Rephrase this statement into a brief and detailed one. Hanjin posits that the members of Samahan have definite employers. Hence, they should have formed a union instead of a workers' association. The Court disagrees. No provision in the Labor Code states that employees with definite employers may form, join, or assist unions only. The Court cannot subscribe to Hanjin's position that Samahan's members cannot form the association because they are not covered by the second sentence of Article 243 (now 249). Nothing in the preceding implementing rules provides that workers, with definite employers, cannot form or join a workers' association for mutual aid and protection. Section 2 broadens the coverage of workers who can form or join a workers' association. Thus, the Court agrees with Samahan's argument that the right to form a workers' association is not exclusive to ambulant, intermittent, and itinerant workers. The option to form or join a union or a workers' association lies with the workers and whether they have definite employers