Rahmat Wibowo documented his deadlocked bipartite meeting with PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia (formerly Liven), accusing the company of exploiting logical fallacies and manufacturing a shadow employment classification to deny worker protections, and framing their defamation reference as an implicit threat dressed as mercy.

Jobs Games When adays Probation Ending Becomes a ‘Missconduct By. Nomen Formety Liven 50: CVs When "Probation Ending" Becomes a Legal Euphemism: Bipartite Meetings with Nomni Formerly Liven (PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia ) What happened in my bipartite meeting with Nomni Formerly Liven (PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia ) and why it matters for every Indonesian worker navigating the startup ecosystem. On June 3, 2026, | sat across the table at the Dinas Tenaga Kerja Kabupaten Tangerang for a bipartite negotiation with PT Nomnie Technologies Indonesia (Liven). The result: deadlock. Both parties signed the minutes confirming no agreement was reached, and the dispute moves forward to tripartite mediation. | want to document what happened — not just for my own record, but because the reasoning | encountered is a pattern I've now seen repeated across Indonesian startups. It's a pattern that deserves serious scrutiny. What | Walked In With | arrived with four documented claims — and | brought the articles. | came prepared with citations to UU No. 6 Tahun 2023 (UU Cipta Kerja) and PP No. 35/2021. | didn't go in empty- handed. | went in with a legal framework. What | received back was a series of rejections, some procedurally dressed, others frankly philosophical, and a closing argument that, looking back, revealed a pattern of how some startups manage labor disputes without a proper lawyer present. The Logical Fallacies, One by One Fallacy One: "It's not PHK, it's just probation ending" This is the most widespread semantic trick in Indonesian startup HR culture. The argument goes: because you were terminated during probation, no formal PHK occurred, therefore none of the procedural and compensatory protections for PHK apply. This argument is legally flawed in a specific, measurable way. What startups are doing is creating a third legal category that does not exist in Indonesian law: a “probation exit" that is neither PKWTT termination nor PKWT. expiry. They are manufacturing a shadow employment classification. The violation in this case is arithmetic, not interpretation. Look at the calendar: When | cited this, the response was essentially: the contract says 7 days, and we gave 7 days. This conflates calendar days with working days — and more critically, a contract clause that provides fewer rights than the statutory minimum is void by operation of law (Pasal 52 UU Ketenagakerjaan: terms below the legal minimum are automatically replaced by the legal minimum). Fallacy Two: "Your referral work was voluntary — like cleaning someone's car" This is where the negotiation took a turn | did not expect. When I raised the 50+ CVs | submitted to their recruitment pipeline, the company argued that because this was done outside my job description and without written instruction, no compensation was owed. The analogy offered: if you help someone clean their car, you don't automatically get paid for it. Let me show exactly why this analogy fails. your personal initiative" For work performed before April 1— including a P1 incident response report — the argument was that no employment relationship existed yet, so nothing is owed. This is the strongest of their procedural arguments — but it still has a counter. | was already in their internal systems before April 1. Being added to company infrastructure before a formal start date is an act of onboarding, not volunteerism. Fallacy Four — The Most Troubling : "We're being merciful by not reporting you for corporate defamation" This one deserves its own section, because it is not a legal argument at all. It is an implicit threat dressed as generosity. The idea that choosing not to file a criminal defamation report under UU ITE constitutes "good faith" or "mercy" ina labor dispute is a serious misuse of legal framing. UU ITE defamation requires proof of a specific, false statement made with intent to damage reputation. Documenting a labor dispute — filing bipartite claims, raising legal questions, sharing factual accounts of termination — does not meet that threshold. tsptes associ in as the ase exlic prevent What strikes me most in hindsight is that they conducted this entire negotiation without a lawyer present. No Advokat. No Konsultan Hukum. A General Manager and an HRBP — both presumably non-lawyers — were making substantive arguments about PP 35/2021 and KUH Perdata, while simultaneously invoking criminal proceedings under UU ITE. That combination is not just legally risky for them. It made the session less structured, less predictable, and ultimately less productive than it should have been. Bipartite negotiation under Indonesian law is a mandatory step designed for genuine resolution — not performance. Why Startups Do This: A Pattern Analysis This is not unique to Liven. Across Indonesian startups, a behavioral pattern has emerged around probation terminations that | believe deserves naming clearly. The "garden leave" concept — keeping someone on payroll but inactive before formal exit — has no basis in Indonesian labor statute unless explicitly negotiated in the employment contract. It is borrowed from Anglo- American practice and does not map cleanly onto PKWTT/PKWT structures. When a startup invokes it without a contractual foundation, they are operating on assumption, not law. What the Bipartite Process Revealed One thing the signed Berita Acara confirms on the record: the company now acknowledges this dispute exists. They cannot claim they had no notice of my claims. The deadlock is documented. The four points are in the public administrative record at Dinas Tenaga Kerja Kota Tangerang. This matters because the tripartite process — with a mediator from the government — will evaluate whether the company's responses were legally grounded or merely asserted. The mediator is not bound by the company's interpretation of "7 days." They are bound by PP 35/2021. | want to be clear: | am not writing this out of bitterness. I'm writing it because | believe in transparent documentation of institutional behavior, and because workers in the tech sector — hired quickly and terminated quietly — often don't know what the law actually says. What Comes Next The dispute now proceeds to tripartite mediation at Dinas Tenaga Kerja Kabupaten Tangerang. If mediation fails, the matter is eligible for referral to the Pengadilan Hubungan Industrial (PHI). | will continue documenting this process publicly — not to damage, but to inform. The labor ecosystem in Indonesian tech is young and unevenly understood. Every worker who reads this should know: the law has specific words, and those words mean something. #LaborLaw #IndonesiaLaw #Techindustry #WorkerRights #PHK #Probation #UUCiptaKerja #Ketenagakerjaanindonesia #StartupCulture#Infraloka