“Antonio Margarito may have been beaten black and blue at last Sunday’s big fight but he was able to do what millions of Filipinos have always wanted to do : PUNCH A CONGRESSMAN IN THE FACE!”

Read the entire article at this link :

http://www.bukisa.com/articles/399266_filipinos-grateful-to-margarito-for-punching-a-congressman.

Those are minor matters, better left to the entertainment department. What thinking citizens really wanted was to listen to the inaugural address of the new President. We wanted to know the key principles his administration shall live by, as well as to take a peek at the programs and projects in the priority list of his executive agenda.

The President came across as confident, ready to take the bull by its horns, so to speak. He knew by heart that he owes the landslide victory the people have given him to the good names of his parents or to the spirit of Edsa, both sharing connotative meanings. It was, thus, fitting for the President to kick off his speech by alluding to the Ninoy-Cory Aquino legacy flaming torch of which has just been handed to him.

Yet, the Cojuangco and Aquino family names also connote political and economic elitism, a fact that the President needed to downplay by assuring his constituency that, in spite of this, he knew the problems being faced by ordinary citizens who have the misfortune of having a government that is blind and deaf to its people’s wants and pleas. He put himself in the shoes of ordinary Filipinos by making their problems his : ignored by power-tripping and corrupt government officials; trapped in traffic because of a raw display of power by politicians who use sirens or impose sudden traffic counter flows for their convenience; forced to seek greener pastures abroad, etc.

As someone widely regarded as “The People’s President,” Aquino assured the people that under his administration, they are the President’s Boss. He unequivocally declared that the days when politicians are kings and queens are over, and officially ushered in a new era in public service when politicians are people’s servants.

More significantly, the President has not forgotten the core message of his campaign: “Sigaw natin noong kampanya: “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Hindi lamang ito pang slogan o pang poster—ito ang mga prinsipyong tinatayuan at nagsisilbing batayan ng ating administrasyon.” The transformation of the campaign promise into a governance principle is a good sign. It speaks of a strong resolve to bring about the necessary change, as well as of a consistency of purpose.

“Ang ating pangunahing tungkulin ay ang magsikap na maiangat ang bansa mula sa kahirapan, sa pamamagitan ng pagpapairal ng katapatan at mabuting pamamalakad sa pamahalaan,” the President categorically said. To him now as President Aquino, just as it was to him as presidential candidate Aquino, the primary calling of government is to alleviate poverty and the surefire formula towards this end is honest, accountable and good governance.

The President has laid down the parameters of his administration. We will use the same parameters in assessing his performance when the proper time comes. In the meantime, President Aquino deserves our full support and best wishes.

•••

The news about the death of Bishop Francisco Claver, S.J., the first Igorot bishop, last July 1 made me cry. I recalled two or three brief encounters with the good bishop at the Institute on Church and Social Issues in the Ateneo de Manila more than a decade ago, when he was still very active at writing insightful analyses on such issues as church and state relations, justice and peace, indigenous people’s rights and human rights, in general. He was a prolific writer and an incisive social analyst with a Ph.D. in Anthropology from the University of Colorado, USA, and was largely credited as the mind behind the official statements of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines during the trying times of the country under Ferdinand Marcos.

I would always remember Bishop Claver as the humble, erudite bishop in rubber slippers, worn-out pants and plain, old shirt, who shunned preferential attention. He would even refuse reverential kisses on his ring. Unlike other bishops who literally behave as princes and expect people to bow down before them as they almost force their rings on people’s lips, Bishop Claver would gently push away the hands of those wanting to kiss his bishop’s ring and jokingly tell them that if they badly wanted to kiss his ring they could kiss his behind because he had it buried there. He was an authentic human person who showed us that spirituality is rooted internally; the externalities – mere symbols – are secondary.

Bishop Claver lived what he preached profoundly – human dignity, human rights, social justice, loving the poor as a duty, not just an option. While we didn’t talk much then, I learned profound lessons in genuine Christianity from what I saw in and experienced with him in those brief encounters more than I did in years of attending Theology classes. His death is a great loss not only to Catholics but to all humanists.

