Need for new anti-trust law to protect Filipino SMEs from predatory pricing!!!

Predatory pricing seeks to eliminate competition. It is unfair and illegal. It hampers free and fair competition because sale of products at low prices causes a loss, with the only possible rational for such low prices is the elimination of the company’s competitor in the long run and the capture of market share.

One wonders why this should matter when the loss is perceived to be borne by the company which set the low price rates to begin with. In actual practice here in the Philippines, this loss is never borne by the company (i.e. the multinational) but by its distributors and retailers (i.e. the Filipino SMEs). Multinationals such as Nestle Philippines sets a low price without considering previous price bulletins it has imposed on the Filipino SMEs (supposedly their “partners” in “growth” and “profit”), and, more importantly, without considering average total costs of distribution. These distributors/retailers have to eke out whatever minimal profit they can get from these arrangements, and it is not uncommon for these Filipino SMEs to operate at a loss.

Really, the most alarming aspect in the spread of vertical price fixing agreements in the Philippines is its impact on local SMEs. The common scenario is that you have a large multinational such as Nestle Philippines who has a distributorship or retail agreement with a Filipino SME. When this kind of company makes use of vertical price fixing agreements, the Filipino SME has no choice but to sell the Nestle products, for instance, to consumers at low prices – with complete disregard as to the actual costs borne by the SME to actually get or distribute these products to the market.

This is out and out bullying. As a country, we will never be able to move beyond providing distributorship and BPO support to these multinationals unless there is greater protection for the Filipino SMEs!!!

John Miller: WTF?! Why did you say you're not leaving?!!!

Amidst various reports of sex scandals, bullying, bankruptcies of small Pinoy entrepreneurs, beleaguered banks (from the bankruptcies), predatory pricing and anti-trust practices from different sectors regarding our favorite imperialistic trans-national corporation (TNC), Nestle, the top broadsheets have reported that according to Nestle Philippines chairman and CEO, John Miller, Nestle is here to stay.

*Insert favorite expletive here*!!!! Damn! Double Damn!!

A common defense of used by TNCs such as Nestle in spite of their highly imperialistic practices is to try to hold a developing country's balls by threatening, subtly or otherwise, that they will be stopping or withdrawing their purported investments in that particular country. Sometimes, it works; most of the time, though, it does not, most especially for our favorite TNC. In fact, these TNCs should be encouraged to leave! Here's why:

1. Nestle is one of the primary causes of inflation. Insiders in their marketing department have said that they have been encouraged by their mother company to incorporate as many price increases in their brands as possible. Look at Nescafe, a rough computation of the price index in 2001 versus 2010 reveals that the prices have grown to as much as 70% depending on the variant! Compare this to a developed country where the price increase is as low as 4% to a high 14% in the same period. Consider also the supply side of coffee. It is widely documented that in Vietnam, one of the world's largest producers (if not the largest already), farmers have even resulted to destroying some of their produce as their over supply has caused prices to drop! Supply cost has been low at most times yet price increases continue to hound our poor country. All of this, of course, is at the name of profit! Geesh! Talk about squeezing blood from a stone!!! Our poor country is a victim of this TNC's greed. Damn! Double damn!

2. Nestle's products are commodities. Coffee, milk, non-dairy creamer, chocolate are products that are easily replaceable by a competent manufacturer and there is no glut of these! San Miguel, URC, Alaska, Kopiko, Columbia, etc. can easily fill up a purported vacuum that Nestle insiders claim they will leave. The other manufacturers, I bet, were so unhappy about John Miller's announcement today.

3. The economic impact of the loss of exports are mitigated. A third of Nestle Philippines sales (est. PhP30 Billion) are exports to other countries and they are saying that leaving will have a tremendous negative impact in our economy. Hogwash! I say this for several reasons: a. They export their products ONLY to fellow subsidiaries and revenues are posted as merely accounting entries and not actual cash to the country. b. If indeed there was cash remitted to the country, it stays here for just a short while and is then traded in other markets or remitted to the mother company. The company maintains just enough working capital that it needs and places the excess cash to instruments that make more in its idle state! Guess what? The Philippines does not have high paying instruments compared to the rest of the world. So, no the loss of exports are mitigated because they were NEVER HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It should now be clear why Nestle should leave. Our country will not be beholden to arrogant ASSHOLES like you, John Miller. You can fool some people all the time. You can fool all people some of the time. But you can never fool all people all the time.

Repost from Domini Torrevillas, Philippine Star 3/13/10

A lesson plan for DTI

As of the latest, and most likely last, Cabinet reshuffle, Secretary of Education Jesli Lapus will be moving to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) by the end of the month. I’d like to express my congratulations to Lapus for accepting the position. A three-term congressman before being named secretary of education, he previously earned his stripes as the chief executive officer of the Landbank of the Philippines, transforming it from a medium-sized development bank to the premiere state bank of its time.

Holding a doctorate in public administration, a master of business administration (MBA) from the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), and a post-graduate of Harvard University, Lapus first joined the government service in 1987 as undersecretary of the Department of the Agrarian Reform.  

Having held top executive positions in some of the largest manufacturing companies in the country, Lapus presents the most credible and capable choice for DTI head, aside from incumbent Trade Secretary Peter Favila.

Since the announcement, Lapus has been lauded by the business community, with highly-respected Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry Chairman Donald Dee welcoming him to the position; Executive Director Rob Sears of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines (AmCham) has also given Lapus high marks for his unblemished reputation and intimate understanding of business. Hailed by Sears as being “pro-business,” the onus now lies on Lapus to inspire investors and businessmen alike to achieve greater things with our economy.

