Metals Industry strike - my take

[tec0]

What we're looking at right now is a power struggle; between rival trade unions, and between trade unions and government. Business, and our economy, is just being caught in the crossfire. And it is abundantly clear that the unions engaged in this power struggle do not give a damn what havoc they wreak along the way.

Hypothetically > Economic assassination starts with unrest within the masses and slowly progress towards the point where outside investors lose interest to invest. By making negotiations impossible and constant news of damage to fabricators, mining and other infrastructures our wealth devaluate and our exports can no longer cope. This will continue to a point where the entity responsible of the unrest will try to gain power by using the will of the masses. What will follow are protest, unrest and polarization of sensitive topics.

So tell me have you watched the news lately?

[desA]

Hypothetically > Economic assassination starts with unrest within the masses and slowly progress towards the point where outside investors lose interest to invest. By making negotiations impossible and constant news of damage to fabricators, mining and other infrastructures our wealth devaluate and our exports can no longer cope. This will continue to a point where the entity responsible of the unrest will try to gain power by using the will of the masses. What will follow are protest, unrest and polarization of sensitive topics.

Looking at the present difficulties in the SA marketplace, I suspect your hypothesis is fair well set.

[Dave A]

I am sorry Dave but you are wrong on this one.

I'm sorry.
You say I'm wrong, and then you make a post that entirely supports my point.
You say Adrian is wrong, then you make a whole argument that supports his point.

Just where am I wrong again exactly?

why to eliminate a degree of competition

And there is no chance that the decision is actually driven by the local plant being less competitive compared to their other operations?

Why did they wait 4 years to shut it down?

Is there no chance that if the local operation was actually the better option to trade from, they wouldn't rather have moved their operations here and shut down some of their less competitive operations elsewhere?

You keep blaming business for the mess. Understand this - it's the trading conditions that affect business's decisions in this sort of thing. And a huge part of that is a skilled, efficient and reliable labour force.

How are we doing on that front?

[Greig Whitton]

Long term employees you put on a 3 month contract “renewable as needed” your short term employees I would place on a 1 month contract and will replace all of them every 2 month.

I recommend familiarising yourself with the amendments to the Labour Relations Act since the contracting practices that you are proposing will be illegal.

[tec0]

Just where am I wrong again exactly?

Well when I say you are wrong it is because you are looking at the facts the wrong way. You are spot on about the rest

The plant I mentioned is being kept in ownership so that competition cannot buy it and use it against the holding company. Also I think because of global situations they may well rethink their strategy and fix the place up. Here is me hoping that this will be the case.
As for the rest, you know as well as I do that businesses have a large part to play in labour relations and or the lack there off. I am not saying that unions are getting it right all the time but nor does businesses. The systems we see today exist because someone messed up at some point.

[desA]

The more complex the labour laws become, the less that entrepreneurs will want to employ people.

I've met lots of very disillusioned former business owners who had dramatically downsized their workforce, to one, or two - & even that was considered too much - from a hassle perspective. To take on long-term liabilities when they really are not interested in working, is counter-productive.

Far better to outsource, with minimal final assembly. In fact, outsource everything, if you can.

Now, how does this suit the ANC's vision of job creation?

[tec0]

I recommend familiarising yourself with the amendments to the Labour Relations Act since the contracting practices that you are proposing will be illegal.

funny I have contracts from Labour brokers stipulating employment for 30 days? Are you saying they are illegal? If so would you care to share the amendment and when it was made please? Because then a Labour brokers is in for a very very bad day.

As for my own post, Did I not say speak to a lawyer that knows labour law? That it would be a good idea to spend the money and do it right? For the life of me I thought I did wrote that...

BUT I would employ a labour lawyer to get your fine print ready and make sure you are within the letter of the law. This is not optional as a bad contract can cost you and your company. So if you do it, do it right.

I did wrote it down! for a moment I thought I am losing mind again... Oh well I will scan trough the new amendments I haven't had the time to be honest.

But if what you say is true there going to be hell to pay because I am currently working under the assumption my contract I am working under is illegal...

And every single one of us know the importance and value of a legal employment contract!

[Greig Whitton]

funny I have contracts from Labour brokers stipulating employment for 30 days? Are you saying they are illegal? If so would you care to share the amendment and when it was made please?

