The Omnibus Law on Job Creation (in Indonesian: Undang-Undang Cipta Kerja or UU Cipta Kerja) is a law passed by the Indonesian government in October 2020. The law is aimed at making it easier for businesses to invest and create jobs by streamlining regulations and simplifying bureaucratic procedures.
The law has been controversial, with critics arguing that it will weaken labor rights and environmental protections, while proponents argue that it will boost economic growth and attract investment to the country. Some of the key changes introduced by the law include:
- Labor law reforms: The law introduces changes to the country’s labor laws, including the removal of severance pay for workers who resign voluntarily, a reduction in mandatory leave entitlements, and greater flexibility for employers to use contract workers.
- Investment reforms: The law aims to make it easier for businesses to invest in Indonesia by streamlining regulatory processes and reducing bureaucratic red tape.
- Environmental regulations: The law also introduces changes to environmental regulations, with critics arguing that it will weaken protections for the environment and allow businesses to ignore environmental standards.
Overall, the Omnibus Law on Job Creation has been a controversial issue in Indonesia, with both supporters and opponents expressing strong views about its potential impact on the country’s economy and society.
The Omnibus Law on Job Creation has faced several judicial reviews in Indonesia. One of the most notable was filed by a coalition of labor unions and civil society groups, who argued that the law violated the country’s constitution by weakening labor protections and environmental regulations.
In January 2021, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court rejected the challenge, ruling that the law did not violate the constitution. The court’s decision was based on the argument that the law’s provisions were aimed at improving the economy and creating jobs, which are important goals for the country’s development.
However, some critics of the law have argued that the Constitutional Court’s decision was politically motivated, and that the court did not adequately consider the potential negative impacts of the law on labor and the environment.
Despite the court’s decision, opposition to the law continues to be strong, with labor unions and civil society groups staging protests and strikes against it. The government has defended the law, arguing that it will help to attract investment and create jobs, and has emphasized the need for dialogue and cooperation to address concerns about its impact.