From the stands, it seems that the route of localization is the best trail if Lapus wants to make an immediate impact at the helm of DTI. Instead of following the worldwide trend of overextended economies, a logical course of action would be to turn inwards to another economic and cultural exchange, hinged on Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs). These localization efforts entail increased attention to the tangible, the interpersonal, and the community; direct connections with SMEs and ties with businesses will surely prove useful for Lapus in the following months.

A turn to local business would necessarily move Lapus to ensure the protection of SMEs from unfair trade practices perpetuated by multinational companies that enjoy monopolies, which is a goal perfectly in line with Senate Bill No. 3099, or the Anti-Trust Act of the Philippines. As penned by Sen. Miriam Santiago-Defensor, the Act prohibits monopolies when public interest so requires it.

Presently, developed countries use anti-trust regulation to maintain healthy competition and promote an efficient working market economy; the circular flow of income between producers and consumers in these countries is, for the most part, uninterrupted by unscrupulous practices such as pressuring distributors and other SMEs to continually meet and exceed aggressive sales targets while simultaneously downsizing marketing and promotional support. In the Philippines however, there have been numerous instances of this exact behavior by multinationals forcing their distributors to close up shop, using bullying tactics and pointless mediation.

A well known multinational, for instance, makes it a habit to pass on non-performing accounts onto their distributors and insist that they deal with the problem instead. The same company has been known to cut off their in-house financing for distributors, leaving them to suddenly deal with the higher rates of a third-party bank. Combined with unreasonable quotas and the constant threat of termination, these distributors have no other recourse but to bite the bullet.

While SB 3099 and a slew of other bills on competition law are in enforcement limbo, the often-overlooked yet fully-empowered Ministry Order (MO) No. 69, Series of 1983, puts Lapus at the head of the crusade against unfair practices such as the ones described above.

MO 69 covers everything from price tags to monopolies and unfair competition. As a consumer — but a Filipino foremost — I urge Lapus to see the good he can do in his new position. He can put a stop to our SMEs being trampled under the feet of multinational giants, and maybe even spur our ailing economy to pull itself up by the bootstraps.

I for one am quite excited to see what Lapus has in store for us. If his record at the Department of Education is any indication, the DTI will become yet another feather in his very capable cap.

Nestle, The World is taking Notice! - Repost from Communique de Presse Gratuit, February 15, 2010

A popular French News Site has gotten hold of the Nestle's abusive practices. While the article is in French, it does not take a genius to gather from the article that Nestle is using its resources to bully and overpower small enterprises in developing countries. Where is Honesty, Integrity and Fairness? What happens to the higher standards of guidance when legalese is not enough? This is corporate hypocrisy at its best.

Click HERE for the link to the website.

***

Société et entreprises : une dénonciation de la politique abusive des firmes multinationales

Moyens mis en œuvre pour régler parfaitement et confortablement une situation X(façon NESTLE). Les pratiques sans scrupule, trompeuses de ce monde géant et célèbre qu’est l’agro-alimentaire, font que ce mot Nestlé ( Niche ) a été abâtardi dans l’infamie.

John Richardson, de “Opines Global Watch Investissement”, fait remarquer que Nestlé a un côté sombre dans son comportement de citoyen corporatif. D’ un point de vue humain, nous considérons que la compagnie est un investissement à haut risque. “L’image respectueuse de la société Vevey, productrice de produits laitiers et alimentaires, basée en Suisse, est éclipsée par les nombreuses critiques, controverses, ainsi que par des informations non fondées qu’elle a obtenues au fil des années. Aux Philippines, cette société a ouvertement défiée la décision de la Cour suprême, datée d’août 2006, lui demandant de retourner à la table des négociations, concernant le Régime des retraites de ses 600 travailleurs géré par une ACB. Mais ce n’est pas son pire crime pour le moment.

La politique commerciale de Nestlé Philippines est synonyme de pratiques prédatrices. Nestlé a réussi à attiré des distributeurs de petite et moyenne taille, par le biais de mesures incitatives, comme des aides initialement financières, en équipement, en services, leur procurant ainsi un bon bénéfice net au départ.. Par la suite, Nestlé a imposé a l’ensemble de ces distributeurs de leur verser à l’avance les bénéfices à collecter, grâce à un système tripartite( Nestlé => Bank => Distributeur) auxquels ils donnèrent le non de “billets tournants en ligne”(R.P.N.L). Une telle mesure a laissé le soin aux distributeurs de Nestlé, de collecter auprès de leur clients ces bénéfices. Clients historiques de Nestlé dont certains non jamais acquittés toutes leurs factures.

En transférant ainsi ses stocks financiers, et si l’on applique le taux de change moyen annuel de la Banque Centrale des Philippines) en 2006, à 3.7 milliards de pesos (soit 80,2 millions de dollars) en 2007. Ses coûts de financement ont également diminué de 60,8 % passant de 734 millions de pesos(soit 14,3 millions de dollars) à 288 millions de pesos (soit 6,2 millions de dollars) pour la même période, explique Atty. Lorna Kapunan, le conseiller juridique de l’un de ses distributeurs philippins. Nestlé a mis en place ces mesures sans même concerter ses distributeurs. Faute de pouvoir se plaindre, Nestlé leur a «caché le miel», et a laissé ses partenaires dans le froid. L’ensemble des distributeurs de Nestlé ont donc été “nichés”(autrement dit floués)!

