31 having 12-hour shifts. More than 75% of the respondents stated that their work equipment was maintained, and 82.1% were adequately trained to handle the machinery. 53.8% shared that they had workplace safety signs, and 54.8% also said that these were prominently displayed. 75% had fire exits, extinguishers, and other safety equipment, and most had easily accessible facilities/workplaces. However, like in other areas, the consistency of equipment maintenance differed among the survey participants—some had their machinery maintained daily, weekly, or monthly, while others only did so on their initiative or when mishaps occurred. 58.1% also reported having safety officers, with the majority stating they were properly trained. Furthermore, 53.6% stated that management/employers had no mechanism to warn them of workplace hazards or risks. More importantly, only 50% of the participants knew they had the right to refuse work if they felt there were hazards or risks to them or their colleagues. 32.3% shared that they were forced to work anyway despite fears for their health and safety. Crucially, 83.9% of the survey participants stated that they were not consulted or included in the development, planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting of OSH programs by their company management/employer. Only 25% knew they had colleagues in their company's OSH committee. 57.1% never experienced any labor or OSH inspection. Labor and OSH Standards during the ECQ Period Regarding participant experiences during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, 56.7% reported that their company/workplace had closed during the ECQ period. 43.4% of these were inactive for a year or more. At the same time, almost threequarters of the respondents were rehired once operations were restored. Respondents also shared varying sources of support during this time. Help came in the form of ayuda or financial assistance from NGAs, and LGUs. Some companies provided support for their employees or paid wages in advance, but there were cases of aid being given as loans or through wage deductions. It is important to note that more than three-quarters of respondents (77.3%) expressed that they could not access any form of social protection during the loss of their livelihood during the lockdown period. Accessing social amelioration