As far as I know this has more to do with getting rid of the middle man, which I fully support. I temped for 2 years once, through Emmanuels, and they took a nice slice of my pay cheque every week, and offered nothing tangible in return.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How impressed have you been with the 2026 Amazon Prime Day deals?
Massive e-toll protest on Wednesday
- Thread starter rpm
- Start date
As far as I know this has more to do with getting rid of the middle man, which I fully support. I temped for 2 years once, through Emmanuels, and they took a nice slice of my pay cheque every week, and offered nothing tangible in return.
ToxicBunny
Oi! Leave me out of this...
Except a job and a paycheck for providing you work.
It was a mistake (or intended plan?) when putting two completely different agendas together. Cosatu wanted to win labour brokers case by using E-tolling as a tool. Now it is going to turn into chaos...
Did they "create" the job? No.
Do they decide whether or not to employ you? No
You get the job based on your skils, not because agency X is pulling strings for you.
They really are just middle men, and the longer you stay on their payroll, the more money they earn. Needless to say, it's in their best interests to keep you in a temp position for as long as possible. For the employee this often translates to NO benefits, NO medical aid, NO pension/provident fund, and the big one, NO BONUSES.
OMB
Mountain Man
you were temping through them, if you didn't like it you could have just gone elsewhere
and :wtf: is a bonus?
Bern
Expert Member
Precisely - labour brokering is the middle man component where some company takes a nice commission on your hourly rate for mostly not doing much. Although the law permits you a lot of rights (basically if work like you are a proper employee even if it is for a short time you are protected by law with the same rights as a full employee) brokerages normally just muddy the water which mainly affects the lower end guys who aren't clued up and can't afford lawyers. It also gets companies to THINK they are protected from labour issues when actually they are not.
For skilled work it is easy enough to get around this by delivering services (fix PC) instead of an hourly rate anyway (2 hrs PC Technician).
COSATU has been HEAVILY against the toll all along, who cares if they hijack it a bit due to the missed deadline for the toll strike - either way it will show gov they and many others mean business when we are not happy with these things. For tolling there is no better alternative than striking tomorrow whether or not other issues are being raised by various parties at the same time. Just make sure your tolling banner is bigger than the labour broker banner. and maybe make some spares to hand out. You know how much striking people love free **** with slogans/pictures on them.
OMB
Mountain Man
ToxicBunny
Oi! Leave me out of this...
Would you have gotten the job without the agency at the company you were doing work for?
If not, then they provided you employment and a paycheck so shut up and be thankful for getting something, you ungrateful person.
It gave you the experience to actually move on to possible permanent employment elsewhere directly with a company.
Oh, and as an aside to this, if you expect bonuses with employment, think again.. they're disappearing slowly... so even permanent employees are not getting them, and they've NEVER been guaranteed anyway.
At the previous company I used to work for, we quite often offered temps permanent positions - but obviously only the best ones - was similar to working for a probation period
If labour brokers disappear, it would simply mean that companies would have to filter/interview more (costing time and money) and probation periods would be more fashionable
There won't be more work, but there could be more people with no work and others now full time employed
If labour brokers disappear, it would simply mean that companies would have to filter/interview more (costing time and money) and probation periods would be more fashionable
There won't be more work, but there could be more people with no work and others now full time employed
You believe the company does nothing? Really? Apart from carrying all of the overheads involved in obtaining and managing the work, of course. Which according to you two are minimal. Well okay then. See the problem with you lot banging on about how little the "brokers" do is usually juxtaposed with reality, considering Cosatu couldnt care less about IT-related brokers. Ban them and you'll see all of that work migrate India-way, even more than it does now. Project-based work is project-based work - full stop. I'm not sure how this can be made any simpler. The brokers spend the time putting structures in place to extend the duration of those contracts and to identify and obtain new projects.
This notion that brokers are bad is merely a bullschit excuse by Cosatu to claim more union members...
Yes. A friend informed me that they were hiring. He gave me the agency's no, I went through the process, and I got the job. So now tell me, what exactly did they do for me?
Seems like all that toxins frying your brain cells. You don't know anything about me, so instead of telling me to shut up, please tell me why labour brokers are essential.
