Telkom's workers are furious at fat cat slave drivers

I think they would - especially if these guys hate Telkom - if they are smart and give good working conditions they could get alot out of it
 
I wonder if they get a discount on the phone bill
When I joined Telkom, you got two things:

Housing Subsidy
Telephone rebate to the value of R200

In early 1997 I was informed that the housing subsidy would be falling away and the rebate would go too. When I left Telkom the telephone rebate was still in place. I don't know if it still is.
 
andres101 said:
i think telkom techies would have signed NDA's preventing them from joining the SNO.

Not possible - A document indicating that you may not work for the competition of a monopoly simply does not exist. You have the right to work. No way in hell a NDA would stand up in any court.
 
The brunt of consumer abuse, however, is borne by the call centre operators, based in Johannesburg
So how come last time I phoned the call center when ever it rains and my ADSL drops I got something like this:

"Sir, I wish my ADSL went down everytime it rained. Here in Cape Town we have not had rain in months"

Told the person I would gladly trade half my rain for a half good service.. Still waiting :(
 
This stuff is hecting man.. geez.. how can they get away with this? They're doing whatever they want to whoever they want! Record earnings, and sweet f0koll for the call center staff? No man.. no.. This is pure evil, I don't know how else to put it.
 
stoke said:
Not possible - A document indicating that you may not work for the competition of a monopoly simply does not exist. You have the right to work. No way in hell a NDA would stand up in any court.

You'd be surprised as to how often this happens, many of the corporates try to restrict their employees thru restraints of trade and various other restrictive agreements. I agree that often these documents would not stand up in a court but it's the old story of who has the deeper pockets to fight it out the longest.
It's usually more of an intimidatiary tactic that all to often works.
 
kb said:
You'd be surprised as to how often this happens, many of the corporates try to restrict their employees thru restraints of trade and various other restrictive agreements. I agree that often these documents would not stand up in a court but it's the old story of who has the deeper pockets to fight it out the longest.
It's usually more of an intimidatiary tactic that all to often works.

Most of the law in SA is about bluffing and deep pockets.

I remember a case a few years ago when a person was retrenced, and then his ex-employers cried foul when he joined to opposition... ruling was something like you can't prohibited a person from earning a living in a legal way.

I remember this well, as it was given while I was being retrenched and I was also subject to such a clause.

My lawyer advised me then that such clauses are subject to so many laws that they are worthless in almost all cases - if your pockets are deeper than your ex-employers pockets to fund the case.
 
kb said:
You'd be surprised as to how often this happens, many of the corporates try to restrict their employees thru restraints of trade and various other restrictive agreements. I agree that often these documents would not stand up in a court but it's the old story of who has the deeper pockets to fight it out the longest.
It's usually more of an intimidatiary tactic that all to often works.

When I started my last job I was handed a restraint of trade agreement saying I couldn't work within the same industry for a year after I left the company... I said thanks but no thanks and didn't sign it, they kept quiet after that ;)
 
Restraint of trade agreements are generally not worth the paper they're written on. However, if you receive some kind of benefit in return for signing one (a bonus, training, etc.) the company can sue you for the costs of the benefit if you default on the agreement. they cannot stop you from earning a living tho'.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X