En avril 2009, Nestlé a ordonné le retrait des produits laitiers de la marque Bear de l’ensemble des rayons de ses distributeurs, et cela sans même justifier publiquement cette décision. Nestlé a délibérément caché de façon cynique le retrait de ces produits en prétextant que c’éait un exercice de simulation pour observer le temps de réponse nécessaire aux distributeurs pour mettre en place la mesure. Aucune somme d’argent qui sera attribuée dans une campagne de relation publique permettra de cacher l’indifférence de Nestlé sur le bien- être et la santé des consommateurs philippins. En somme, vous avez été “niches” Aucun montant de la campagne de relations publiques ne peut cacher son indifférence à la santé et le bien-être des consommateurs Filipino. Vous avez été nichés (autrement dit floués)!

Lorsque l’un de ses distributeurs, les IDE Forefront II Trading Corporation(IDE2),une philippine faisant partie de la petite entreprise, engagée comme distributrice de ses produits, a découvert que le Nestlé Area Sales Manager avait une liaison illicite avec son Président, celui-ci étant un homme marié. IDE Forefront II Trading Corporation(IDE2) a immédiatement attiré l’attention de Nestlé par rapport à ce conflit d’intérêt. Le fait que son directeur commercial de zone exerçait idéalement un pouvoir d’accroissement sur la demande du président, des objectifs de vente du distributeur, étant aussi son amant. Cette situation amoureuse a obtenu pour Nestlé, plusieurs «contrats de complaisance» sans oublier les commissions exponentielles de l’IED 2 sur les objectifs des ventes. Les propriétaires portèrent la question à la direction de Nestlé, qui n’a accordé aucune attention à ce sujet. Dans cette affaire Nestlé n’a pas eu le comportement attendu par la société plaignante. Apres une enquête menée discrètement par Nestlé, il s’est avéré que l’affaire fut jugée strictement personnelle puisqu’elle démontrait une relation amoureuse entre deux adultes n’ayant aucune conséquence sur le bon fonctionnement du distributeur. IDE 2 ne pouvait que constater, hélas, qu’il s’était fait “nicher” par Nestlé(autrement dit floué)!

Par la suite, Nestlé a résilié son contrat de distribution avec l’IDE 2, en prenant le risque aussi de perdre le contrat de distribution la société soeur d’IDE 2 : Service Distributors Inc Edge (SEDI). Comme si cella ne suffisait pas, Nestlé a contraint les propriétaires de l’IDE 2, à signer un accord de remboursement des sommes avancées pour le matériel promotionnel ainsi que le Quitclaim . Ce que Nestlé aurait du faire, c’était d’évaluer la véracité des propos, ainsi que la solidité des bases financières présentées par l’IDE 2 ainsi que sa demande de remboursement. Nestlé a délibérement choisi de s’en prendre à cette situation déplorable et de s’éloigner de toutes responsabilités supplémentaires.

Le Notaire et Conseiller juridique philippin de Nestlé en dépit de toute pièce contradictoire apportée au dossier a ainsi préparé le document qui, de toute évidence, est un acte manifestement illégal et une grave erreur de la marque Nestlé.

Faisant suite à ce document, IDE 2 a déposé une plainte devant la Cour suprême, cherchant à faire radier le conseil juridique de Nestlé pour faute grave et pour violation du serment de d’Hippocrate ainsi que la violation au code de la responsabilité professionnelle.

Deux ans à peine après avoir été présenté par Nestlé comme son “Distributeur de l’année,« l’IDE 2 se trouvé le dos au mur, sans un pouce de répit ou de remise de son «partenaire», et d’ y être poussé par la même main qui l’a attirée dans cette impasse - une impasse Nestlé.

Après la réalisation de l’audit judiciaire, l’IDE 2 a demandé un dédommagement supplémentaire pour perte de 235 millions supplémentaires de pesos (4,9 millions de dollars), plus 252.6 millions de pesos(5,3 millions de dollars) basé sur le coût de l’argent en remboursement des frais juridiques et professionnels engagés pour la période allant de Septembre 2008 au 31 Mars, 2009 ainsi que le reniement de son engagement précédent. Nestlé refuse désormais de reconnaître ces affirmations en disant que le compte de IDE 2 est une affaire close. Nestlé cherche maintenant à élucider sa responsabilité en utilisant le document Quitclaim qu’il avait obtenu en utilisant de fausses promesses, des pratiques contraires à l’éthique du droit, et des manœuvres sournoises.

Après avoir été acclamé comme Nestlé “Distributeur de l’année”, pendant deux années consécutives, l’IDE 2 a maintenant elle-même sa niche(elle s’est fait flouer par Nestlé)!

Bagong Hari, Dating Ugali - Repost from Horacio Paredes, Abante: Attention: Mr. John Miller

Sabi nila, kapag bago ang pinuno ng isang organisasyon, kadalasan nagbabago rin ang sistema ng pagpapatakbo. Natural lang daw ito dahil lahat ng namumuno ay may kani-kanyang personalidad na lumalabas sa estilo ng pamamalakad. Kaya ‘pag bago ang hepe, kabado ang mga empleyado.

Subalit para sa mga distributor sa Metro Manila at Central Luzon ng isang kilalang banyagang kumpanya na gumagawa ng mga produktong pagkain tulad ng kape, tsokolate, gatas at iba pa, ang pagpasok ng bago nilang hepe ay tila magandang balita. Inaasahan kasi nila na ang bagong dating na presidente ng kumpanya ay hindi magiging tulad ng pinalitan nito. Pinalagay nila na matapos ang mahabang panahon, mabibigyan na ng multinational company ng kaukulang pansin at pagkilos ang kanilang mga lehitimong reklamo.

Kasi naman, milyun-milyong piso bawat distributor ang nawala sa kanila dahil sa pagmando ng Regional Sales Manager (RSM) ng kumpanya na sila’y magbigay ng sampu hanggang dose porsyentong diskwento sa isang wholesaler o tagabenta ng mga produkto sa mga supermarket at mga grocery.

