Article: 'Why I am marching today'

[_Jakes_]

Of course.
But banning labour brokers would put you in a difficult situation as a small employer, or someone who takes on project work. This would have a negative impact on the economy, end of story.

The correct approach should be to regulate and police them. They provide a valuable service, and SOME of them engage in abusive practices. So do we ban cars because Gareth Cliff was speeding?

I'm all for labour brokers when they are used for seasonal, project or other short term employment. The problem comes in when someone is employed for 13 years through a labour broker in the same position and gets paid half or 1/3 of the money paid by the employer. The unions should learn how to articulate their problems instead of making blanket statements that scares everyone.

* You can replace unions with polititions and just about everyone in South Africa with an issue.

 

[DJ...]

Discussed in depth here yesterday - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthr...on-Wednesday?p=7848551&viewfull=1#post7848551

I don't feel like repeating everything but most of the posts are very applicable to this conversation...

 

[DJ...]

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.

This is exactly why I posted the shocking stats of small business success yesterday. It is deplorable how many hurdles are place din the way of SMEs and it results in a very large percentage of them shutting shop within 3 to 5 years. Good on you btw...

 

[DJ...]

Does anyone have an issue with my suggestion of an oversight body such as a labour broker ombudsman? Or should this not merely be left for the interpretation of the labour courts which are already established? What needs to be defined is abuse, however as I've already posted, there cannot simply be a standard time-frame imposed on labour brokers as no two projects are the same. Abuse will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, alternatively we just ban them outright and force greater unemployment and pressure on corporate South Africa.

The problem with the likes of Cosatu and the ANC is that they constantly depict corporate South Africa to their minions as these evil capitalist, white bastards. Which is the furtherest thing from the truth. This constant vitriol towards the business world is impacting on productivity, job growth, economic growth, job satisfaction and every other facet of employment in this day and age. It is utterly ridiculous that something as important as labour broking is being lobbied to be banned, all because the union is peeved at labour broker employees not being unionised...

 

[Jweb_@@]

Yes it would, as it would be a waste of time talking to anyone that was indoctrinated.

So then pretend that I am not indoctrinated.
Or at least attempt to enlighten me.
We really live in a prejudiced society, and if it continues this way, government will continue bending us over, black and white alike.


I'm thinking that the reason the support for the strike was dismal can be attributed to this type of reasoning.
We had a real opportunity yesterday to show government how we feel about the tolls, but because COSATU initiated the strike, and because it's rolled up with the labour broker issue, and because people think COSATU are twats, people refused to join in. So a few months from now, when you get your first bill from SANRAL, and you grudgingly pay it cos they threatening to arrest or blacklist you, remember March 7 2012, cos that's the day you could've done something about it, but refused to.

I might not agree with all COSATU's policies, but I respect them, cos they stand up for what they believe in.

 

[DJ...]

So then pretend that I am not indoctrinated.
Or at least attempt to enlighten me.
We really live in a prejudiced society, and if it continues this way, government will continue bending us over, black and white alike.


I'm thinking that the reason the support for the strike was dismal can be attributed to this type of reasoning.
We had a real opportunity yesterday to show government how we feel about the tolls, but because COSATU initiated the strike, and because it's rolled up with the labour broker issue, and because people think COSATU are twats, people refused to join in. So a few months from now, when you get your first bill from SANRAL, and you grudgingly pay it cos they threatening to arrest or blacklist you, remember March 7 2012, cos that's the day you could've done something about it, but refused to.

I might not agree with all COSATU's policies, but I respect them, cos they stand up for what they believe in.

I, and the majority of South Africa are not legally covered under the strike. Should we now forfeit a day's pay on top of it all?

 

[Jweb_@@]

Does anyone have an issue with my suggestion of an oversight body such as a labour broker ombudsman? Or should this not merely be left for the interpretation of the labour courts which are already established? What needs to be defined is abuse, however as I've already posted, there cannot simply be a standard time-frame imposed on labour brokers as no two projects are the same. Abuse will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis, alternatively we just ban them outright and force greater unemployment and pressure on corporate South Africa.

The problem with the likes of Cosatu and the ANC is that they constantly depict corporate South Africa to their minions as these evil capitalist, white bastards. Which is the furtherest thing from the truth. This constant vitriol towards the business world is impacting on productivity, job growth, economic growth, job satisfaction and every other facet of employment in this day and age. It is utterly ridiculous that something as important as labour broking is being lobbied to be banned, all because the union is peeved at labour broker employees not being unionised...

I don't have an issue, but how do you propose the implementation of such an organisation? If you find that there has been abuse, who do you penailse? The LB or the company? Do you now force the company to employ Justice permantly?
Also, since Justice has been working here for 13 years, he most probably can't get another job. So would he really want to risk his job by laying a formal complaint?

I really don't envy the person who will be mediating these negotiations, if it does come to that.

 

[Sinbad]

If cosatu is serious about the etolling thing and not just using it to score points/gain support, then let them organise protests AGAINST IT SPECIFICALLY.
Mixing issues dilutes the impact on BOTH issues - as sanral will say "oh but most of the people were there for labour broking" and the labour brokers will say "ah but everyone was there because of etolling".

