Massive e-toll protest on Wednesday

[DJ...]

And in case anyone is wondering, I do not own, nor work for a labour broker of any sort. I just find myself attracted to this issue because it is of huge importance to all of us, and from a business perspective I completely disagree with adding even more hurdles to success in a market where 50% of our GDP contribution comes from SMEs. Of those SMEs only 10% make it into their 5th year of operation. Yet certain organisations are hellbent on control at whatever cost.

Ironic that COSATU, who claim to represent "the working class", are the very machine behind the majority of daft, short-sighted employment issues...

 

[Jweb_@@]

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...

I think we referring to 2 very different scenarios. Putting together a project team, which would most probably consist of skilled individuals, for a short term contract, cannot be compared to a 50 seat call centre.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[DJ...]

I think we referring to 2 very different scenarios. Putting together a project team, which would most probably consist of skilled individuals, for a short term contract, cannot be compared to a 50 seat call centre.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

They are identical in terms of what is being proposed - an outright ban. You are either for it or against it. Which one are you? As stated, there simply isn't a feasible middle ground here as far as I am concerned.

Besides, in an environment with a massively high staff-turnover rate like a call-centre, it is nigh on impossible to maintain a high quality HR policy framework within reasonable levels of risk and affordability. Now you either downgrade your HR policies, or you use a labour broker who specialises in call-centre operations...

 

[DJ...]

In thinking more about your "slavery" comment, as much as I think it is a tardy comparison, I understand to an extent where you are coming from, in that employment opportunities are limited. But this just means that your frustrations and feelings are being misdirected. The macro-employment situation is no fault of your employer, but your government. Why should a labour broker be banned because the government is incapable of deriving growth from its own policies?

 

[Jweb_@@]

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...

You say there's no middle ground, so let's do this. Let's implement the same remuneration model used for temps across the board; for all temp, casual, permanent & contract appointments. How would you feel if 20-30% of your salary went to the recruiting agency every month?

 

[MickeyD]

You say there's no middle ground, so let's do this. Let's implement the same remuneration model used for temps across the board; for all temp, casual, permanent & contract appointments. How would you feel if 20-30% of your salary went to the recruiting agency every month?

I would seek alternative employment.

 

[DJ...]

You say there's no middle ground, so let's do this. Let's implement the same remuneration model used for temps across the board; for all temp, casual, permanent & contract appointments. How would you feel if 20-30% of your salary went to the recruiting agency every month?

Why are you comparing them in the first place? You chose to go the labour broker route. Quit if you're feeling ripped off and send off your CV in search of permanent employment. If you fail, at least you know the labour broker has you covered, albeit at a lower rate, but at least you have a job. Without them you'd be temping at a lower rate regardless, because the cost of doing business for said company just increased.

And if you're struggling to find permanent employment at the rate you're demanding, then maybe the labour broker rate is more in-line with what your expectations should be?

Look, this is going to land up becoming a personal situation soon going down this road. I'd like you to please go back to my posts and identify (without emotion) where I'm failing in my logic. Your responses don't address the issues I'm raising - they're merely emotional responses about how unfair it is that you chose to work through a labour broker and now they're taking a commission. I don't see an issue there...

 

[Bundu]

You say there's no middle ground, so let's do this. Let's implement the same remuneration model used for temps across the board; for all temp, casual, permanent & contract appointments. How would you feel if 20-30% of your salary went to the recruiting agency every month?

if the unions allowed a more relaxed hire and fire policy, labour brokers would take a massive knock.... but sense does not prevail

 

[Jweb_@@]

They are identical in terms of what is being proposed - an outright ban. You are either for it or against it. Which one are you? As stated, there simply isn't a feasible middle ground here as far as I am concerned.

Besides, in an environment with a massively high staff-turnover rate like a call-centre, it is nigh on impossible to maintain a high quality HR policy framework within reasonable levels of risk and affordability. Now you either downgrade your HR policies, or you use a labour broker who specialises in call-centre operations...

An outright ban is being proposed, but ultimately a compromise has to be reached. I might have come across as being in support of an outright ban, but thats not the case. I am strongly opposed to the way "permanent temps" are being treated, purely because I've been in that situation.

Have you ever considered that staff turn over might be reduced if the temps are paid better?

 

[MickeyD]

I am strongly opposed to the way "permanent temps" are being treated, purely because I've been in that situation.

This part I fully agree with. There should be a time limit after which you should be permanently appointed.

 

[DJ...]

An outright ban is being proposed, but ultimately a compromise has to be reached. I might have come across as being in support of an outright ban, but thats not the case. I am strongly opposed to the way "permanent temps" are being treated, purely because I've been in that situation.

Have you ever considered that staff turn over might be reduced if the temps are paid better?

Actually that is one of the biggest misconceptions in business. Any business degree (and experience) will teach you that higher remuneration is not directly proportional to staff turnover, nor happiness. And yes, I have considered it.

If you're in favour of some sort of middle-ground, then suggest some feasible options to be considered. As I've already pointed out, the cost of doing business in this country is already exorbitant and is as a result of many ill-placed policies. Adding more hurdles is not the route to job creation. And job creation seems to be the crux of your issues, not labour brokers.

While you have an issue with the treatment of "permanent temps", one cannot indefinitely employ a temp unless that employee is contracted to another company - namely a labour broker. Do we just change the name of labour brokers, because I don't see a workable solution to that? Alternatively, do we accept that our skills are commodities that can only be traded for their worth?