Ang karaniwang patakaran sa mga diskwento ay apat na por syento lamang para may kikitain din ang mga distributor. Pumayag silang magbigay ng diskwentong sobra rito dahil sila’y pinangakuan ng RSM, sa pamamagitan na liham sa letterhead ng kumpanya, na ang multinational ang sasagot sa anim hanggang walong porsyentong pagkalugi nila.

Sa dagdag na diskwentong kanyang natanggap, malaki ang kinita ng pinaborang wholesaler dahil ang mga produktong nakuha niya ay kanyang ibinenta sa napakababang presyo sa Metro Manila. Sa ginawa niyang ito, umangal ang mga Metro Manila distributor dahil hindi nila kayang pantayan ang mababang presyong binigay ng pinaborang wholesaler sa mga supermarket at grocery. Nang sila’y umangal, sagot ng opisyal ng multinational, “Problema niyo na ‘yan.” Tikom-bibig na pilit lumaban sa pagbenta ang mga napagsabihang distributor pero talagang lugi sila.

At habang nagulumihanan ang mga Metro Manila distributor, nag-alboroto naman ang mga taga-Central Luzon. Dahil ni anino ng pangakong ibabalik na diskwento ay ‘di nila naaninag! At lalong sumabog ang kanilang butse nang ang mga tsekeng pinambayad sa kanila ng pinaborang wholesaler ay nagsitalbugan! Eto pa ... ang mga tseke ay nasa pangalan ng RSM! At nadiskubre nila na ang lalaking may-ari ng pinaborang wholesaler ay asawa pala ng RSM!

Habang nagtatago ngayon ang RSM, tinatantiyang ang pagkalugi ng mga distributor sa Metro Manila at Central Luzon (dahil sa kanyang ginawang panloloko) ay umaabot sa isang bilyong piso. Nawalan din ng trabaho ang daan-daang kawani ng mga distributor dahil sa kanilang pagkalugi.

Parang mga Poncio Pilato, todo hugas-kamay naman ang mga opisyal ng multinational company dahil wala raw silang kinalaman sa mga kagagawan ng kanilang RSM. Idemanda na lang daw nila ang ngayo’y ‘di na matagpuang babaeng executive. Kaya lahat ng mga naganap na usapan ng mga distributor sa noo’y presidente ng multinational ay walang pinatunguhan.

Pasok ngayon sa eksena ang bagong hepe na pumalit sa dating presidente na nabigyan ng assignment sa ibang bansa. Laking asa ng mga distributor na mas magiging maunawain ang bago nilang kausap. Maling-mali pala sila, dahil sa halip na umusad ang kaso patungo sa pagkakasundo, ang gusto ng bagong presidente ay bumalik sa simula, o back to zero ang mga usapan!

Hindi pala laging totoo na ‘pag may bagong hari, bagong ugali. Sa panig ng mga distributor, may bago silang katunggali. Para sa akin, dapat na nilang isumbong ang mutinational sa korte, baka sakali doon sa sala ng hukom ng kapwa-Pinoy ay mayroon silang makikitang katarungan na hindi nila makakamit sa kamay ng mga dayuhan.

***

It is expected that when a regime change happens, it is always for the better for all stakeholders, large or small. Apparently, in this case, the new guy is bringing in progress - for them only. WTF?!

Mr. New Leader, you have the golden opportunity to bring in the necessary positive changes, why haven't you done that? Your company is still denying accountability and responsibility in the happenings among your third party partners and your former workers. It may cost you but there is always a price for doing the right thing. It takes a REAL leader to make the tough call and correct all the wrongs in spite of its cost. Do not sweep all these things under the legal rug. Your lawyers are advising you the wrong things just to cover their miserable asses. It is just one bad advise to a bigger bad advise. Before you know it, the mistakes of your advisers will snowball into something bigger and something uncontrollable. By then, you would just wish that you fixed it now.

There is still time. Use it.

Happy New Year, Nestle! Remember your Cabuyao Workers?

Kung Hei Fat Choi to Everyone! As the new lunar year starts, let's remind our dear Nestle friends that they CONTINUOUSLY AND BLATANTLY deny the striking workers what is due them. Supposedly, while the Supreme Court says that the retirement benefits the strikers are asking for are legit, the SC also said that Nestle Philippines did not violate any laws! Talk about paradoxical decisions. While the Supreme Court is the final decision maker in the land, I do believe that there is nothing final so long as there is wrong done to anyone. In this case, that wrong has not been corrected, injustice still reigns and therefore this will never be final.

To the workers, ITULOY ANG LABAN!

To refresh you of the issues, here are a couple of articles:

KMU on CA decision: Where’s national interest in protecting Swiss firm Nestle?

Date:

31 August 2009

Reference Person:

Elmer "Bong" Labog, KMU Chairperson

Contact information:

0929-629-3234

Labor center slams unjust decision upholding firing of Nestle workers

Labor center Kilusang Mayo Uno slammed the Court of Appeals decision which essentially upheld the corporate interests of Nestle and justified the illegal dismissal of more than 500 Nestle workers, saying invoking “national interest” as primary ground only grants big foreign corporations more power to abuse Filipino workers.

KMU said the CA decision, which upheld the firing of Nestle workers who went on strike over Nestle’s refusal to grant retirement benefits in the collective bargaining agreement negotiations, is “simply unjust and unreasonable.”

“Where’s national interest in protecting the operations of Swiss company Nestle when the rights of Filipino workers are heavily under attack? Would there be a national emergency if workers, who are simply fighting for their just demands, refuse to abide by the DOLE order? KMU Chairperson Elmer “Bong” Labog asked angrily.