The short version is that non-permanent employees may be deemed to be permanently employed irrespective of what their contract states if certain criteria are met (e.g. employee size; length of employment; reasons for non-permanent employment).

I have a more detailed explanation on my blog (here and here) if you are interested.

[pmbguy]

Wow how's that for luck tec0. At least now you can get some great advice so you know how to sort it out from the inside like

[adrianh]

Wow how's that for luck tec0. At least now you can get some great advice so you know how to sort it out from the inside like

Are you crazy, I mean really, are you saying that one should take advice from an educated person who knows what he is talking about....pull the other one!

[IanF]

Back on track evidently Numsa say the strike is over. Lets see what landmines are still there?
Times article

[pmbguy]

Are you crazy, I mean really, are you saying that one should take advice from an educated person who knows what he is talking about....pull the other one!

Its a novel and radical idea yes, but think of the possibilities!

[Dave A]

Tec0, at the end of the day you have accurately presented the worker's point of view to this forum (when no-one else has). And it was needed...

I thank you for that.

Well when I say you are wrong it is because you are looking at the facts the wrong way. You are spot on about the rest

Let's not squabble about who's way of looking at things is right or wrong. On that we're going to have to agree to disagree. There is something far more important to address than who's right.

Whichever way you look at it, both sides still identify the same alarming future in prospect if we carry on the way we're going!

Regardless of our different points of view, both sides need to recognise we face a common problem to overcome.
Isn't it time to start identifying possible win/win solutions?

Back on track evidently Numsa say the strike is over.

Four weeks of a declared deadlock with no meetings to attempt to break the deadlock.
Four weeks of strike action, with all the harmful consequences.

Why couldn't this have been settled without strike action?

[Justloadit]

NUMSA wants to set a precedent for the future, in that they want employers to believe they yield a tremendous amount of power, so that in future their demands will be met with out resistance, because they will be prepared to go on struke and destroy business, they are expecting that employers will rather cave in to their demands vesus risking the loss of business.

What NUMSA has not considered, is that business has nothing left to bargain with, in other words, the majority of business are on their last legs, and any mishap is sufficient to push them over.

I speak from my own circumstance, I have placed all my savings of the last 10 years, into the business during the last 3 years, there is nothing left to prop the business up if there is another huge loss, I would rather shut the door than to risk my family's well being. Interestingly, I have been offered employment with remuneration which is more than 3 times what I get out of my business right now.

I have spoken to a number of other entrepreneurs who are in similar business circumstances, where they have also invested all their savings to maintain the status quo. Very difficult times in deed. Whats holding me back is that some one else will tell me what I have to do every day, not something I will take on easily, having been a free spirit for so long, but the sentiment could change very quickly if the circumstances begin to lean the wrong way.

[tec0]

The short version is that non-permanent employees may be deemed to be permanently employed irrespective of what their contract states if certain criteria are met (e.g. employee size; length of employment; reasons for non-permanent employment).

I have a more detailed explanation on my blog (here and here) if you are interested.

Let’s begin with temporary employees (i.e. employees who are contracted via a temporary employment service provider or labour brokerer). The good news is that you have nothing to worry about so long as:

Your temporary employees earn less than the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) threshold; and
You employ them for less than three months; or
As a substitute for someone who is temporarily unavailable.

So I was wrong about everything?

Long term employees you put on a 3 month contract “renewable as needed”

short term employees I would place on a 1 month contract

employ a labour lawyer to get your fine print ready and make sure you are within the letter of the law.
This is not optional as a bad contract can cost you and your company. So if you do it, do it right.

Well I asked my lawyer to have a look at my 30 day AKA 1 month employment contract as set out by the broker. I and about 300 other "temporary employees" are all subject to the same contract so I wanted to know what goes for what. Well it was well within the laws and was told the broker contract "this time around is "standard" But it is good to check it out.

Because as you said:

I recommend familiarising yourself with the amendments to the Labour Relations Act since the contracting practices that you are proposing will be illegal.

and yet

Your temporary employees earn less than the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA) threshold; and
You employ them for less than three months; or
As a substitute for someone who is temporarily unavailable.

But you are right we must leave this sort of questions to the professionals. Spend the money make sure you are within the letter of the law and your business will be safe.