Comments on: Salary Standardization Law 3: For Whose Benefit?

By: JOEY PINAGKAITAN

JOEY PINAGKAITAN — Fri, 13 May 2011 03:45:45 +0000

paano po ang employees ng duty free phils

By: jojie - engineer III

jojie - engineer III — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:01:49 +0000

you are somewhat correct on your comment. there are many low income govt. employees like utilities and the like. We support you on your cries. Simply because one time I belong to those employee whose salary grade belongs to the low income ones so I know the feeling of receiving a lower pay than those only chosen fews who receive a higher income but doing nothing. God Bless Us who support and hear our cries.

By: inday

inday — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 14:37:03 +0000

SSL3 implementation for LGU (Pto. galera) is really unfair for those employees on lower positions and for those whose duty is outside the municipal building.Department Heads especially the Budget Officer received 25% salary increase and other employees were based on their salary grade and step increment that’s why some of the employees were not entitled on salary increase for 2 consecutive years.Why these things happened?

By: raul mabini

raul mabini — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:26:17 +0000

SSL 3 is truly unfair to LGUs. 1st (E.O 811), 2nd (E.O.900), 3rd and 4th trance of SSL 3 implementation for LGU delays for six months or two years salary increase excluding the 4 (2009-2012) 13th month pays or bonuses. This is therefore a salary standardization for national employees and salary sub-standardization for LGU's employees.

By: edward

edward — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 20:55:59 +0000

even if the government will fully implement the salary standardization law of the teacher still it is not enough because teachers in the public school specially those who are teaching 6-7 subject per day is a burden already to prepare such bulk of visual aid…. lesson plan ,,,, almost 10 pesos per subject per day we cut it from our salary to provide visual aid.. 70 x 24 school days = 1680 per month.. or let may say 1000 per month…… plus you slept late ….. please NOY our President help us teachers

By: michael uy

michael uy — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:35:08 +0000

for all the math and science teachers there, kindly scrutinize the Dep Ed memo carefully if it goes with the intention of the congress. please email me also of the Conressional act regarding SSL 3 particularly stating the math and science teachers concern

By: michael uy

michael uy — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:33:20 +0000

this is just an inquiry to the Dep Ed Memo no. 203 s. 2010. the Dep Ed has cites several requirements before a math or science teacher may have the chance to avail of the benefits of step 3. for all the teachers know, the intention of the congress is clear enough to extend benefits to science and math teachers to encourage them to stay in the country, however with this implementation we are sure that math and science teachers diaspora will still continue. the intention of the congress is to grant math and science teachers of the benefits, but if we look into the contents of the Dep Ed. Memo, as if tyhey would not want to give to the teachers. there may be invalid classification of math and science teachers in big and small schools.

By: Gemma P. Sinday

Gemma P. Sinday — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:24:58 +0000

Are all the administrative officers not discharging their duties efficiently and effectively that their existence and the importance of their functions seem not seen and felt by the framers of Salary Standardization Law?

By: BUGOY

BUGOY — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:44:45 +0000

mabuti pa magpa member kayo sa BANGSAMORO DEV'T COUNCIL (BEDCO)PARA HINDI NA KAYO MAG AAWAY SA INCREASE SA GOBYERNO. HAHAHA MGA TANGA.

By: ARUY!!!

ARUY!!! — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:14:05 +0000

nganu man nang increase SA jULY WA MAN LABOT LGU, unya paman jan 2010? Pagshure mo unsa man ning LGU dili taga gobyerno? Dili mokaon? Wala manginahanglan?…