“How could workers return to their work if truckloads of heavily-armed AFP and PNP units are the ones implementing DOLE’s Assumption of Jurisdication and return-to-work orders?” he added.

Prior to the return-to-work order, an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was issued by DOLE in Nov. 28, 2001 over the union’s notice of strike, enabling police and military forces to swoop down on the Cabuyao factory to preempt the strike.

The Supreme Court already ruled in favor of Nestle workers in 1991, saying that retirement benefits is a mandatory collective bargaining issue. In March 2008, it reaffirmed its decision as final and executory. The labor department, however, has not lifted a finger to implement the decision and has even denied the writ of execution filed by the workers last March 5.

“Nestle has continously ignored the two decisions of the highest court for several years. I ask the Court of Appeals, who’s the one breaking the law?” said Labog.

Sheer violence against workers

In their seven-year strike, Nestle workers have suffered violent dispersals by police and military forces who have an encampment inside the Cabuyao plant up to now.

On Sept. 22, 2005, Nestle Cabuyao union president Diosdado “Ka Fort” Fortuna was gunned down by suspected hired armed agents of Nestle on his way home.

“Clearly, the workers have no option but to continue their strike amid sheer intimidation by the armed forces in cooperation with Nestle. It is their best defense against Nestle’s desperate strategy to use the courts and armed forces to attack and end their just struggle,” Labog said.

“It is simply infuriating to hear that the appelate court has upheld corporate interest over the just and legal demands of Nestle workers. This is certainly a bad ruling that further exposes Philippine courts as anti-labor instruments of local and international capitalists.

"The recent CA decision has again clarified to the public that justice in this land favors big foreign corporations, not Filipino workers who are victims of unfair labor pratices committed by such big businesses,”said Labog.

Behind Nestle ad blitz

Submitted by PAMANTIK-KMU on Wed, 2007/02/28 - 9:45am.

• Wages, Work and Rights campaign

Media such as print, radio, and television continues to be bombarded by Nestlé commercial advertisements, featuring big names in Philippine show business. Vilma Santos, Cesar Montano, Tweety de Leon, Margie Barretto, Ruffa Gutierrez, Ai-Ai delas Alas, and Kris Aquino are only some of the highly-paid personalities promoting the values-oriented “Choose Wellness, Choose Nestlé” commercial aphorism.

What the public does not know (or what might have been kept from their knowledge), the Swiss-owned multinational company covers up its most atrocious acts against its workers and scoffs at the Supreme Court (SC) decision by way of conditioning the public with the hypocritical “choose wellness” ad. Nestlé promotes a culture of deception while denying justice to its workers for more than five years now.

The Nestlé Cabuyao workers in Laguna, Philippines went to strike on January 14, 2002 when the company used as pre-condition in the collective bargaining negotiations the non-inclusion of the workers’ Retirement Benefits. Despite the sacrifices perceived by the workers, the legitimate strike is backed by the 1991 SC decision affirming the NLRC (National Labor Relations Commission) decision that the Retirement Benefits is a legitimate collective bargaining agreement (CBA) issue.

Unfortunately, the workers’ picketline which was supposed to barricade the company gates was often destroyed by the management’s brutal rampage. Company guards, goons, police and military are garrisoned within and outside the gates.

The campaign “There’s Blood in Your Coffee, Boycott Nestlé” was launched by the workers as one of the leverages to air their legitimate grievance to the public and compel the Nestlé management to settle the labour dispute. It also aimed to counter the vast influence of Nestlé in media as well as its monopoly in the Philippine market.

At the start, the campaign hardly affects the company’s market reputation. However, the campaign caught popular attention and gained wide support in the local, as well as the international community, when two Nestlé unionists were murdered consecutively in September 2005. Luciano Enrique Romero Molina, a Sinaltrainal leader and Nestlé worker who was among the many workers tagged by Nestlé as persona non grata, was murdered on September 11 in Colombia. Diosdado Fortuna, Nestlé Cabuyao union president and chairman of Pagkakaisa ng Manggagawa sa Timog Katagalugan-Kilusang Mayo Uno (Solidarity of Workers in Southern Tagalog-May First Movement), was murdered while on his way home from the picketline on September 22.

Many believe that the murder of the two Nestlé workers is not coincidental. The murder of Nestlé Cabuyao union president Meliton Roxas in front of the company gates during their strike in 1989 is another case to prove Nestlé’s blood debts to its workers.

The SC ruled on the labour dispute in Nestlé Cabuyao on August 22, 2006, reaffirming its 1991 decision; hence, directs the Nestlé management and union to go back to the negotiating table to pursue the CBA negotiations.

The Nestlé management persistently snubs the highest court of the land. In fact, in its statement in a news article, Nestlé claimed that the workers who tried to barricade the company gates on January 14 are no longer Nestlé workers (Niña Catherine Calleja, “Workers at multinational food firm barricade factory”,Philippine Daily Inquirer 17 January 2007: A15). Such a statement diverts the real issue and is a blatant disrespect to the latest SC decision.

The ads blitzkrieg came in time and attuned to complement the news statement after January 14.

As Nestlé lavishly spends millions in ads, we have to scrutinize well enough their many purposes, aside from the endorsement of products and conquering the market. After probably knowing the real score, we don’t have to choose wellness if it’s Nestlé. Do we?

Deceptions: Laki sa Gata

If your publicly stated values are Honesty, Integrity and Fairness, then nothing of this sort should be written against you. The fact is, there is and it is really a concern for all Filipino consumers who are being mislead.