Analysts are, however, questioning the validity of the figures presented by the President –with-a-doctorate-in-economics. For one, they argue, the number of jobs created in the books of the President includes the vast number of one-time, very short-term, jobs given to contractual employees, whose contractualization – and consequently lack of security and many benefits –was vested with legality by the Macapagal-Arroyo administration. For another, they point out, the number of jobs generated is also computed in terms of the number of housing units built under the mass housing program; this falsely assumes that an entirely different set of workers put up each housing unit. Furthermore, added to the total number of jobs created is almost everything, including those that are part-time (four hours or less a day).
I’m inclined to agree with the critics. Yet, I would like to gauge the accomplishment of the President in this regard by relating it to one of her pronounced objectives at the start of her term. She said jobs should be generated domestically so that our people would consider overseas employment as a career option only.

If we go by this logic, then, if the Macapagal-Arroyo administration indeed generated so many jobs there would have been a downward trend in the departures of our people for overseas employment. The statistics points to the contrary. There has been an increasing number of Filipinos leaving to work abroad. This trend advances the argument of critics that the quality of jobs generated in the past nine years is unreliable, in economic and social security terms.

This scenario brings to mind what migrants’ rights advocates have always underscored: in many cases, the decision to work abroad is not a free choice but a “forced choice”. This is so because looking at the labor migration phenomenon from a “choice” perspective necessarily has to weigh in attendant circumstances which are, by no means, easy. Leaving one’s beloved family behind and bearing emotional burdens moment by moment perhaps count among the most difficult decisions one has to make just to see greener pastures far away.

Given that by religion and by social construct, families should live together for so many good purposes, packing one’s bags to bid teary-eyed dear ones adieu and serve in others’ homes are never a walk in the park. It’s difficult and sad. Yet, this has precisely been the predicament of nearly 10 million Overseas Filipino Workers. To say that these 10 million people made these decisions freely, without compelling reasons, is to manifest a shallow understanding of the whole reality of labor migration. It is, as has been the apparent position of government, to look at the phenomenon simplistically and reduce this complex issue in terms of dollar remittances, without taking into consideration the psycho-social costs.

Well, it is more convenient and politically savvy to talk of nearly 16 billion dollars in annual remittances than to reveal how many marriages have been broken by infidelities, or how serious are the problems brought about by solo parenting situations, or how many futures have been dimmed by vices bred by senseless materialism, as a result of the tendency to compensate parental absence with extra-generous financial provisions.

The truth is that most of our OFWs have made, and will continue to make, the heartbreaking decision to leave their families behind because there are no opportunities for them to live decently here and work for the fulfillment of their and their family members’ aspirations. In here, they have grasped, full human potentials cannot be realized. It is underdevelopment – worsened by a corrupt and unjust socio-economic and political system – that drives our people away from their families and their country.

No, Madam President, working abroad is not a free, personal choice. It is, as we have always maintained, still a “forced choice,” mainly because we have an inutile, inept, and corrupt government.

Analysts are, however, questioning the validity of the figures presented by the President –with-a-doctorate-in-economics. For one, they argue, the number of jobs created in the books of the President includes the vast number of one-time, very short-term, jobs given to contractual employees, whose contractualization – and consequently lack of security and many benefits –was vested with legality by the Macapagal-Arroyo administration. For another, they point out, the number of jobs generated is also computed in terms of the number of housing units built under the mass housing program; this falsely assumes that an entirely different set of workers put up each housing unit. Furthermore, added to the total number of jobs created is almost everything, including those that are part-time (four hours or less a day).
I’m inclined to agree with the critics. Yet, I would like to gauge the accomplishment of the President in this regard by relating it to one of her pronounced objectives at the start of her term. She said jobs should be generated domestically so that our people would consider overseas employment as a career option only.

If we go by this logic, then, if the Macapagal-Arroyo administration indeed generated so many jobs there would have been a downward trend in the departures of our people for overseas employment. The statistics points to the contrary. There has been an increasing number of Filipinos leaving to work abroad. This trend advances the argument of critics that the quality of jobs generated in the past nine years is unreliable, in economic and social security terms.

