More than a Gain: Defend the Achievement,
Expect the Counterattack
Notes after the recent worker's strike in Kowloon House restaurant
There are labor disputes that remain confined within the narrow corridors of negotiation, resolved through technical adjustments that leave little trace beyond the parties involved. And then there are those that escape such containment—episodes that, in their unfolding, illuminate not only the internal workings of a single enterprise but also the broader condition of labor in a particular moment of economic and political life. The recent strike involving workers at Kowloon House belongs to this latter category. It is, at its surface, a dispute over wages—modest wages at that—but in its progression, it has revealed deeper questions about obligation, sustainability, perception, and the continuing tension between growth and distribution.
The dispute began, as many do, with a number. Not a large one. Not a figure that would disrupt corporate projections or unsettle investors. ₱25. In the abstract, it is negligible. In the lived economy of a worker, it is not. It does not purchase comfort, but it can forestall deprivation. It does not transform a household budget, but it can prevent its collapse. To understand the strike, one must begin with this dual character of the number—insignificant in one ledger, consequential in another.
Yet even this ₱25 was not the original point of contention. The workers’ claim was anchored in a higher figure—₱108 in cumulative daily wage adjustments—derived from what they assert was a failure to implement provisions of a 2021 Collective Bargaining Agreement and to comply with existing wage orders. Over the course of negotiation, that figure diminished. From ₱108 it fell to ₱55, then to ₱35, and finally to ₱25. At each stage, the workers yielded ground. At each stage, the expectation was that management would meet them within that narrowing space. Instead, the response settled at ₱13, later extended, with visible reluctance, to ₱18.
The persistence of disagreement despite the shrinking of demands suggests that the dispute was not merely about the magnitude of the increase. It was about the nature of the obligation. If the workers’ claim is understood as rooted in an existing agreement, then the question becomes not how much can be afforded, but whether what has already been agreed upon will be honored. In this sense, the dispute moved from the realm of negotiation into the realm of compliance.
Management’s position, articulated through its legal counsel, drew upon a structured and familiar narrative. The company, it was said, stood at a “critical crossroads,” confronted by rising costs and declining demand. The global oil situation was cited as a factor increasing production expenses. Franchisees, who reportedly account for a significant portion of the company’s revenue, were said to be withdrawing support. The strike itself was characterized as premature, disruptive, and damaging. “Right now, 5,000 siopaos are about to spoil because they are not letting us in,” counsel Perlito Campanilla remarked, invoking a vivid image of loss. Within this framework, the ₱13 increase was presented as the limit of sustainability. “The ₱13 a day salary increase is the only amount sustainable for us to offer,” he stated, adding that the company was attempting to “cut corners” to reach ₱18.
There is a coherence to this argument. Businesses do operate under constraints. Costs rise, markets fluctuate, and decisions must be made within finite margins. The invocation of sustainability reflects a legitimate concern with continuity. Yet the application of this concept in the present case invites scrutiny. Sustainability, as presented, functions primarily as a ceiling on labor compensation. It defines what cannot be given, but leaves unexamined how resources are distributed within the enterprise. It constrains wages, but does not interrogate profits.
The scale of operations provides a necessary context. Kowloon House is not a marginal entity. With a network of outlets and a production system capable of generating thousands of units daily, it occupies a stable position within its sector. Reports of daily revenues reaching hundreds of thousands of pesos—whether exact or approximate—reinforce the perception of operational capacity. Against this backdrop, the assertion that a ₱25 increase is unsustainable raises a broader question: whether the issue is truly one of capacity, or one of priority.
The counsel’s defense extended further, highlighting the range of benefits provided to employees. Vacation leave, sick leave convertible to cash, birthday incentives, bonuses, health maintenance coverage, early retirement options—these were enumerated as evidence of the company’s commitment to its workforce. These benefits, it was argued, are comparable to those offered by multinational corporations. The implication is that the overall compensation package should be viewed as adequate, even generous.
There is merit in considering total compensation. Benefits do contribute to employee welfare. However, their presence does not negate the obligation to implement agreed wage adjustments. Nor does it address the issue of wage progression. Workers with long tenures, some exceeding a decade, have reportedly experienced stagnation or even reduction in real earnings when adjusted for inflation. In such cases, benefits can mitigate risk, but they do not substitute for fair and consistent wage growth.
More importantly, the framing of benefits as evidence of generosity introduces a subtle shift in the discourse. It moves the conversation from obligation to benevolence. It suggests that compliance with agreed terms is secondary to the provision of discretionary advantages. For workers asserting a contractual right, this shift is not merely rhetorical; it is substantive.