Dahli Aspillera, Columnist, Malaya

November 19, 2009:

AND I am talking about big celebrity endorsers. None involved in ad production care whether what they are saying is true or whether the way they say an English word is correct. Endorser, advertiser and ad agency won’t open reference book. Consumers, especially children, are victims.

No less than Vilma Santos-Recto, sadly, will allow herself to receive endorsement fees for endorsing "milk" when in fact, what she is pushing is not milk, but a milk drink. Very different. Not the best for infants. Check it out, Mrs. Governor.

The deception is the claim that her brand of milk has been around nourishing healthy babies for decades. In fact, the milk Vilma is endorsing today is not of the same quality that that brand sold 30 years ago. It was good, whole milk 30 years ago, but technology taught them to mess around, for the sake of profit, with true milk, by adulterating it.

Vilma never bothered to research that the product she sells as milk drink is a lot inferior to what a mammal produces for its young. Vilma obviously does not know, and never asked why the manufacturer latched on the word "DRINK" to the word milk.

Vilma, a mother, is endorsing a milk drink for children. A milk drink is not pure milk. It no longer has the nutrients infants and children most need. Mrs. Recto should get together her Batangas nutritionists to research the difference between whole milk and milk drink; whole milk and filled milk.

There ought to be a law requiring endorsers to understand and be responsible for what they are endorsing. A responsible endorser, especially if it involves with the health and wellbeing of children, should be as concerned about the quality of the product.

Even Edu Manzano, before he became vice-presidentiable, was endorsing powdered creamer as milk substitute. When I confronted him with this and informed him that mothers are using his product as infant formula, he was quick to tell me that there’s a warning in the package saying it’s not milk. Yes, but how many gullible mothers out there have a magnifying glass to read the almost illegible package English warning?

Another one. There’s the irritating commercial endorsed by no less than Vilma’s ex-future daughter-in-law, actress Angel Locsin. This commercial is all about Angel’s worry about her body odors. Angel warns about taking a bath and taking a bath and taking a bath, and body odor is still there. She tells us (as if we didn’t know) that we need to use underarm odor-remover, and she adds, even "anduors"--this is how Angel Locsin pronounced the word: Anduors.

Will someone please email me what is "anduors"? If this is a mispronunciation, didn’t those brilliant ad agency and Unilever executives think to check a dictionary?

They’ve had Angel Locsin’s body odor ad on for years. (When I’m close enough to the radio, I reach over to turn the commercial off, or change stations so I don’t have to hear the ligokanangligokanangligokanangligo...) I still couldn’t figure out what word it was that Angel calls "anduors."

Anyway, I have something cheaper and better against entire body odor, not just underarm: Soak ten pesos worth of tawas (alum) in a small jar of water for two days. Put the water in a sprayer bottle. Spray all over your skin. No more body odor! All imported commercial deodorants have tawas as major ingredient because multinational pharmaceuticals have found it economical, harmless, and hypoallergenic.

Another commercial that’s been on for too long has the celebrity endorser saying "shahr" for the word sure. Our impressionable children will be saying "shahr" and "anduors" and "anyhows..." because that’s what they hear on TV. And we blame the schools for bad English. Why don’t those brilliant ad agency executives think to consult smart-books to correct their endorsers who don’t seem to know any better?

January 25, 2010:

DEAR Ms. Aspillera: I am impressed and enlightened with your article in Malaya. November 19. We are where we are because of our own faults and ignorance. Look at the majority of squatters (I won’t even bother calling them informal settlers since what they’re doing is illegal) who came to the city and left/sell their piece of land in the province. Are they just lazy or victims of circumstance? Giving proper education and information to Filipinos can still make our nation go in the right direction. Best regards, Rene Serrano, Senior Biomedical Engineer, rserranoc@rkt.com

Vilma Santos or her ad agency must have read my November 19 column. I see that her endorsement of "milk drink" and "filled milk" has been modulated. Victims are babies and mothers who don’t know any better. Other milk ads are still pushing their deceitful claim of "laki sa gatas." Commercials for filled milk and milk drink are not telling the truth. Vilma’s and my generation 40 years ago may have been "laki sa gatas" because all they sold then was pure good unadulterated milk.

The generation of today is more "Laki sa gata (palm oil)"--the milk producers having learned the technology of extracting the expensive buttermilk from true whole milk and putting back cheap highly saturated vegetable oil.

And mothers, watch out for those "coffee creamer... better than milk..." if we are to believe Edu Manzano. No milk at all in those creamers. More saturated fats, and no redeeming value. Really bad for children.

Our unsustainable milk obsession is imitated from dairy-rich countries. In those countries, milk is cheap, not imported, they do not have to add palm and coconut oil in milk as manufacturers do in the Philippines. Every affordable "milk" on Philippine store shelf is adulterated. In dairy countries, even poor families buy true fresh milk two or three jugs at a time. (In America, my jugs are initialed so that coming home thirsty from school, ball games, or work, we each can have gulps of fresh milk straight from our own ice-cold jug–saves dirtying a drinking glass.) Having jugs of delicious fresh whole milk in the ref is conducive to milk drinking.

But the "filled milk" and "milk drink" that was pushed by Vilma Santos in this country is not milk. There are more than 30 brands of "milk" but almost all of them are reconstituted and adulterated, tastes nothing like whole fresh milk. The original more valuable nutrients of mammal’s milk have been removed.

My concern is the children. For children, get whole or skimmed milk--these are not adulterated with non-milk ingredients.

The Philippine nutrition agencies and tax-paid nutrition administrators go along with this "fake milk" push–"Ako’y laki sa gatas!" they reverberate. Don’t our nutritionists know what’s in filled milk, what’s milk drink? Help push cheap healthy sustainable nourishment for babies and children.