This scenario brings to mind what migrants’ rights advocates have always underscored: in many cases, the decision to work abroad is not a free choice but a “forced choice”. This is so because looking at the labor migration phenomenon from a “choice” perspective necessarily has to weigh in attendant circumstances which are, by no means, easy. Leaving one’s beloved family behind and bearing emotional burdens moment by moment perhaps count among the most difficult decisions one has to make just to see greener pastures far away.

Given that by religion and by social construct, families should live together for so many good purposes, packing one’s bags to bid teary-eyed dear ones adieu and serve in others’ homes are never a walk in the park. It’s difficult and sad. Yet, this has precisely been the predicament of nearly 10 million Overseas Filipino Workers. To say that these 10 million people made these decisions freely, without compelling reasons, is to manifest a shallow understanding of the whole reality of labor migration. It is, as has been the apparent position of government, to look at the phenomenon simplistically and reduce this complex issue in terms of dollar remittances, without taking into consideration the psycho-social costs.

Well, it is more convenient and politically savvy to talk of nearly 16 billion dollars in annual remittances than to reveal how many marriages have been broken by infidelities, or how serious are the problems brought about by solo parenting situations, or how many futures have been dimmed by vices bred by senseless materialism, as a result of the tendency to compensate parental absence with extra-generous financial provisions.

The truth is that most of our OFWs have made, and will continue to make, the heartbreaking decision to leave their families behind because there are no opportunities for them to live decently here and work for the fulfillment of their and their family members’ aspirations. In here, they have grasped, full human potentials cannot be realized. It is underdevelopment – worsened by a corrupt and unjust socio-economic and political system – that drives our people away from their families and their country.

No, Madam President, working abroad is not a free, personal choice. It is, as we have always maintained, still a “forced choice,” mainly because we have an inutile, inept, and corrupt government.

Yes, poverty is a stranglehold. Louise Arbour, who used to be the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, had once articulated what has been pointed out by social analysts many times, which is the direct correlation between poverty and human rights violations victimizing the poor.

“The poorest are more likely to experience human rights violations, discrimination or other forms of persecution,” she observed. “Being poor makes it harder to find a job and get access to basic services, such as health, education and housing. Poverty is above all about having no power and no voice.”

Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan once declared that freedom from poverty is a human right and is not a matter of compassion. This being so, states, through their governments, should free their own people from the clutches of poverty as a matter of duty, as a matter of commitment.

Apparently, this is a top priority of the incoming Aquino administration. The proclamation last Wednesday of Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Jejomar Binay as duly elected president and vice-president of the Philippines has raised the level of hope and optimism of the Filipino poor to be liberated from poverty.

The poor have good reason to expect no less from Aquino and Binay. Aquino, in unequivocal terms, made this commitment back in the campaign days, when he anchored his entire platform of government on the big promise to banish corruption from government to put an end to the impoverished days of Filipinos. Binay, for his part, obtained the people’s confidence by alluding to his lowly beginnings and promising the many who are poor that he would help them rise above poverty so they could live in prosperity just like him and the people of Makati.

One hundred and twelve years after we declared independence from Spain, we have yet to declare liberation from poverty. Estimates place the number of our people living below the poverty line at between 30 to 40 percent of our population. That’s roughly 27.6 million to 36.8 million Filipinos (out of 92 million) languishing in the prohibitive environs of poverty.

In the Social Weather Stations April 2010 self-rated poverty survey, 43 percent of respondents considered themselves “poor.” In the same survey, a record-low 31 percent or 5.9 million families said they were “food-poor.”

What is not captured in the statistics is the fact that the poor suffer not just from hunger, but from sociopolitical poverty as well. As pointed out by Arbour, the poor are pushed to the periphery of the social order, often marginalized in social processes, including those in the sphere of governance. Rendered powerless and voiceless by a government that has traditionally been run by the combined powers of the political, economic and ecclesiastical elite in the country, they are often left helpless and hopeless, a situation favorable to the maintenance of the power status quo.

This is where the challenge lies. Aquino and Binay, belonging to that power bloc, would be called upon to make gargantuan sacrifices for the bigger, uphill battle against poverty. They could begin by employing the sound strategy proffered by Aquino’s campaign: stop corruption which has robbed our people of an average of 120 billion pesos every year, and prosecute the corrupt in the bureaucracy. That amount can be allocated for poverty alleviation programs.

