Article: 'Why I am marching today'

[Sly21C]

Hear from the ordinary people

Cosatu supporters protesting against the e-tolling system and labour brokers started marching from Beyers Naude Square in Johannesburg around 10am on Wednesday.

Marshals were controlling the crowd, which had almost filled the square, while more protesters joined the throngs by the busload and on foot.

Protesters were converging on the square from all directions.

Aggie Semenya, who works for Joburg Water, said electronic tolling would eat into her already tight finances.

“I am striking to stop toll roads because I spend a lot already on transport and this is going to get worse. I travel from Soweto to Sandton every day.”

Vivian Buso said she was joining the nationwide strike because she wanted a full time job.

Fellow protester Justice Moloto said: “I want a full time job, that’s is why I am supporting this protest.

“For 13 years I have worked for the post office, but because I was employed by a labour broker I stayed temporary, earning R2000 a month. I should be permanent, earning R8000 a month. Labour brokers must go.”

Obed Aphanye said he was worried about how e-tolling would affect his livelihood.

“I am here over the toll gates. As a driver I can see what these tolls are going to do to businesses and ordinary people. They cannot be allowed.”

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2012/03/07/why-i-am-marching-today

What grabbed my attention on the above article is a protester who wants a fulll time job (permanent employee) and not a part time job (temporary employee). He has been working for 13 years earning 25% of he should be earning.

Are labour brokers that exploitative? Did Justice exaggerate or is what is happening to him normal?

 

[Sly21C]

Busy reading some of the comments below the article, I'll quote two that I find interesting:

snorbaard
Not all labour brokers must be banned. What about highly skilled people who contract via labour brokers out of choice? I fully agree that lower income earners must be protected because they have limited options, but at the upper segment of the market it does not work that way. If my broker screwes me around then I fire him and go somewhere else. You cannot paint the entire industry with the same brush.

LaVidaLoca
My friend is under a labour broker and he is suppose to get R15200 pm, but instead he gets R10000,..the agency takes R5200....For what?

 

[Brawler]

Well at least they knew what they were marching about unlike that idiot in Cape Town who was marching for the fun of it.

 

[The_Assimilator]

No-one forced him to use a labour broker and no-one is forcing him to continue using one.

 

[LazyLion]

So why didn't he resign from the Labour Broker and apply directly to the Post Office? Who was preventing him from doing that?

 

[Sly21C]

So why didn't he resign from the Labour Broker and apply directly to the Post Office? Who was preventing him from doing that?

Maybe he's afraid that if he resigns he might not get rehired? He might not get another job? R2000 is better than R0.

 

[Albereth]

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2012/03/07/why-i-am-marching-today

What grabbed my attention on the above article is a protester who wants a fulll time job (permanent employee) and not a part time job (temporary employee). He has been working for 13 years earning 25% of he should be earning.

Are labour brokers that exploitative? Did Justice exaggerate or is what is happening to him normal?

Or he could be earning R0.

Why is there this assumption that all those employed by labour brokers would find permanent employment? Surely if this were true everyone would already have a permanent job?

 

[Ou grote]

Maybe he's afraid that if he resigns he might not get rehired? He might not get another job? R2000 is better than R0.

If it wasn't for the labour broker he would be earning R0.

If you ban labour brokers a lot more people will earn R0.

Did some sick person tell this poor guy that he will be getting a permanent job at R8000 pm if he joins the strike?

 

[SinghDude]

So why didn't he resign from the Labour Broker and apply directly to the Post Office? Who was preventing him from doing that?

The Post Office does not offer alot of vacancies at the bottom end of the corporate ladder. Most appointments are internal and only specialist and/or management positions are advertised externally.


Eg. A teller starting in the post office will have to start as a labour broker first to gain necessary experience, then apply once a position is advertised.


It will be virtually impossible for an individual to be hired as a teller straight from the outside with no knowledge of the environment and processes within SAPO.

 

[Sinbad]

I still maintain that the excessive protection that employees enjoy, the excessive power of unions and the sheer volume of red tape that companies face with regards to hiring and firing is the reason these labour brokers exist in the low end of the market anyway. They are putting the cart before the horse.
Take the risk away from hiring staff, and companies will do it rather than pay over the odds to a middleman.

 

[SinghDude]

Its the guys that are running the agencies that are smiling.


Most average a 30 % cut of the monthly salary for basically administrating the salary deposit of the labour broker.