Tax-paid nutritionist should worry about: 1) The deception--that it’s more like, "Ako’y laki sa gata (palm oil)!" 2) These tax-paid nutrition practitioners should counter this multinational campaign with public service info on indigenous food substitutes with milk-type nutrients.

Solid food-ready babies can get the nutrients of good milk–calcium, protein, iron, vitamins and minerals from family meals. My baby, born in South America , got his nutritional needs not from milk and baby foods of dubious quality from stores, but from healthy family meals. Into the masher/grinder I put whatever vegetables, fish, meat from family meals–pinakbet’s yellows and greens, squash, beans, tinola, adobo, eggs, oatmeal, etc. I’d strain this and put in the baby bottle. The liquid has the color of unpalatable mud, but it has all the nutrition that is in real milk.

My son grew up healthy, no tooth cavity, with strong bones. He got milk only when pure fresh milk was available, like when we were in the US . The good nutrients can be had by babies from the family’s regular meals. I wish nutritionists would spend enough time teaching the poor which foods can replace milk, instead of pushing "milk drinks" and "filled milk"--expensive fake milk.

***

If I can add: I wish Nestle, the manufacturer of Bear Brand, lives up to its values and really tell consumers what the real score is. It doesn't take a genius to know that values are there for ultimate guidance, not lip service. However, manager morons (you know who you are) won't be able to discern such. It's so sad that the powerful idiots in Nestle Philippines are the ones dictating to the poor Pinoy that gata (palm oil) is good for them. Tsk, tsk.

On Apparent Authority for Cebu Pacific and Nestle Philippines: Repost from Emil Jurado, Manila Standard January 26 2010

After making headlines for more than a week, the news item about two children with special needs and their mothers who were forced to disembark from a Cebu Pacific plane is quieting down.

The story had all the ingredients of a perfect storm. It drew the kind of attention that it deserved. More than basic consumer rights, it touched on human rights, especially the rights of children.

Not surprisingly, various groups scored Cebu Pacific for its discriminatory actions. But what surprised me was the airline’s reaction to the scandal. It would have been so easy for the airline to put the entire blame on the erring employees—the Filipino colloquial term “laglag” being the perfect word to describe the action. They could have had a team of lawyers and spokesperson to mouth the worn-out argument that the individual actions and lapses in judgment of our staff cannot be held against the company. But they chose not to. Cebu Pacific actually owned up to its employees’ fault, apologized for it, and took conciliatory measures.

At least, some companies understand the legal principle of apparent authority as a rule that applies to situations such as the Cebu Pacific gaffe. Apparent authority states that a principal is responsible for the acts of its agents.

***

Sad to say, some firms cannot seem to grasp this concept of apparent authority either out of ignorance or malice. Recently, a hornet’s nest the size of Switzerland was stirred when a top multinational was assailed by its Central Luzon distributors for failing to prevent a billion-peso scam perpetrated by one of its high-ranking officials.

My gulay, what makes matters worse is that the architect of the foul scheme seems to have operated in plain sight, acting in her capacity as the regional sales manager of the multinational.

This manager allegedly instructed her distributors to give preferential discounts to the tune of 12-percent in favor of one particular reseller, Company X. The distributors were stumped on how they could possibly do that, since the maximum discount they could give was only 4-percent. Not to worry, the manager said, who wrote them letters using the company’s letterhead, promising that the multinational would cover the difference. And since the manager was a well-decorated and high-ranking employee, they complied.

Company X’s goods now acquired at an illogically cheap rate, all it had to do was go to a consumer area in Metro Manila and undersell all other distributors. Pretty soon, retail outlets were almost exclusively ordering from Company X at the expense of other Metro Manila distributors. Santa Banana, don’t forget that all these distributors were supposedly part of the same team!

The Metro Manila and Central Luzon distributors felt antsy. The multinational refused to investigate, and after months of reassurances, not a single centavo of discount reimbursements came.

***

They say hindsight is 100-percent accurate, but even the smallest of due diligence could have prevented the financial collapse of countless distributors.

My gulay, didn’t the multinational wonder how a previously-unheard of reseller could have come to Metro Manila and taken royal customers away from existing distributors? Based on figures submitted, didn’t the multinational question how a company could sell items for so low?

Ultimately, I feel that it is the legal principle of apparent authority that will put the case to rest. Even if the manager acted on her own as claimed, the law doesn’t favor the cop-out (palusot). The distributors are set to file a class-action against the multinational, where the buck should stop.

Lessons from Rosa Henson and Japan: Hey Nestle Philippines, Read This!

A lot of us may have forgotten already but in 1992, when Rosa Henson was already 65 years old, she announced to everyone her World War II experience – known only by two people she held dear –her mother and deceased husband. She was a wartime prostitute by the Japanese Imperial Army. She was a Comfort Woman.

Her public statements gave more than two hundred other Filipinas and countless others in China and Korea to have the courage and come out in the open to say that indeed they were kidnapped, raped and forced to be prostitutes of the Japanese military.

Their plight, as a wartime Japanese soldier described, “The women cried out, but it didn't matter to us whether the women lived or died. We were the emperor's soldiers. Whether in military brothels or in the villages, we raped without reluctance."

One of the women, when she testified in US Congress said, "Many stories have been told about the horrors, brutalities, suffering and starvation of women in Japanese prison camps. But one story was never told, the most shameful story of the worst human rights abuse committed by the Japanese during World War II: The story of the “Comfort Women”, the jugun ianfu, and how these women were forcibly seized against their will, to provide sexual services for the Japanese Imperial Army. In the so-called “Comfort Station” I was systematically beaten and raped day and night. Even the Japanese doctor raped me each time he visited the brothel to examine us for venereal disease."

