"Racekom" cannot retrench workers based on race: union

The trade union wants to mobilise as many South Africans and, in particular, Telkom clients to send thousands of petition letters to the CEO of Telkom, Sipho Maseko

And what exactly will a petition letter from a client contain? A threat to move somewhere else? Even with Neotel in the market, Telkom has a monopoly. They'll laugh their heads off and continue doing what they're doing as we all scramble to make sure we make out payments to them, lest they cut off our internet.
 
White people do not know how to strike
white people do not know how to stand together
Most have excepted BEE and learn to live with it (SAD)

Get involved...... your job could be next
 
Not often I agree with Solidarity, but on this issue I do
 
Not often I agree with Solidarity, but on this issue I do

Why do Solidarity only have an issue with Telkom. I know one other company where Solidarity is a majority union who in their retrenchment policy said it would be done in a way that EE is not negatively impacted. This is the same with Telkom and I suspect that's what McD wants to (and has) post(ed) in this discussion in the past.
 
From Sapa:

Solidarity intends using social media and court action to stop what it says are race-based retrenchments at Telkom, the trade union said on Tuesday.

"In terms of legislation, race may not be used as a criterion during a retrenchment process," deputy general secretary Johan Kruger said in a statement.

"Solidarity has therefore embarked on an extensive campaign to put a stop to this unfair practice."

Telkom spokesman Pynee Chetty last week said the company would use various criteria during retrenchments.

"It is important to note that employment equity is only one of the criteria that will be applied to these processes."

Other criteria included qualification and experience, best fit for the job and "last one in, first one out".

"That will be when more than one employee qualifies for a position," Chetty said.

On Tuesday Kruger said the union was prepared to take the matter to the Constitutional Court if necessary.

"This type of practice is destructive and will simply give employers a way to improve their Black Economic Empowerment grading during retrenchment processes."

One aspect of Solidarity's campaign was a petition, which would be delivered to Telkom CEO Sipho Maseko.

The union also intended lodging documents with the Labour Court in Johannesburg to oppose the use of race as a criteria in the retrenchment process.
 
It is high time whites in SA stand together, and remove this form of racism.

White folk are in the fortunate position that they hold the joker card - whites are currently the primary consumer...they have the cash.
If white folks stood together and cancelled all their Telkom accounts, there would be fiscal mayhem.

White folks need to do something....and now...while they still have the leverage of being the primary consumer in most industries. Once they lose their bargaining power (financial assets and majority consumer leverage) they will no longer have the power to bring these big corporations...or government to it's knees.

White politeness and apathy will lead to the downfall of their race in this country. Whites do not have the numbers, but they have the power of the purse (for now). Radical action needs to take place....and if closing accounts does not help, then the last step will work - collectively stop paying taxes until the racist policies of BEE are removed and we are treated equally and on merit. Stop the mik from the cash cow, and you will see the ANC jump through hoops to get their milk.
 
Last edited:
Why do Solidarity only have an issue with Telkom. I know one other company where Solidarity is a majority union who in their retrenchment policy said it would be done in a way that EE is not negatively impacted. This is the same with Telkom and I suspect that's what McD wants to (and has) post(ed) in this discussion in the past.
I must go find the other threads first.... cut & paste :p
 
It is high time whites in SA stand together, and remove this form of racism.

White folk are in the fortunate position that they hold the joker card - whites are currently the primary consumer...they have the cash.
If white folks stood together and cancelled all their Telkom accounts, there would be fiscal mayhem.

White folks need to do something....and now...while they still have the leverage of being the primary consumer in most industries. Once they lose their bargaining power (financial assets and majority consumer leverage) they will no longer have the power to bring these big corporations...or government to it's knees.

White politeness and apathy will lead to the downfall of their race in this country. Whites do not have the numbers, but they have the power of the purse (for now). Radical action needs to take place....and if closing accounts does not help, then the last step will work - collectively stop paying taxes until the racist policies of BEE are removed and we are treated equally and on merit. Stop the mik from the cash cow, and you will see the ANC jump through hoops to get their milk.

^^^^
This. DSTV goes up we pay mentality.
well said
 
Telkom have followed the Section 189 process, which they started last year when they offered all management the opportunity to accept voluntary exit packages (with a sweetener). At the same time they warned that it would be the last time they offer such (sweetened) packages and that further management cuts were in the pipeline.