Employers are scoring big time as there is no need to pay fringe benefits and they can show you the door whenever they feel like it !!!!

 

[Jweb_@@]

I still maintain that the excessive protection that employees enjoy, the excessive power of unions and the sheer volume of red tape that companies face with regards to hiring and firing is the reason these labour brokers exist in the low end of the market anyway. They are putting the cart before the horse.
Take the risk away from hiring staff, and companies will do it rather than pay over the odds to a middleman.

People empoyed through labour brokers have the same rights as permanent employees, so the red tape still applies.

 

[RaptorSA]

I still maintain that the excessive protection that employees enjoy, the excessive power of unions and the sheer volume of red tape that companies face with regards to hiring and firing is the reason these labour brokers exist in the low end of the market anyway. They are putting the cart before the horse.
Take the risk away from hiring staff, and companies will do it rather than pay over the odds to a middleman.

+1

 

[Jweb_@@]

Its the guys that are running the agencies that are smiling.


Most average a 30 % cut of the monthly salary for basically administrating the salary deposit of the labour broker.

Employers are scoring big time as there is no need to pay fringe benefits and they can show you the door whenever they feel like it !!!!

I would be interesting to see the average difference between permanent employees salaries vs the gross amount paid to labour brokers.

 

[Jweb_@@]

If it wasn't for the labour broker he would be earning R0.

If you ban labour brokers a lot more people will earn R0.

Did some sick person tell this poor guy that he will be getting a permanent job at R8000 pm if he joins the strike?

I don't understand the reasoning here. Why do people assume that LB's are responsible for creating employment. If that LB goes bust tonight, the PO would still need that guy to do his job tomorrow.

 

[Jweb_@@]

It would be interesting if someone could actually stipulate why LB's are essential and why companies prefer to use them as opposed to contracting directly with the employee.
Personally, I agree that they can add value to SHORT term projects and CASUAL jobs,but 13 years is ridiculous though.

 

[Sinbad]

People empoyed through labour brokers have the same rights as permanent employees, so the red tape still applies.

Employers are scoring big time as there is no need to pay fringe benefits and they can show you the door whenever they feel like it !!!!

Contradictory statements here. Which one is correct?

 

[karnuffel]

All you guys see is the money, being a permanent employee will not increase their salary by much, the fact that someone has gone out and foud a place for them to work must count for something?

Why I use labor brokers:

1. I have a small consulting firm and I dont have time to perform all the HR functions. I get billed once a month by the labor broker and I pay them happily.
2. Employing guys on a permanent basis is risky because I might not have work for them after a few months
3. If I get someone that says he/she can do xyz but cant I phone the broker and tell him to GTFO and take his placement with. I cannot afford to sit with an employee that cannot do the job.
4. Since I am still new with the whole running a business thing I dont know much about UIF, workmans compensation etc. I need to focus on getting my business running.
5. It happens quite often that I only need a specific skill for a few weeks, should I employ someone and then retrench him afterward?

Lets be honest, banning labor brokers will do more harm to SME's than you think.

The argument of "I could earn x% more if I was a perm" does not hold water. I will not pay a permanent employee the same salary as the amount I am paying the broker. I pay a premium for the advantages listed above. Yes I can offer him/her a few ZARS more than what he would earn under the labor broker, but in the long run it would cost me a lot more.

 

[_Jakes_]

If its a permanent position then companies shouldn't be allowed to use Labour Brokers but it should be allowed for Short-Term, Project and seasonal work. Being employed for 13 years in that positions means that she must be able to do the work otherwise they would have replaced her long ago with someone else. The fact that she's been employed for so long in that position means that its not a temporary position.

To reduce the risk of employing someone that's not up to scratch just use probationary clauses in the employment contract and disciplinary action when they don't perform there after. HR people are just too lazy to do the extra work that is required to do it properly. The use of performance contracts will allow a company to fire someone if they don't perform, easy as that.

No one can argue that some people are not being exploited but because of this the unions are once again throwing out the baby with the bath water. They should just regulate the market so that permanent positions are not filled by Labour Brokers; there are lots of legitimate work that requires the use of Labour brokers.

 

[Ou grote]

I don't understand the reasoning here. Why do people assume that LB's are responsible for creating employment. If that LB goes bust tonight, the PO would still need that guy to do his job tomorrow.

They got the job for him.