<![CDATA[Act Number 2 of 2004 Concerning the Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes (PPHI Act) has several paradigmatic issues. It has been almost two decades since the PPHI Act went into effect. To adapt to shifting needs and consider changes, amendments have never been implemented. The impartiality of mediators who are not chosen by the disputing parties, the existence of ad hoc judges who are not law graduates, inconsistent standards relating to one's ability to testify in court, government interference, punishments, etc. are the fundamental issues. These facts emphasize that the Pancasila Industrial Relations Paradigm is not followed by the PPHI Act as a legislative ideal. It is not surprising that the justice and certainty that workers hope for are only dreams. Laborers no longer hold a strategic position as actors and objectives of national development because they have normatively become victims of injustice in industrial relations. In addition to identifying the normative inconsistencies between the Pancasila Industrial Relations Principles and the PPHI Act, this research aims to promote a shift toward a more just and equitable approach to resolving industrial relations disputes. This study belongs to juridical normative research by adopting the legal regulations as the object. It applies statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches. The results show that the PPHI Act has paradigmatic problems. Essentially, it does not adhere to the values of Pancasila industrial relations. Thus, reformulation is highly recommended.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