The current exercise is a continuation of that process and Telkom have been wise in following the S189 process to the letter.

However the termination detail/criteria is covered in the Code of Good Practice for Dismissal for Operational Requirements.

(1) This Act defines a dismissal based on the operational requirements of an employer as one that is based on the economic, technological, structural or similar needs of the employer. It is difficult to define all the circumstances that might legitimately form the basis of a dismissal for this reason. As a general rule, economic reasons are those that relate to the financial management of the enterprise. Technological reasons refer to the introduction of new technology which affects work relationships either by making existing jobs redundant or by requiring employees to adapt to the new technology or a consequential restructuring of the workplace. Structural reasons relate to the redundancy of posts consequent to a restructuring of the employer’s enterprise.

(2) Dismissals for operational requirements have been categorised as "no fault" dismissals. In other words, it is not the employee who is responsible for the termination of employment. Because retrenchment is a "no fault" dismissal and because of its human cost, this Act places particular obligations on an employer, most of which are directed toward ensuring that all possible alternatives to dismissal are explored and that the employees to be dismissed are treated fairly.

(3) The obligations placed on an employer are both procedural and substantive. The purpose of consultation is to permit the parties, in the form of a joint problem-solving exercise, to strive for consensus if that is possible. The matters on which consultation is necessary are listed in s189(2). This section requires the parties attempt to reach consensus on, amongst other things, appropriate measures to avoid dismissals. In order for this to be effective, the consultation process must commence as soon as a reduction of the workforce, through retrenchments or redundancies, is contemplated by the employer so that possible alternatives can be explored. The employer should in all good faith keep an open mind throughout and seriously consider proposals put forward.

(4) This Act also provides for the disclosure of information by the employer on matters relevant to the consultation. Although the matters over which information for the purposes of consultation is required are specified in s189(3), the list in that section is not a closed one. If considerations other than those that are listed are relevant to the proposed dismissal or the development of alternative proposals, they should be disclosed to the consulting party. In the event of a disagreement about what information is to be disclosed any party may refer the dispute to the CCMA in terms of section 16(6) of this Act.

(5) The period over which consultation should extend is not defined in this Act. The circumstances surrounding the consultation process are relevant to a determination of a reasonable period. Proper consultation will include:

(a) the opportunity to meet and report back to employees;

(b) the opportunity to meet with the employer; and

(c) the request, receipt and consideration of information.

(6) The more urgent the need by the business to respond to the factors giving rise to any contemplated termination of employment, the more truncated the consultation process might be. Urgency may not, however, be induced by the failure to commence the consultation process as soon as a reduction of the workforce was likely. On the other hand the parties who are entitled to be consulted must meet, as soon, and as frequently as, may be reasonably practicable during the consultation process.

(7) If one or more employees are to be selected for dismissal from a number of employees, this Act requires that the criteria for their selection must be either agreed with the consulting party or if no criteria have been agreed be fair and objective criteria.

(8) Criteria that infringe a fundamental right protected by this Act when they are applied, can never be fair. These include selection on the basis of union membership or activity, pregnancy, or some other unfair discriminatory ground. Criteria that are on the face of it neutral should be carefully examined to ensure that when they are applied, they do not have a discriminatory effect. For example, to select only part-time workers for retrenchment might discriminate against women, since women are predominantly employed in part-time work.

(9) Selection criteria that are generally accepted to be fair include length of service, skills and qualifications. Generally the test for fair and objective criteria will be satisfied by the use of the "last in first out" (LIFO) principle. There may be instances where the LIFO principle or other criteria needs to be adapted. The LIFO principle for example should not operate so as to undermine an agreed affirmative action programme. Exceptions may also include the retention of employees based on criteria mentioned above which are fundamental to the successful operation of the business. These exceptions should however be treated with caution.

(10) Employees dismissed for reasons based on the employer’s operational requirements are entitled to severance pay of at least one week’s remuneration for each completed year of continuous service with the employer unless the employer is exempted from the provisions of section 196. This minimum requirement does not relieve an employer from attempting to reach consensus on severance pay during the period of consultation. The right of the trade union, through collective bargaining, to seek an improvement on the statutory minimum severance pay is not limited or reduced in any way.

(11) If an employee either accepted or unreasonably refused to accept an offer of alternative employment, the employees statutory right to severance pay is forfeited. Reasonableness is determined by a consideration of the reasonableness of the offer of alternative employment and the reasonableness of the employee’s refusal. In the first case, objective factors such as remuneration, status and job security are relevant. In the second case, the employee’s personal circumstances play a greater role.