This would be a good start, but much more would be needed to win the battle, and liberate 36.8 million Filipinos from the fangs of poverty.

By this time, freshmen must have already decided on what academic programs to take. In most cases, the selection of a course is a family decision in these parts, which is not surprising given our close family ties and the fact that to many families education is the best vehicle for upward socioeconomic mobility. Not everyone can get away with not having a college degree and be an arrogant Wowowee host and earn 25 million pesos a month.

As projected by labor economists a few years ago, enrolment in Nursing is now declining; a consequence of the fact that it is heavily anchored on the demand for nurses abroad. Just as schools should regularly study the labor demand-supply dynamics domestically and globally, students need to do the same, particularly when the main objective in obtaining a college degree is employment here or abroad.

Choosing a school where to take the academic program is another question. Schools today have become aggressive in selling themselves. Branding applies to schools just as it does to shampoo. Decades ago, it was unthinkable for the Ateneo or La Salle to compete for advertising space in broadsheets. Now, their logos are as conspicuous as those of SM or Jollibee in the papers.

Students and their parents must be discerning in choosing schools, assuming that they have the financial resources that give them that power to choose. This is important to ascertain value for money, given tuition rates that just get higher and higher. (This topic deserves a separate column.)

For students and parents to make informed choices, it is suggested that they take a look at certain “good quality” indicators. Information on these is usually available and verifiable.

There are, for instance, reputable research organizations that rank universities around the world. Their findings can be collapsed if one would just like to know university standings in Asia or, more particularly, the Philippines.

In the most recent QS World University Rankings, for example, only four Philippine universities are counted in. By rank, these are Ateneo de Manila University, University of the Philippines –Diliman, University of Santo Tomas, and De La Salle University. The QS World University Rankings assess universities in terms of research quality, teaching quality, graduate employability and internationalization. If one would like a more focused search for information, the rankings may be viewed at http://www.topuniversities.com.

Prior to the QS rankings, Asiaweek used to run a similar annual study in the region. Those Asiaweek survey rankings, using more or less the same measures, listed only the same four universities (ADMU, UP-D, UST, DLSU) in Asia’s best. Not everyone can attend the Ateneo or UP Diliman or UST or DLSU, of course. It’s good that there are other helpful benchmarks parents and students could consider in choosing a good school for college.

Has the school been granted “Full Autonomy” or “Deregulated” status by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)? Has the school been recognized by the CHED as a “Center of Excellence” or a “Center of Development” for the academic program the student would like to pursue?

Is the school’s academic program accredited (Level 3 or Level 2, at least) by any of the four agencies under the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines (FAAP)? These agencies are the following: the Philippine Association of Accrediting Agencies of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU), Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities – Commission on Accreditation (PACU-COA), the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges (ACSC), and the Accrediting Association of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (AACCUP).

Students may also inquire about the performance of a school in licensure examinations at the Professional Regulation Commission or the CHED. It should be noted that schools tend to be doing excellently in certain programs. The University of San Agustin, for instance, is renowned for its Law, Medical Technology and Pharmacy programs. Saint Paul University is considered the best in the Nursing program. West Visayas State University leads the list in teacher education. Central Philippine University runs highly-regarded engineering programs. The University of the Philippines in the Visayas is one the country’s best in Accountancy. This angle should also be taken into account.

Given high tuition rates and the difficulty in getting jobs after graduation, prudence dictates that students should choose a school where they substantively get what they pay for dearly, a school whose seal on the college diploma is widely recognized by employers as an assurance of outstanding competencies

To say that that the report is an understatement. Exploitation of children, in its simplest form as child labor, is a crime not only against the child. It is an assault on humanity, and all universally-accepted precepts on human dignity, as well as all notions on human rights that spring forth from such precepts.

According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, more than 50 countries across the globe legally permit the voluntary recruitment of 16 and 17 year-olds. This condition has exposed children to “institutionalized bullying, sexual abuse, and hazardous training activities.”

