Azucena's unpopular view re: WOMEN'S benefits
C.A. Azucena, Jr. (CAA. Jr's) is an award-winning and respected author and expert in labor law. His textbooks in labor law are used in almost all law schools all over the country. He has been cited by the Supreme Court of the Philippines multiple times. In fact, in the case of David v. Macasio (G.R. No. 195466; July 2, 2014), Justice Brion adopted his views regarding the distinguishing characteristic of "pakyaw" or task basis engagement, as opposed to straight-hour wage payment.One of CAA, Jr.'s unpopular views can be found on Page 404 of Azucena, C. A. (2013). The Labor Code: with Comments and Cases (Vol. 1). National Book Store. It's about women and, below, it is quoted in full.
MORE ABSENT THAN PRESENT?
The increasing number of legislated absences with pay effectively reduces the productivity of a female employee. She is allowed by law to be absent from work for various reasons for a number of days:
Holidays ................................. 22 days (12 regular, 3 special, 7 other)
Service incentive leave.......... 5
Maternity leave ...................... 60 or 78
Solo parent’s leave ................ 7
“VAWC” .................................. 10
Rest days ................................ 52
“Special leave” ....................... 60
Service incentive leave.......... 5
Maternity leave ...................... 60 or 78
Solo parent’s leave ................ 7
“VAWC” .................................. 10
Rest days ................................ 52
“Special leave” ....................... 60
The total is 216 or 234 days, equivalent to 7.2 or 7.8 months. Seventy percent of the unproductive absences is with pay. This, to an employer, is an expensive proposition. Imposition of gratuitous benefits of this kind immediately raises challenging questions: Will this additional imposition encourage business firms to employ women? Will it bring down prices and therefore help the poor? Can poverty be reduced by reducing the work days?