From an economic standpoint, one cannot impose Orwelian strangleholds on companies in a time when supply massively outweighs demand. You do not solve any problems whatsoever. You simply create more speedbumps on the road to job creation...

 

[DJ...]

This part I fully agree with. There should be a time limit after which you should be permanently appointed.

As far as I can recall there is legislation protecting employees from this sort of abuse. However we cannot simply apply one standard to all businesses. You know as well as I do that a brick layer on a simple home-build will spend a far shorter period of time working for one "client" than a developer of FNBs transaction programmes. Now do we state that any period of employment over 1 year must result in a permanent contract offer? Well no, because it is project based and no two projects are the same.

I do agree that there is room for improvement, however it doesn't necessarily require legislation. It may require an ombudsman instead. Who knows? But banning or fabricating hurdles is not the answer...

 

[Jweb_@@]

Why are you comparing them in the first place? You chose to go the labour broker route. Quit if you're feeling ripped off and send off your CV in search of permanent employment. If you fail, at least you know the labour broker has you covered, albeit at a lower rate, but at least you have a job. Without them you'd be temping at a lower rate regardless, because the cost of doing business for said company just increased.

And if you're struggling to find permanent employment at the rate you're demanding, then maybe the labour broker rate is more in-line with what your expectations should be?

Look, this is going to land up becoming a personal situation soon going down this road. I'd like you to please go back to my posts and identify (without emotion) where I'm failing in my logic. Your responses don't address the issues I'm raising - they're merely emotional responses about how unfair it is that you chose to work through a labour broker and now they're taking a commission. I don't see an issue there...

Just to be clear, I was in this situation about 8 years ago. And because I've been there, I kinda understand when people b!tch and moan about it. So yes, there is some emotion attached.

But nonetheless, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Besides, I need my rest for the strike tomorrow. :twisted:

 

[MickeyD]

As far as I can recall there is legislation protecting employees from this sort of abuse. However we cannot simply apply one standard to all businesses. You know as well as I do that a brick layer on a simple home-build will spend a far shorter period of time working for one "client" than a developer of FNBs transaction programmes. Now do we state that any period of employment over 1 year must result in a permanent contract offer? Well no, because it is project based and no two projects are the same.

I do agree that there is room for improvement, however it doesn't necessarily require legislation. It may require an ombudsman instead. Who knows? But banning or fabricating hurdles is not the answer...

Let me clarify my opinion based on actual examples....

There are 10 employees in a section doing exactly the same work. 3 are permanent employees and 7 are contract workers hired via a labour broker. The temps have been doing exactly the same work for the last 6 years.... this after the company retrenched the previous employees 7 years previously due to reduced operational requirements.

 

[DJ...]

Let me clarify my opinion based on actual examples....

There are 10 employees in a section doing exactly the same work. 3 are permanent employees and 7 are contract workers hired via a labour broker. The temps have been doing exactly the same work for the last 6 years.... this after the company retrenched the previous employees 7 years previously due to reduced operational requirements.

Look that is something that needs to be addressed, but in consultation with private industry. The question that needs to be asked is can that department realistically afford to employ all 10 employees directly? But I concede that in situations like these there is the opportunity for abuse and there certainly needs to be an overseeing body to address complaints. I think that this is a far more agreeable solution than outright legislation (although some will be required to provide the oversight body certain powers)...

 

[DJ...]

Just to be clear, I was in this situation about 8 years ago. And because I've been there, I kinda understand when people b!tch and moan about it. So yes, there is some emotion attached.

Would you bitch any less if you were employed full-time on a CTC basis, taking home 20% less than you did as a contractor? That's the problem with moving to CTC and increasing the overheads of the department. If you think that an employer is willing to subsidise the difference, you will be mistaken, and/or replaced. Everyone in this country is replaceable in this market. Sometimes it's just a headache to do so, but it can and will be done...

 

[wily me]

You say there's no middle ground, so let's do this. Let's implement the same remuneration model used for temps across the board; for all temp, casual, permanent & contract appointments. How would you feel if 20-30% of your salary went to the recruiting agency every month?

For many that situation was a life saver as there was no other alternative for it. Think about the labour broker as the pawn shop of the labour market. Someone needs a short term job (like a short term loan) and some company is in need of temporary skills to complete a project (pawnshop consumers) and a third party offers such service bringing the two together like the pawn shop (Labour broker). Everyone using the service knows the penalty of cost (high interest) and use those services knowing what the penalties would be beforehand. It's a matter of choice and regulation will only aggravate the labour matters.

I am not referring to obvious labour abuse like the example in post #74 by MickeyD.

 

[marine1]

this poll needs to be changed there are no strike against e toling

 

[Paul_S]

John Robbie just interviewed COSATU's general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi on 702 and Vavi in no uncertain terms said that the DA are not invited to the demonstrations today as they don't want any disputes on the labour brokering issue or cheap political scoring.

We have a highly polarized society in South Africa - we can't even join hands to fight for a common cause together.

 

[Sinbad]

John Robbie just interviewed COSATU's general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi on 702 and Vavi in no uncertain terms said that the DA are not invited to the demonstrations today as they don't want any disputes on the labour brokering issue or cheap political scoring.

We have a highly polarized society in South Africa - we can't even join hands to fight for a common cause together.

I think tagging (scuse the pun) the etoll protest onto this long-planned labour broker march is political opportunism of the highest order from Cosatu and they're too ****ing stupid and self-absorbed to see their own hypocrisy.

**** them. Bunch of communist twats.