(12)(1) Employees dismissed for reasons based on the employers’ operational requirements should be given preference if the employer again hires employees with comparable qualifications, subject to -

(a) the employee, after having been asked by the employer, and having expressed within a reasonable time from the date of dismissal a desire to be re-hired; and

(b) a time limit on preferential rehiring. The time limit must be reasonable and must be subject of consultation.

(2) If the above conditions are met, the employer must take reasonable steps to inform the employee, including notification to the representative trade union, of the offer of re-employment.

The highlighted criteria is exactly what Telkom are applying: qualifications, skills, length of service and AA programme.

All affected management have had to apply for positions. Each position has a job description, which details everything including qualifications, skills and experience. There is no mention of race on the job description.

For an affected manager to qualify for any position applied for, he/she must tick all 3 boxes (qualifications, skills and experience). Telkom has made it very abundantly clear that this will be very strictly enforced and no deviations will be permitted.

Only if 2 candidates are equal will the AA factor kick in. Unfortunately for the white male this is considered "fair discrimination" in terms of SA legislation.

So how many white males will be affected? If they tick all 3 boxes, then not many at all and I'd wager a bet that it will be a 50/50 split by the time the retrenchments are concluded. (This excludes white males volunteering to leave on early pension, etc.)

So percentage-wise the AA ratio of management at the end of the exercise will be the same as when it started.
 
Telkom have followed the Section 189 process, which they started last year when they offered all management the opportunity to accept voluntary exit packages (with a sweetener). At the same time they warned that it would be the last time they offer such (sweetened) packages and that further management cuts were in the pipeline.

The current exercise is a continuation of that process and Telkom have been wise in following the S189 process to the letter.

However the termination detail/criteria is covered in the Code of Good Practice for Dismissal for Operational Requirements.



The highlighted criteria is exactly what Telkom are applying: qualifications, skills, length of service and AA programme.

All affected management have had to apply for positions. Each position has a job description, which details everything including qualifications, skills and experience. There is no mention of race on the job description.

For an affected manager to qualify for any position applied for, he/she must tick all 3 boxes (qualifications, skills and experience). Telkom has made it very abundantly clear that this will be very strictly enforced and no deviations will be permitted.

Only if 2 candidates are equal will the AA factor kick in. Unfortunately for the white male this is considered "fair discrimination" in terms of SA legislation.

So how many white males will be affected? If they tick all 3 boxes, then not many at all and I'd wager a bet that it will be a 50/50 split by the time the retrenchments are concluded. (This excludes white males volunteering to leave on early pension, etc.)

So percentage-wise the AA ratio of management at the end of the exercise will be the same as when it started.

Ah ok. Pretty fair then
 
Telkom have followed the Section 189 process, which they started last year when they offered all management the opportunity to accept voluntary exit packages (with a sweetener). At the same time they warned that it would be the last time they offer such (sweetened) packages and that further management cuts were in the pipeline.

The current exercise is a continuation of that process and Telkom have been wise in following the S189 process to the letter.

However the termination detail/criteria is covered in the Code of Good Practice for Dismissal for Operational Requirements.



The highlighted criteria is exactly what Telkom are applying: qualifications, skills, length of service and AA programme.

All affected management have had to apply for positions. Each position has a job description, which details everything including qualifications, skills and experience. There is no mention of race on the job description.

For an affected manager to qualify for any position applied for, he/she must tick all 3 boxes (qualifications, skills and experience). Telkom has made it very abundantly clear that this will be very strictly enforced and no deviations will be permitted.

Only if 2 candidates are equal will the AA factor kick in. Unfortunately for the white male this is considered "fair discrimination" in terms of SA legislation.

So how many white males will be affected? If they tick all 3 boxes, then not many at all and I'd wager a bet that it will be a 50/50 split by the time the retrenchments are concluded. (This excludes white males volunteering to leave on early pension, etc.)

So percentage-wise the AA ratio of management at the end of the exercise will be the same as when it started.

Well put
 
On paper it looks fair but we all know that in reality it never works out the same and that is why the union stepped in.
Remember the SAA pilot thing. First they say no new white cadets will be taken in. Then the unions stepped in and this was changed on paper. What happened. Not a single white guy was selected.....
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X