits liek graft and corruption simply by rasing pays...

 

the only true way is to make their jobs MEANINGFUL...EMPOWER those underneath, the career men and women who truly run the gov't...stop the cult of personality that plague the gov't...a department's state of affairs shouldn't rely on the one heading it...this problem arises precisely bec. the career people do not have the ability to project their collective personality...root causes: lack of skills, one-dimensional jobs w/o decision-making aspect...solve these motivational problems and u'll see difference in performance, more accountabilty, heightened responsiveness and dedication all even without pay hikes...

 

and only after u've seen positive results should u then implement a reward mechanism...pay hikes tied to performance...remember, u should reward GOOD performance...not "bribe" people to stop them from performing badly.

 

okay... but shouldn't they be given at least decent pay to start with? many gov't employees receive pay lower than the minimum wage, either that or they receive their salary one or two pay periods late.

setting their salary right would have a positive effect on the performance of these people, generally speaking.

 

about what you've said in making the jobs more meaningful, I agree with that. but I think the 'heads' wouldn't welcome this very well (anyway, I don't think they'd approve of the salary hike either. anyway...) since many of these officials prefer having complete control over decisions made in their offices.

 

in addition to what you've said, the recruitment of gov't employees should be closely monitored to avoid employments of kamag-anaks and kaibigans who are not even qualified for the posts.

 

I wonder where all of these changes would start from. I'm thinking... the president. She needs to work out her political will to be able to decide and act on her decisions more effectively.

Link to comment
okay... but shouldn't they be given at least decent pay to start with? many gov't employees receive pay lower than the minimum wage, either that or they receive their salary one or two pay periods late.

setting their salary right would have a positive effect on the performance of these people, generally speaking.

 

Yes, mary_antoinette, that goes without saying. Jourdan said that while incentives to raise morale are always a good idea, rewards should be after the fact. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Can't dangle a carrot from the stick that way.

Link to comment
Yes, mary_antoinette, that goes without saying. Jourdan said that while incentives to raise morale are always a good idea, rewards should be after the fact. Let's not put the cart before the horse. Can't dangle a carrot from the stick that way.

 

I get Jourdan's point.

What I am saying is to make the pay system of the government more efficient so that the people working there get what they work for. I ain't aiming for an extra pay for these people, just the right amount that they should get as stated in the law. Too bad, many government offices do not follow the law in terms of personnel compensation. How would you expect a horse to work when it eats too less? I'm not saying (anymore to) give it more food to eat. Just give it what it needs and what it deserves in exchange of its labors.

 

Case in point, in a province in Region II, those clerks working in the the kapitolyo receive a measly pay of gross P3,000 a month, often delayed for not just one or two payroll periods. Isn't the minimum pay supposed to be P7,000+ a month?

Link to comment

Jourdan,

 

I believe that "environment protection" is profitable.... maybe not in the short run, but surely in the long haul.

 

Ang hirap kasi, kung mahirap ka, you are always tempted to take shortcuts... parang dynamite fishing, mas efficient sa una, but in the end, wala ng isdang mahuli.

 

Siguro case to case basis pag-aralan. To follow the Jollibee/McDo argument, bakit ang Tropical Hut, "real" plates, spoons, and forks pa rin ang gamit? Which only means, pwede pa ring maging profitable kahit hindi ka gumagamit ng disposables.

 

Parang "sin tax" siguro ang dapat i-levy, because in reality, mas delikado pa nga ang disposables na yan kaysa sa sigarilyo...

Link to comment
A way to repeal the "Lina Law" is by merely amending the voter registration laws... di dapat pwede mag-register ang hindi legal resident... hirap kasi, mayors often tolerate squatters kasi ang dami ng boto ng squatters.

 

You cannot deprive people, rich or poor, land-owning or not, of a basic right just to correct the deficiencies of a very bad law. Remove the "Stupid Lina Law" from the books altogether.

Link to comment
You cannot deprive people, rich or poor, land-owning or not, of a basic right just to correct the deficiencies of a very bad law. Remove the "Stupid Lina Law" from the books altogether.

 

That is exactly what the Supreme Court decided when someone proposed the amendment I cited. I don't agree with it... but I guess, I am in the minority here...

 

Kaninong constituent ang mga street dwellers? mmda?

Link to comment
I get Jourdan's point.

 

What I am saying is to make the pay system of the government more efficient so that the people working there get what they work for. I ain't aiming for an extra pay for these people, just the right amount that they should get as stated in the law. Too bad, many government offices do not follow the law in terms of personnel compensation. How would you expect a horse to work when it eats too less? I'm not saying (anymore to) give it more food to eat. Just give it what it needs and what it deserves in exchange of its labors.

 

Case in point, in a province in Region II, those clerks working in the the kapitolyo receive a measly pay of gross P3,000 a month, often delayed for not just one or two payroll periods. Isn't the minimum pay supposed to be P7,000+ a month?

 

Alright, mary_antoinette.

 

I can't speak for the paymasters of Region II or any other region where that's surely a sad reality as well.

Link to comment
Then what about public land taken over by informal settlers?