And why should I be grateful? Nobody did me any favours. I've always worked my @ss off, and I've always known my worth. In fact, the way I see it, labour brokers need the employees more than the employees need labour brokers. You need to face facts. Labour brokers are facilitators, not employers(with the exception of their own staff of course),and companies will continue recruiting, with or without labour brokers.
isn't the logical answer then, that you should bypass the brokers?
You make a valid point. A project is a project.
The problem though is that either corporates or labour brokers are abusing the process. If someone is temping for more than 6 months, then that specific function cannot be classified as a "casual" or temp position. Some companies even call their staff permanent temps, which baffles me. And of course, the LB's are quite content with these arrangements. They get a % of the temps wages, and if/when the company decides to appoint them permantly, they cash in as well.
And I can understand why the company might not want to employ them on a permanent basis, but surely that does not mean that they should be slaves to the LB.
Why not treat them as contractors? Pay the LB their recruiting fee, with option of an additional fee if they do decide to offer a permanent position further down the line. Wouldn't that make more sense?
Logically, yes. Some companies have contracts in place with various agencies though, so it might not be possible to bypass them.
Don't get me wrong though, I do feel that LB's have their place in society, BUT, it sucks when your agency gets paid R60/hr for your labour, and they in turn only pay you R40/hr.
Bern
Expert Member
I think the issue is COSATU don't explain what they are trying to get rid of properly and lump in many things they don't actually need to with the term "labour brokerage" - I just see so much waste from labour brokers that really just add a layer of cost it is frustrating. You will see it will become an Agency that gets a commission on your short term contracts direct with customers (they aren't stopping contract work, just repeated work consecutively for the same customer). So all really the same, just as a contractor you will have more power in the relationship.
So many ways to skin this one, I just realise it is not going to affect things like consulting work, but a bit of a cleanup is necessary.
yes, I'm starting to agree with you - I know many big companies HR depts are overloaded with lazy leeches and their easy option would be brokers - so, I believe the issue needs to be discussed further and obviously the unions are going for a full ban, but the answer probably is somewhere in-between
There are some very good companies who do precisely what you're talking about. However the "slave to the LB" part I'm not clear on. At what point are you a slave? They pay you and you are free to leave and seek other employment elsewhere whenever you want.
I also disagree that it's either corporates or labour brokers who are abusing their "power". Labour brokers exist because corporates cannot afford the expense of a full-time staff compliment, sometimes made up of very highly skilled staff. Often bare-bone staff are offered permanent positions as a necessity or because they feel their skills could be used elsewhere within the business. A company is not obliged to "create" projects for the sake of employing a full-time staff compliment. Ergo labour brokers are necessary in very many cases. Likewise, labour brokers are not obliged to pay you a salary nor hire you on a full-time basis because they simply cannot guarantee that their workload will necessitate this. There simply isn't a middle ground here. You either accept a position with a labour broker knowing full-well what this entails, or you continue looking for work elsewhere - the choice is yours. There is no slavery involved.
I also disagree with your assessment that labour brokers need the employees more than the employees need the labour brokers. The relationship (in a good labour broker) is mutually beneficial. Without a labour broker, many people would never be afforded the opportunity to work on massive projects; in large organisations; be up-skilled at no expense to them etc. I can guarantee you that for 99% of cases, the employee on his own would not be hired (even on a temporary basis) by approaching an organisation directly. Your skills are often very focussed, however packaged together with various other skilled individuals, you become a marketable team. We're all commoditised like this to an extent - it's the nature of structured employment...
No, the answer is not somewhere in-between. Why should a few lazy HR departments (and I highly doubt a business decision as important as broker-use would be based on this) result in a heavy-handed approach, across the board? What is the middle ground? Apply for a license? Why should a bureaucratic hurdle be placed in a business' way? For the sake of license fees? For the sake of control? First one must show that labour brokers are harmful to the employee. Once this is done you're all just shooting from the hip with a curled barrel.
In order to find the true intentions, one must look at the benefactors. Banning labour brokers or even legislating licensing requirements into place all benefits the unions and the unions only. For many companies, unions have forced (through ridiculous strike action) the need for labour brokers. For many companies it is simply the only way to operate in certain areas of their business. For the others, they're just bloody lazy and might just need a helping hand. Adding more bureaucratic nonsense into the equation will only result in higher overheads for companies and fewer available positions in an already struggling market - a market that is slowly being cannibalised by cheap, overseas contractors...
Agreed.