Last Updated: 3 months ago
By: Agustini, Dra., M.Si
(Lecturer, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences)
February once again becomes a month of reflection for the world of work through the commemoration of National Workers’ Day. This momentum emerges amid labor conditions that have yet to fully stabilize. Layoffs continue to occur across various sectors, the number of informal workers keeps increasing, and the digital economy has given rise to new forms of work that are not yet fully protected. Behind these issues, one fundamental problem is often overlooked: the weakness of communication in labor relations.
Many labor disputes are not merely triggered by regulatory gaps, but by failures in communication among workers, employers, and the state. Rights and obligations are not conveyed comprehensively, policies are not well understood by workers, and important decisions are frequently made without dialogue. Under such conditions, labor justice is difficult to achieve, even when legal regulations are already in place.
Law Number 13 of 2003 on Manpower, from the outset, places the principle of justice as its foundation. Article 6 affirms that every worker has the right to equal treatment without discrimination. This principle demands transparency of information and equal communication. Without clear communication, fair treatment remains an administrative norm devoid of substantive meaning.
Regulatory changes through the Job Creation Law, now enacted as Law Number 6 of 2023, bring significant adjustments to the labor system. The government, through the Ministry of Manpower, emphasizes the importance of flexibility in employment relations to maintain a conducive business climate and promote job creation. However, such flexibility requires stronger communication so that it does not turn into uncertainty for workers. One important change concerns fixed-term employment agreements. The contract system has become more flexible, but this is often not accompanied by workers’ understanding of their status and rights. In fact, Article 54 of Law Number 13 of 2003 requires employment agreements to clearly state rights and obligations. When the contents of a contract are not understood, employment relations become imbalanced and prone to conflict.
Labor law academic Yassierli argues that justice in employment relations cannot be sufficiently guaranteed by written rules alone, but is largely determined by how those rules are communicated. Without clear information, workers are placed in a weak position because they lack an adequate basis to make decisions or to defend their rights. Communication issues are also clearly evident in the practice of layoffs.
Article 151 of Law Number 13 of 2003 emphasizes that layoffs must be avoided as much as possible and carried out through negotiations. This principle of dialogue is maintained within the framework of the Job Creation Law. This means that communication is not merely an ethical consideration, but a legal obligation. However, practices in the field often run counter to this principle. Layoffs are frequently carried out unilaterally, abruptly, and with minimal explanation.
The President of the Indonesian Trade Union Confederation (KSPI), Said Iqbal, has long observed that many labor conflicts stem from the absence of equal dialogue. Workers are often not involved from the outset and only receive final decisions without any room for negotiation. Changes to the severance pay system and the introduction of the Job Loss Insurance (JKP) program under the Job Creation Law are essentially intended to strengthen social protection. The government positions JKP as a safety net for workers affected by layoffs. However, the effectiveness of this policy is highly dependent on communication. Many workers are unaware of their entitlement to JKP or the procedures required to access it.
Communication challenges are even more pronounced in the informal sector and the digital economy. Digital platform workers occupy an ambiguous position between employees and partners. Employment relations are mediated by applications, while spaces for dialogue are virtually nonexistent. In this context, labor justice faces new challenges that have not yet been fully addressed by regulation.
Yassierli emphasizes the importance of social dialogue as the foundation of modern industrial relations. Without equal two-way communication, labor law risks losing its legitimacy in the eyes of workers. Regulations that are not understood are effectively absent.
National Workers’ Day should serve as a momentum to reaffirm that labor justice does not stop at legislative changes. It must be present in everyday communication practices—transparent employment contracts, humane layoff processes, and public policies conveyed honestly and inclusively.
Ultimately, labor justice is not merely a matter of articles and clauses. It is determined by how the state, employers, and workers communicate with one another. Without fair communication, the law loses its meaning. With equal communication, justice finds its way.