It is in this context that a more critical interpretation emerges—one that sees management’s public posture not only as a defense, but as a form of positioning. It is not surprising that such statements may be perceived as part of a broader public relations effort. In disputes that unfold under public scrutiny, the framing of the narrative becomes as important as the negotiation itself. By emphasizing constraints, highlighting benefits, and portraying the strike as disruptive, management seeks to align public perception with its position.
This perception is reinforced by the broader environment in which labor disputes now occur. The discourse surrounding unions has, in recent years, acquired a sharper tone. Phrases such as “unions ruin businesses” circulate with increasing frequency. In more extreme instances, labor organizing is framed as subversive, as a threat to industrial peace. In such a climate, even legitimate demands—grounded in agreements and moderated through negotiation—risk being recast as destabilizing.
The Kowloon dispute must be understood within this context. The workers’ demands were neither radical nor excessive. They were anchored in an existing agreement and reduced through negotiation. Yet the framing of the dispute—both implicitly and explicitly—placed the burden of justification on the workers. Their insistence on compliance was presented, in some quarters, as a potential threat to stability.
This inversion of perspective is instructive. It suggests that the threshold for acceptable labor action has shifted. Where once the failure to honor agreements might have been the primary concern, the focus now often rests on the disruption caused by workers seeking to enforce those agreements.
The strike itself, lasting six days, brought these tensions into relief. Production was halted. Orders went unserved. Franchise relationships were strained. These are real consequences, and they underscore the costs associated with industrial action. But the strike also performed a function that cannot be reduced to cost. It made visible the dependency of the enterprise on labor. It demonstrated that production is not an autonomous process, but one sustained by human effort.
The image of spoiling siopao, offered as evidence of loss, can also be read as an unintended admission. It reveals how quickly operations falter in the absence of labor. It underscores the centrality of workers to the enterprise’s functioning. In this sense, the strike did not create vulnerability; it exposed it.
The resolution of the dispute, reached through mediation, reflects both concession and compromise. Workers secured a ₱20 daily increase, the reopening of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and the restoration of service charge benefits through a staggered scheme. The outcome did not fully meet the original claims, but it marked a shift from resistance to accommodation. It demonstrated that even under pressure, management can be compelled to adjust its position.
The reopening of the CBA is particularly significant. Collective agreements are the institutional expression of negotiated rights. When they are not implemented, their legitimacy is undermined. By forcing the company back to the table, the workers reasserted the binding nature of these agreements. They did not merely secure an increment; they restored a process.
From a business perspective, the episode offers several lessons. The cost of prolonged conflict can exceed the cost of earlier compliance. Disruptions to production, damage to reputation, and strain on partnerships carry implications that extend beyond immediate financial calculations. The credibility of management commitments is central to maintaining stable labor relations. Where there is a perception of non-compliance, the risk of escalation increases.
At the same time, the outcome must be approached with caution. Gains achieved under pressure are not immune to subsequent erosion. Implementation becomes the critical phase. Delays, reinterpretations, or partial compliance can undermine the substance of the agreement. In this sense, the conclusion of the strike marks not an end, but a transition.
The historical context adds further weight. The company’s experience in 2008, when workers were terminated following a strike over a wage increase, serves as a reminder that labor relations are shaped by precedent. Past actions inform present expectations. The recent dispute, while resolved, exists within this broader trajectory.
For workers, the lesson is clear: gains must be defended. The unity that enabled the strike must be sustained in its aftermath. For management, the challenge is to move beyond defensive narratives and toward a more stable framework of engagement—one that recognizes the importance of trust as a component of operational continuity.
The broader implications extend beyond a single enterprise. The Kowloon case illustrates the continuing relevance of collective bargaining in a labor market characterized by increasing precarity. It demonstrates that organized labor, even when limited in scope, can exert meaningful influence. It underscores the role of institutional mechanisms in facilitating resolution.
At a more fundamental level, the dispute returns us to a simple question: not whether a company can afford to do more, but why it chooses not to. This is not a question that can be answered by financial statements alone. It is a question of priorities—of how value is distributed, of whose claims are recognized, of what is considered negotiable.
In the end, the significance of the Kowloon strike lies not in the specific figure agreed upon, but in the process through which it was achieved. A ₱20 increase, in isolation, is modest. Within the context of a contested agreement, it represents a recalibration of expectations. It signals that commitments can be enforced, that narratives of inevitability can be challenged, and that collective action retains its force.
But it is also a reminder that such gains are provisional. They exist within a dynamic relationship, subject to ongoing negotiation. The counterattack—whether overt or subtle—is always a possibility. To defend the achievement, therefore, is not merely to celebrate it, but to ensure its durability.
More than a gain, this episode is a demonstration. And like all demonstrations born of conflict, it carries both instruction and warning.