IN Mr. Alfred Pangelinan’s letter dated March 26, it was quite obvious that while attempting to educate the general public, he was directing criticism towards me. I will however respect his views because he’s just as entitled to it as I am of mine.
In this letter, I would like to direct the public’s attention to factual information of what I believe is really wrong within the Division of Employment Services under the directorship of Mr. Pangelinan— and that is the system.
Allow me to begin by quoting a provision in the Nonresident Workers Act as it applies to resident workers. Afterwards, you can evaluate and determine in your own conclusion whether my previous editorial had merits or was, as Mr. Pangelinan states, lop-sided and far from the truth.
3 CMC, Div. 4, Chapter 4, Article-1, 4411, Para (b) states: “It is the intent of the amendments to the Act to provide stricter enforcement, control and regulation of non-resident workers. It is further the intent of this Act to require resident workers to be at least 10% of every employers management, supervisory and non-supervisory workforce. This is to be increased at least 2% annually so that at the end of five years, resident workers comprise at least 20% of every employers management, supervisory and non-supervisory workforce. To prohibit the transfer of non-resident from one employer to another except as provided by law. To control the issuance of temporary work permits, to increase the job referral services provided to resident workers and to establish the four-year maximum time period for non-resident workers to remain in the Commonwealth.”
Now given such provisions, here are the facts that would identify the system’s ineffectiveness as I have stated in my previous editorial dated March 22.
A 2000 statistical report 2000 concluded that 70% of our workforce consist of non-resident workers. There are 28,852 non-resident workers, who for the most part, are employed in the private sector as opposed to only 1,947 residents workers. The unemployment rate for US/resident is 10.5% as opposed to non-residents workers which is 3.5%.
Mr. Pangelinan, is the system within your department really initiating control, emphasizing regulation and providing stricter enforcement? If as you stated in your previous editorial that your system has put our residents to work in the past and will continue to do so as long as provisions of the law are met, Then why, since you became director, is there a great majority of the 28,852 non-residents employed in the private sector as opposed to only 1,947? Are you insinuating that to date, we still don’t have any skilled residents available to reduce our dependence on nonresident workers? We have retired government workers, retired military personnel and veterans, college graduate—and the list goes on—who are highly skilled and currently unemployed and searching for private sector jobs. We all acknowledge that we will always need non-resident workers and God knows we do need and appreciate their contribution to the Commonwealth.
Is the system going to continue using the common excuse that we don’t have enough skilled manpower to replace a great number of these 28,852 non-resident workers? The bottom line is plain and simple: If DES is really accomplishing its mission, then we would’ve seen improvements in the employment of our residents.
The Division of Employment Services under the leadership of Mr. Pangelinan needs to revisit its system as well as mandate requirements where resident referrals are concerned.
Another such provision I would like to reside under the Act is Chapter 4, Article-1, 4413 which states: “Resident workers shall be given preference in employment in the Commonwealth. Nonresident workers shall be employed only as necessary to supplement the available workforce.”
How much clarity Mr. Pangelinan do you need to convince you that your current system is ineffective and desperately needs improvements? Currently, your department has a public notice which asks our US/residents this question: Have you ever experienced applying for a job in the private sector only to be informed that the vacancy was for renewal only or that there were no openings when in fact there were? The notice even advises that the DES should be notified if any US/resident applicants encounter such a dilemma.
What’s important to note about such a public notice is that while DES provides our residents with such notice and claims to want to help, it is in fact acknowledging as well, that such a problem of discrimination does exist against our residents when applying for jobs in the private sector.
Yet nothing is being accomplished to resolve the problem. Instead all we as residents get are words without value. And may we inquire about a recommendation Mr. Pangelinan made in his previous letter regarding job interviews. Given the statistics of our residents’ unemployment rate of 10.5%. Who among our serious resident jobseekers would actually go out and accomplish 20 to 40 job interviews just for practice purposes. Are job interviews just a game to him? Was Mr. Pangelinan on cloud-9 when he made such an impractical and ill-advised phrase? Heck, I accomplished a total of 40 interviews in a span of eight months and I was very serious about obtaining gainful employment. Is this idea or recommendation part of the system which he is responsible for?
It is my sole intent to expose the ineffectiveness of a system within DES and to inform our residents who might otherwise not be aware of such provisions under the law, that DES, with all its self-proclaimed efforts of assisting our residents, needs not only to talk the walk, but walk the talk as well. In plain language, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.
Mr. Pangelinan, next time please add a TABLESPOON of TRUTH rather than a CUP-FULL of LIES about my credentials, because I have nothing to hide. Otherwise the results of your criticism would TASTE quite SALTY, so let’s just set the record straight. I’ve worked very hard to acquire my credentials and is quite proud of my accomplishments. Mr. Pangelinan, I’ve never based my career on attractive salary alone. But as the saying goes, GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE. Every position I’ve ever held I’ve had to compete for and prove my worth with outstanding performance ratings.
You on the other hand, have been afforded the opportunity of a good career as a peace-officer initially, but instead you chose to abuse the very oath you swore to uphold including the public’s trust. And as for the job which you currently have. Heck, you didn’t even have to compete with other candidates or go through 40 job interviews as I did. You merely used the concept of WHO YOU KNOW rather than WHAT YOU KNOW to obtain such a prestigious position including as you stated, an attractive salary. Therefore, don’t attempt to criticize or discredit somebody else’s qualifications.
The big difference between you and I, is I care for our residents and not just for myself. You on the other hand are blinded by your stable job and attractive salary so much that you forget about our residents who are in need of your services. It’s very sad because all those past commitments to help our residents in employment were nothing more than air.
JACK TERLAJE QUITUGUA
Garapan, Saipan