 

[DJ...]

I don't have an issue, but how do you propose the implementation of such an organisation? If you find that there has been abuse, who do you penailse? The LB or the company?

The labour broker, of course. They are ultimately responsible. The logistics and admin of this are actually quite simple...

Do you now force the company to employ Justice permantly?

No, that's what you and Cosatu are trying to force...

Also, since Justice has been working here for 13 years, he most probably can't get another job. So would he really want to risk his job by laying a formal complaint?

You're making too many assumptions on Justice's behalf. Regardless, I don't see how this is any different to existing CCMA and Labour Court issues. Moreover, the law would be on Justice's side. If he chooses not to use it then that is simply his problem...

I really don't envy the person who will be mediating these negotiations, if it does come to that.

There is no mediator. This is an ambudsman-type body. They review cases and make rulings. They do not mediate between parties...

 

[Jweb_@@]

I, and the majority of South Africa are not legally covered under the strike. Should we now forfeit a day's pay on top of it all?

If you really wanted, you could have made a plan.
I was with the "masses" till 11, then i came back to work. I know alot of companies, in anticipation of a full blown riot, allowed their staff to take a days leave as well.

Or alternatively, join COSATU, and you'll be protected for the next strike.

 

[DJ...]

If you really wanted, you could have made a plan.
I was with the "masses" till 11, then i came back to work. I know alot of companies, in anticipation of a full blown riot, allowed their staff to take a days leave as well.

Or alternatively, join COSATU, and you'll be protected for the next strike.

Well as an employer, I refused to allow a day of no productivity in my business. We simply cannot afford it. Allowances were made for after-hours protests but they were limp-wristed to the point of being useless. I also refused to be a part of the labour broking issue and I believe Cosatu to be a group of opportunistic thugs...

 

[Jweb_@@]

The labour broker, of course. They are ultimately responsible. The logistics and admin of this are actually quite simple...

Not necessarily. A LB will never turn down extra cash. He's not going to say, "Errr, Mr Tshabala, John's been temping for 6 years now, you need to employ him permanently"
The onus rests with the employer.

No, that's what you and Cosatu are trying to force...

No, I'm saying that all temp and permanent appointments should be handled in the same manner. The LB gets his fee upfront, and the employee is contracted to the company.
In doing it this way, there will be no incentive to keep poor Justice temping for 13 years.
Short term projects are obviously an exception.

 

[Jweb_@@]

Well as an employer, I refused to allow a day of no productivity in my business. We simply cannot afford it. Allowances were made for after-hours protests but they were limp-wristed to the point of being useless. I also refused to be a part of the labour broking issue and I believe Cosatu to be a group of opportunistic thugs...

It's your right to choose, but also remember that our choices have consequences attached to them.

 

[DJ...]

Not necessarily. A LB will never turn down extra cash. He's not going to say, "Errr, Mr Tshabala, John's been temping for 6 years now, you need to employ him permanently"
The onus rests with the employer.

Of course not. That is where the ombudsman steps in. Until then, John has been the sole responsibility of his employer - the labour broker...

No, I'm saying that all temp and permanent appointments should be handled in the same manner. The LB gets his fee upfront, and the employee is contracted to the company.
In doing it this way, there will be no incentive to keep poor Justice temping for 13 years.

All you'll do is eradicate human capital companies. Instead of investing in their people, they will just become a bog-standard recruitment company. You kill the industry.

Short term projects are obviously an exception.

Define 'short'...

 

[DJ...]

It's your right to choose, but also remember that our choices have consequences attached to them.

Thanks. I'll print that on a scout badge...

 

[Jweb_@@]

Thanks. I'll print that on a scout badge...

That just cracked me up.
I gotta hand it to you though, you seem more open minded than most people.

 

[Sly21C]

Reading all the posts, I agree that an outright ban on labour brokers will do already struggling SMME's a disservice. Labour brokers must be regulated strictly. It's ridiculous that Justice is employed for 13 years as a temporary worker. At the same time entrepreneurs must focus on growing their businesses instead of being bombarded with issues that will not help to grow their business, hence labour broking is required.

Cosatu are against labour brokers because they are afraid that in future labour brokers will be used by most companies and Cosatu will lose their revenue stream and therefore their power. So they won't settle for anything less, they won't settle for regulation. They want labour broking eliminated.

 

[BBSA]

Sly, have you ever ask yourself why are labour brokers so popular is South Africa?

 

[eltherza]

Someone help me understand this a little better.

So John needs work. He struggles to find work so he approaches a LB who hires him as an employee.

Companies now call the LB to provide staff as a service to the company but with extra costs. The main advantage being that services are easier to terminate than employment.

The LB takes a premium and pays John. After some time, John begins to feel that the LB is abusing him because he believes hes worth more than his salary (and the premium should be his as well)

Also, on the side, the unions dont like it because they believe LB are "stealing" employment because everyone uses LB so there are less jobs to people (ultimately forcing the unemployed to join LB to get work).

Does that sum up everyones view on LB?