The SA Politics Thread Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.

There is no way that this shyte can actually be constitutional...
 
The "coalition" between the EFF and the ANC is clearly not as smooth sailing as they would like

How ironic. Lesufi's ANC accused the EFF of doing the same with their own cleanup campaigns.

Also I don't think anyone ever claimed these coalitions are smooth sailing. It's just agreements to share campaign funding collection between the two parties.
 
The "coalition" between the EFF and the ANC is clearly not as smooth sailing as they would like

Looks ayasaba amagwala, Yes, they are talking nonsense as usual. The problem here is that the EFF understand the consequences of having a hard worker like Panyaza leading the province.
 
He said the youth was "desperate" for skills and sustainable jobs, adding that communities knew how to care for their environment and required "effective and sustainable refuse collection services".

Since the EFF now governs Ekurhuleni maybe they can show everyone how to provide an effective, sustainable refuse collection service, because the reason provincial government has to step in and provide cleaning services is that the municipalities are failing dismally to provide this basic service, don't hate on Panyaza for stepping in and doing what is supposed to be a basic function of local government.
 
Instead of stimulating economy to create more companies like that some politically appointed commissar will choke them to death like they did with all SOEs.
Thats like saying you can stimulate the economy to have more mobile companies competing with MTN and Vodacom, therefore the two giants who have a stranglehold on the industry should be allowed to continue with their anti transformation practices.
 
Thats like saying you can stimulate the economy to have more mobile companies competing with MTN and Vodacom, therefore the two giants who have a stranglehold on the industry should be allowed to continue with their anti transformation practices.
None of those two companies have any stronghold in their respective fields.
But as you mentioned there is possibility of growth even in strongholds, just look at RAIN or many ISP's that we have today.

Their practices are not anti transformative it is issue of government creating moving targets in economy that is struggling.
If economy was growing we would not see issues like that, there is only 1.2 million economically active white people in SA (that was number few years ago) and dropping problem is your comrades are incapable of creating or stimulating growth.

All companies have plans in place but you can not simply go around firing people so you appease commissars.
That did not work in my country and will not work in SA or anywhere in the world.
 
None of those two companies have any stronghold in their respective fields.
But as you mentioned there is possibility of growth even in strongholds, just look at RAIN or many ISP's that we have today.

Their practices are not anti transformative it is issue of government creating moving targets in economy that is struggling.
If economy was growing we would not see issues like that, there is only 1.2 million economically active white people in SA (that was number few years ago) and dropping problem is your comrades are incapable of creating or stimulating growth.

All companies have plans in place but you can not simply go around firing people so you appease commissars.
That did not work in my country and will not work in SA or anywhere in the world.
Where does the firing of people even comes into the picture? If they were doing it like that in your country they were doing it very wrong.

The companies listed have had a massive head start in the industry, they should be at the forefront of transformation, you can't correct that by saying you'll add new entrants, how long is any new entrant going to take to have the market share those companies have? In fact the late entrants are the ones who could be allowed some leeway on the EE targets because they won't have the budgets to invest in the development of previously disadvantaged groups, not giants of the industry like TFG.
 
Where does the firing of people even comes into the picture? If they were doing it like that in your country they were doing it very wrong.

The companies listed have had a massive head start in the industry, they should be at the forefront of transformation, you can't correct that by saying you'll add new entrants, how long is any new entrant going to take to have the market share those companies have? In fact the late entrants are the ones who could be allowed some leeway on the EE targets because they won't have the budgets to invest in the development of previously disadvantaged groups, not giants of the industry like TFG.
Let me tell you how all of this works in practice.
My friend worked for one of big banks, junior management not much chance of progressing upwards but good salary, pension and some perks.
One day she gets assignment to train AA candidates to do her work over period of 6 months.
Cool no problem, bank is expanding and we need to get those targets.
When all was done suddenly her division is being restructured and she had to apply for her own position (just worded bit different).
Guess who got it and who got severance package never to get equally good job (not even close to it) in last 10 years.

In my team we train but our salary budgets are not big so after two to three years candidates move to one of the banks.
Also we did not see any growth in many years so if you wanted to change our structure you would have to terminate employment like bank did.

So it is noble and all companies that I know are trying really hard but there is point where enforcing it like that is really contra productive.
 
Let me tell you how all of this works in practice.
My friend worked for one of big banks, junior management not much chance of progressing upwards but good salary, pension and some perks.
One day she gets assignment to train AA candidates to do her work over period of 6 months.
Cool no problem, bank is expanding and we need to get those targets.
When all was done suddenly her division is being restructured and she had to apply for her own position (just worded bit different).
Guess who got it and who got severance package never to get equally good job (not even close to it) in last 10 years.

In my team we train but our salary budgets are not big so after two to three years candidates move to one of the banks.
Also we did not see any growth in many years so if you wanted to change our structure you would have to terminate employment like bank did.

So it is noble and all companies that I know are trying really hard but there is point where enforcing it like that is really contra productive.
Not a chance of progressing upwards because she is not qualified?
 
I never thought it was a difficult question, you friend was working at a bank not Correctional Services, right?

But never mind if you don't feel like answering.
I thought you could get parallel between this case and your rather cynical question, bit disappointed.
 
I thought you could get parallel between this case and your rather cynical question, bit disappointed.
The two can never be comparable, career progression at Correctional Services, SAPS, and similar jobs works very differently to a bank, sure you know this already.

But again, I am not forcing you to answer my question if it feels uncomfortable, it's a free country and a free forum, just make that clear and I will get out of your way.
 
The two can never be comparable, career progression at Correctional Services, SAPS, and similar jobs works very differently to a bank, sure you know this already.

But again, I am not forcing you to answer my question if it feels uncomfortable, it's a free country and a free forum, just make that clear and I will get out of your way.
You’re a special kinda person. FML.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X