 

I think, the government is duty bound to provide housing for the poor. The purpose of the law was meant to apply to squatters in lands belonging to the public domain. I can only remember some of the law's salient points. One of which is to provide for a relocation area for the slum dwellers, when subject real properties are "reclaimed." In a way, the government is therefore obliged to provide low cost housing for the homeless.

Link to comment
I think, the government is duty bound to provide housing for the poor.  The purpose of the law was meant to apply to squatters in lands belonging to the public domain.   I can only remember some of the law's salient points.  One of which is to provide for a relocation area for the slum dwellers, when subject real properties are "reclaimed."  In a way, the government is therefore obliged to provide low cost housing for the homeless.

 

But that does not fully address the headache that squatting has now become. Presently, squatters put up shanties without making distinctions between public and private land.

 

Granting that private properties are now excluded, how then will government explain to the hundreds of thousands of would-be displaced people, who, facing immediate eviction by private land owners, are sure to descend on government land, that it will also be removing them sooner or later? That will just put the government in a deeper bind.

 

Despite the obligation, which I agree with somewhat, government must not be blackmailed into putting up low-cost housing just to satisfy law-breakers who employ a bad law as their shield. Their getting away with it is not right at all.

Edited by Podweed
Link to comment
A way to repeal the "Lina Law" is by merely amending the voter registration laws... di dapat pwede mag-register ang hindi legal resident... hirap kasi, mayors often tolerate squatters kasi ang dami ng boto ng squatters.

the policy behind the law is to protect the homeless, to make the government provide housing for them. amending the voter registration laws is non sequitur, I'm afraid.

Link to comment

but the provision of housing for the displaced squatters gave birth to another problem. these people has turned it into a 'business'. many of those who were given units sold the ones they got and returned to squatting. (one of the reasons is that their new location isn't practical - malayo daw sa trabaho - and the utilities are well set-up)

when the gov't announced compensating for those families who will be displaced because of the rehabilitation of the PNR, more squatters started to sprout along the riles. i wonder how this problem could be addressed effectively.

the option that I see to this is to strengthen business and education in the countryside so people wouldn't have to move and squeeze into urban areas. that would definitely take a lot of effort.

Link to comment
But that does not fully address the headache that squatting has now become. Presently, squatters put up shanties without making distinctions between public and private land.

 

Granting that private properties are now excluded, how then will government explain to the hundreds of thousands of would-be displaced people, who, facing sure eviction by private land owners, are sure to descend on government land, that it will also be removing them sooner or later? That will just put the government in a deeper bind.

 

Despite the obligation, which I agree with somewhat, government must not be blackmailed into putting up low-cost housing just to satisfy law-breakers who employ a bad law as their shield. Their getting away with it is not right at all.

 

Yes, hence, no distinction was made in the law. However, the capacity of a private individual whose property was taken over by the homeless may not equal that of the government to provide for an alternative/relocation site. Furthermore, he is not obliged to provide for their housing.

 

See, the law compels the land owner to provide such a relocation site before he can effect an eviction. What should have simply been an unlawful detainer case becomes totally convoluted, and not completely without reason, after all the issue involved is a basic need (as to the homeless), shelter.

 

Well, in a way, by providing for relocation sites, the government is able to deal with the congestion in the city by transferring them. I know that it seems impossible, but I think there are public lands of which the government can make use, for this purpose. It may appear to be a form of blackmail, but at present, I see no other compulsion that would move the government to proactively deal with this great problem, the absence of decent housing for the poor.

Link to comment
but the provision of housing for the displaced squatters gave birth to another problem. these people has turned it into a 'business'. many of those who were given units sold the ones they got and returned to squatting. (one of the reasons is that their new location isn't practical - malayo daw sa trabaho - and the utilities are well set-up)

when the gov't announced compensating for those families who will be displaced because of the rehabilitation of the PNR, more squatters started to sprout along the riles. i wonder how this problem could be  addressed effectively.

the option that I see to this is to strengthen business and education in the countryside so people wouldn't have to move and squeeze into urban areas. that would definitely take a lot of effort.

 

You're right. The long term goal should be to provide them with a decent livelihood and uplift their standard of living. However, what should be done in the mean time? The fact remains, the government is duty-bound to provide shelter for the homeless.

Link to comment
Yes, hence, no distinction was made in the law.  However, the capacity of a private individual whose property was taken over by the homeless may not equal that of the government to provide for an alternative/relocation site. Furthermore, he is not obliged to provide for their housing. 

 

See, the law compels the land owner to provide such a relocation site before he can effect an eviction.  What should have simply been an unlawful detainer case becomes totally convoluted, and not completely without reason, after all the issue involved is a basic need (as to the homeless), shelter.

 

Well, in a way, by providing for relocation sites, the government is able to deal with the congestion in the city by transferring them.  I know that it seems impossible, but I think there are public lands of which the government can make use, for this purpose.  It may appear to be a form of blackmail, but at present, I see no other compulsion that would move the government to proactively deal with this great problem, the absence of decent housing for the poor.

 

Is it a blessing in disguise then, however which way? Finally, here is the problem to move government to solve it?

 

Where is the logic in a law saying a land owner, whose hard work enabled the acquisition of such property, prioritize the welfare of the squatters by arming them with the final say regarding relocation? There is none, and by the same token, government's hands must not be tied by that provision as well.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...