Statistics from the Human Rights Watch puts the number of child-soldiers at more than 300,000. While most of these gun-toting kids are in their teens, the Human Rights Watch notes, some of them are as young as seven. In Asia, the practice of employing child-soldiers has been reported in Afghanistan, Burma, India, Indonesia, Laos, Philippines, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Precise figures are understandably difficult to obtain because of the nature of situation.

The United Nations report seems to present a worse scenario compared with the situation the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers and the Human Rights Watch are alarmed about. The former speaks of children as young as four to seven years old, who are made to handle real guns as toys and who get to practice shoot with mannequins dressed up as AFP men as targets.

This brings to mind the “accidental” documentary film titled “Invisible Children : Rough Cut”, made in Uganda in 2003 by Bobby Bailey, Laren Poole and Jason Russell, three college students from San Diego, California. I say the film is accidental because the three students just flew to Uganda “to see what they could film.” When they reached the African country, they bumped into the insurgent Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) and, among others, its practice of abducting children to be trained as child-soldiers.

The three got to talk to some of these kids who flee their homes to avoid abduction. They brave the night walking miles to find shelter in hospitals, bus parks or any other place away from the clutches of the LRA.

I got to watch the 55-minute film on YouTube. I cried the moment the camera zoomed in on the faces of Jacob, and his brother Thomas, who fortunately escaped from the LRA camp. Their brother wasn’t as fortunate; he was shot dead. They said they would be happy if someone kills them, as well, to end all the suffering.

The film disgusts and stirs, indeed. As argued by BBC’s Jan Egeland, this situation that displaces children demands a moral outrage from civilized society. The legal framework prohibiting the use of child soldiers has been put in place. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 38) stipulates this. So do the 2002 Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, and 2005 UN Security Council Resolution 1612, which established the first comprehensive monitoring and reporting system for enforcing compliance among those groups using child soldiers in armed conflict.

But, why are governments generally mum about this? I think it’s urgent that this issue is brought to the fore, discussed openly, so that every one can take a role in putting an end to this appalling form of inhumanity. Watching the “Invisible Children” documentary, and trying to understand why these innocent children are called invisible, would be a good eye-opener. A good start.

The key argument for the bill is quite simple yet profound — the people’s right to know, as guaranteed by the Constitution, is an essential component of democratic governance, of which transparency and accountability are vital principles and practices. It is only when people have access to information on matters of public concern that they gain confidence to demand accountability from government officials and get emboldened to take a more proactive role in the public sphere. Information is, indeed, power.

Without factual information, people are kept in the dark, wasting time on speculation and witch-hunting, worsening the ugliness we have seen on television in recent months. Not making information on public concerns available to citizens while harping the nobility of people empowerment in this country is hypocrisy, plain and simple. It’s like disarming citizens before engaging them in the war against graft and corruption.

In 2001, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism published the book titled “The Right to Know: Access to Information in Southeast Asia.” Edited by Sheila Coronel, the book probes the state of citizens’ access to information in Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Synthesizing the essays on the state of access to information in the Southeast Asian countries mentioned, Coronel deduced that the extent of access is determined by “a democratic polity, pluralistic media, and a culture of discussion, inquiry and political participation.”

I would like to believe that democracy is still very much alive in this country, after the Supreme Court had given a blow to several attempts by the Macapagal-Arroyo administration to curtail liberties through executive fiats like Proclamation 1017.

The Philippine press is still probably the freest in Asia, despite the fact that the country has very recently been listed among the most dangerous places for journalists. The culture of discussion is significantly manifest in our coffee or barber shops and political participation has been institutionalized in many of our processes, such as through the mandated citizens’ representation in deliberative bodies as development councils, the party-list system, among others. While many of our citizens are still apathetic, this indifference might be attributed precisely to their lack of information on which they could base a rational engagement with government.

It’s high time all these are consolidated to push for the passage of an enabling law that unequivocally warrants our right to have access to information on matters of public concern. Technological advancement is our ally in this advocacy; yet, as Coronel rightly pointed out, democratizing technology is not sufficient to secure our right to know. We must all lobby for the passage of the Freedom of Information bill. With information in our hands, we can better exact accountability and transparency from our public officials.