The Japanese government, immediately after the war, destroyed all documents referring to their creation of their own sex-slave industry and up to 1990 said that it had nothing to do with creation of “Comfort Stations”, insisting that either they do not exist (there was no written evidence according to them!) or if they did, they were run by small scale private enterprise.

In spite of Japan’s statements, the United Nations conducted their own research of what had happened and discovered through a series of eyewitness investigations that indeed the then Japanese government systemically created the “Comfort Stations” in response to the request of their military to keep up the morale of their troops.

Japan, eventually relented and finally admitted their systemic fault for the creation of these brothels during the war.

Rosa Henson died in 1997 but not before she received Japan’s formal apology and getting the atonement recompense.

I was not there when she passed away but I can imagine that she did so in peace.

***

There are several comments close to home that come to mind after reading the above:

Does the existence of an incident depend on the availability of written evidence? Apparently, Japan – the third biggest economy in the world – thought so. Hmmm. Sounds familiar.

Japan is one of the most progressive countries and has actually given a lot aid, economic and otherwise, to a lot of third world countries especially after the war. Do their current actions absolve them of the prostitution atrocities they committed in the past? Hmmm. Sounds familiar again.

It doesn't take a genius to know what the answers are. Unfortunately, there are really idiots and morons around especially in THAT company. Tsk, tsk.

NESTLE PHILIPPINES: SHAME ON YOU! - Repost from Ducky Paredes, Malaya, January 14 2009

A Battle of Dragons

“’Apparent Authority’ is a term used in the law of agency to describe a situation in which a principal leads a third party to believe that an agent has authority to bind the principal, even where the agent lacks the actual authority to do so.”

by Ducky Paredes

In the Chinese calendar, 2010 is the year of the metal tiger, when we should focus on certain character traits that will ensure prosperity and success for the whole year round. The qualities associated with the metal tiger are persistence, strength, and determination.

These are what friends who have gotten a raw deal at the hands of a contentious multinational need to eventually get their due.

You all know this company by now — it manufactures and markets a wide range of mass consumer products and, I’ve written about these problems several times.

Apparently, finally, after years of enduring abuse at the hands of this multinational, a number of its Central Luzon distributors have organized themselves and are now poised to fight back. Perhaps the year of the metal tiger has finally inspired them to stand up against a supposed corporate bully — a “Crouching Tiger”, ready to pounce on its tormentor and defend itself.

Based on reports, the last straw for these outraged – and mostly debt-ridden – distributors came when an internal scandal broke out that caused them to lose tens of millions of pesos individually. Unfortunately, after repeated attempts to air their grievances to the multinational, the response they got has allegedly been the formal equivalent of a shrug and an eye-roll.

Their troubles s began when the multinational’s Regional Sales Manager (RSM) for Central Luzon instructed her distributors to give an unheard-of discount (purportedly 10% to 12%) to one particular company. Since distributors are only allotted a 4% discount, some questioned how they could possibly still stay in business, losing 6% to 8% at each transaction. (A funny supposedly Chinese quote is: “Hindi bale malugi sa bawat benta basta kita sa lahat.”)

The answer to their conundrum came when Ms. RSM allegedly wrote them letters – using the multinational’s official letterhead, no less – promising that the multinational would definitely reimburse the difference. Given this directive and the document to back it up, the Central Luzon distributors had to comply.

The extremely fortunate recipient of these massive discounts was now in a position where it can undersell all other distributors, which it did, except those in Central Luzon, from where its cheap goods were coming. This privileged company apparently did just that, targeting Metro Manila wholesalers. Eventually, the multinational’s Metro Manila distributors began crying foul, wondering how a distributor from another area could possibly be selling the goods at such low prices. When they asked company officials to explain this puzzle, the multinational’s clarification supposedly went something like this: “I don’t know how that company does it, all I know is that they are able to do it. If your sales are suffering because you can’t find a way to match their price, then that’s your problem, not ours”.

Because of this, and faced with an illogical situation, a number of Metro Manila distributors had to absorb their losses; the smarter ones stopped dealing with this multinational

Meanwhile, over at Central Luzon, things began heating up when not a single distributor received the promised reimbursements from the mother company. This reached a bitter climax when the checks issued by the discount-privileged customer even started to bounce. Lo and behold – upon further investigation, it was discovered that the person running the company was the husband of Ms. RSM! Can you say “conflict of interest”?

Adding insult to injury (or lawsuit to malice) was the fact the checks that bounced were under the bank account of Ms. RSM herself.

At present, Ms. RSM is nowhere to be found, and is presumably in hiding with her husband. In their wake, they left behind total losses (from both Central Luzon and Metro Manila distributors) reportedly amounting to approximately P1 billion. More tangibly, hundreds of jobs and financial futures were ruined because of this purported scam.

The multinational – let’s call this the “hidden dragon” because of the way it presents itself as a family-oriented, wholesome company while, in reality, practically a criminal enterprise – seems to have washed its hands of the situation. Perhaps what they don’t realize is that under the legal principle of “Apparent Authority”, this multi may be in a real bind.

“Apparent Authority” is a term used in the law of agency to describe a situation in which a principal leads a third party to believe that an agent has authority to bind the principal, even where the agent lacks the actual authority to do so. In such circumstances, the law holds the principal liable for the acts of the agent, out of fairness to the third party.

Considering that the multinational had every chance (and the obligation to do so, since the RSM was apparently up to no good and it was the multinational’s duty to stop her) to correct the anomaly during its early stages (but instead chose to pursue their sales targets), this “hidden dragon” may soon be forced out of its cave and tamed in a court of law.

Hopefully.