You must be a gamer 61 posts in over 3 years.
Even if the guy was retreched the company could not have predicted the outcome.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Cell C clarifies employee suicide
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
You must be a gamer 61 posts in over 3 years.
Even if the guy was retreched the company could not have predicted the outcome.
I agree.
And if anyone want to assume, please use could have/would have, instead of could of and would of.
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
lol... there's a lot of Cell-C apologists in this thread! 
Guys, they won't be giving you any kind of discount just cos you went out of your way to stand up for them every time they end up looking bad!
Guys, they won't be giving you any kind of discount just cos you went out of your way to stand up for them every time they end up looking bad!
So? Like I said before, if he was retrenched and he killed himself over it, then he had WAY bigger problems than just losing his job.
I still dont think Cell C is to blame over this.
Overall I think retrenching people to increase your bottom line sucks. But then again you cant fire people in this country for non performance, so what else do you do with them?
facts about retrenchmenta are clearly missing from this thread!
first a section 189 letter is issued to all staff. it notifies people of an INTENTION to start a retrenchment process.
then a whole series of consultations with all possibly effected staff take place.
management proposes alternative employment options - move to different departments etc. retrench = last resort.
cell c could not possibly have even come close to deciding who is going to get retrenched.
so all your conjecture is FAIL.
this is a gazetted legal process. it does not require a company to talk to a union. cell c did not do anything wrong.
ps: I was retrenched last year, it was over a month before I knew whether or not it was final. if you have been there 10 years you would have got a big payout.
there are obviously other issues involved in the suicide. dont blame cell c for following letter of the law and being financially prudent enough to realize they are overstaffed.
first a section 189 letter is issued to all staff. it notifies people of an INTENTION to start a retrenchment process.
then a whole series of consultations with all possibly effected staff take place.
management proposes alternative employment options - move to different departments etc. retrench = last resort.
cell c could not possibly have even come close to deciding who is going to get retrenched.
so all your conjecture is FAIL.
this is a gazetted legal process. it does not require a company to talk to a union. cell c did not do anything wrong.
ps: I was retrenched last year, it was over a month before I knew whether or not it was final. if you have been there 10 years you would have got a big payout.
there are obviously other issues involved in the suicide. dont blame cell c for following letter of the law and being financially prudent enough to realize they are overstaffed.
ranger
Expert Member
BTW., on Wed 30 May, I was in training with a friend of this Cell C employee, and he stated that the employee and the employee's family knew on the Tuesday that he had been retrenched.