If presumptive President-elect Noynoy Aquino is dead serious in seeing through the realization of his “walang mahirap kung walang corrupt” core campaign message, his party mates, his supporters and volunteers, should fight for the passage the bill vigorously. This is vital to the fulfillment of that promise to eradicate corruption as the key strategy towards poverty alleviation and eventual elimination, assuming this is something that can be done in six years.

As if to keep realistic expectations on the results of the passage of the access to information bill, however, Coronel cautions:

“Information is not the panacea for social ills. A liberal access regime does not guarantee that available information will be used to promote democracy, advance social equity and check on corruption. The information may be there but it will remain unused without citizens’ organizations, grassroots mobilization, watchdog media and legislatures, courts and independent government bodies serious about checking wrongdoing…”

As much as all concerned sectors attempt to find a rational resolution of this legitimate issue, we should at the same time recognize that there have been a number of labor standards violations in this country, aside from minimum wage non-compliance: nonpayment of 13th month pay; non-payment of holiday pay and service incentive leaves; failure to have employees covered by SSS, Philhealth and Pag-IBIG; inhumane and hazardous working conditions; etc.

The perpetration of these illegal acts by employers in these economically difficult times is unforgivable. When viewed from a moral perspective, this constitutes exploitation – a shameless trampling on the dignity of labor. This also indicates the prevalence of an unjust socioeconomic system in the country.

“It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man’s work is properly remunerated in the system…. This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future,” John Paul II writes in Laborens Exercens (“On Human Work”).

The set minimum wage in the (Western Visayas) region, as well as in other parts of the country, has generally been seen as unrealistic since it doesn’t quiet reflect what is reasonably needed by households to provide members with the most basic necessities in life.

Imagine a household with six members in which only one member (the husband or the wife) works and earns the current minimum wage of 222 pesos a day in the city. Divide that amount — which, by the way, is still tax, SSS, and Philhealth dues deductible — by six, and you come up with 37 pesos for each member a day. Factor in transportation costs in going to school, work, market, church. Factor in breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Factor in apartment rental or, if that sound ambitious, room rental for six (that’s around 1,000 – 2,000 pesos a month). Factor in nutritional needs and basic medicines. Factor in minimal fees for water and electricity. Factor in school expenses. Factor in the most basic household maintenance expenses (just soap with no shampoo, for example).

Now, we understand why pawnshops and loan sharks make a lot of money. Now, we understand why there apparently is a growing incidence of sex- for- money transactions among very young people. Now, we understand why criminality seems so tempting to some people. The fact is when establishments violate labor laws, they place their workers in a no-options situation, which, consequently forces the latter to bite the bullet, if need be, so their families can survive. Yes, all these redound to a matter of life and death to many.

We are not saying that there is a higher tendency among the poor to commit crimes for easy money. (On the contrary, if we reckon the Estrada plunder case and the NBN-ZTE scandal, we can theorize that it is those who already have much who want to accumulate more money in illegal ways!) What we are saying is that, sometimes, extreme poverty — aggravated by a lack of opportunities and by an exploitation by those who wield economic power — leaves some poor people with no choices but to succumb to extralegal means in order to feed a hungry, dying child, or to relieve the excruciating pain of a cancer-stricken family member.

The truth is when we give the poor to opportunity to earn a living decently, and compensate them with what is justly theirs, they do not only become grateful. They also give their best – nay, their very selves – to their work. They become productive. This is good for business.

I have been thinking that if a few employees in the University of San Agustin — where the lowest salary is already at 14,300 pesos – plus a month (or almost 600 pesos a day) for maintenance personnel – still complain about difficulties in making both ends meet, it must be doubly hard for minimum wage earners to get by, even if the latter’s employers follow what is legally prescribed. The troubles must be triple in the case of those who are not given what is due to them in terms of wages and benefits.

It is our hope that the Department of Labor and Employment will not cease from doing its job at the reporting phase. Otherwise, we will still face the same problems, which we have been having for decades now, in the coming years. The perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Employers who do not pay just wages to their workers are thieves. They must be penalized just as we punish plunderers. As Augustine profoundly pointed out, “The superfluities of the rich are the necessities of the poor. When you possess superfluities, you possess what belongs to others.”