You have the right to peaceful protest

[Dave A]

You have the right to peaceful protest. As long as you don't hold a protest march against COSATU!



http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/d...satu-1.1297374

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-14-stay-home-anc-tells-da

http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/c...fied-1.1297435

http://mg.co.za/article/2012-05-15-red-versus-blue-the-broken-side-of-protest

[murdock]

i am still try to figue out why cosatu are against this...is it because they are gona loose out on 400 000 fees from employee...because the employee will be subsidised...so they wont have to pay subs to cosatu...or is there some othe reason?

[tec0]

Sorry I am not going to take sides on this one; however labour broking is a profiteering slave trading business. There is no control no honour and no future for South African while labour brokers is around. The system needs to be scrapped.

I know businesses like labour broking because they can force anyone to do anything at any time and the labourers will not have a foot to stand on. So there will be no more safety, no more job security no more long term loans that is the bases of buying property and investment growths. Thus on its own it can and did become violent.

In the end the people spoke out they don’t want labour broking. The only reason why it is still on the table is because powerful people stand to profit from it.

[Justloadit]

I suppose the reason for the unemployment is because of labour broking?

or

is it because you can not get rid of the useless idiot that calls himself an employee, and hides behind the LRA law?

[adrianh]

No it is all because of labour brokers, they cause people to throw stones and beat up peaceful marchers and the are also responsible for the soaring costs of plasma tv's and the fact that the sky is blue. Those damned labour brokers even caused me to buy KFC last night. If we could only ban labour brokers then South Africa will be eden and we will all live peacefully and in harmony....

Oh, I nearly forgot, Dave said someting about the right to march, no no no, rights only apply to those that apply Advanced Alternative logic, when you apply AA logic then you have the right to do what ever you want whenever you want but nobody else have such rights. The fact that AA rights contradict each other is not the problem of the AA logician, it is caused by those applying general logic to AA logical thinking. AA logic says that it is always true even though it proves using its own logic that it is not; hence the following equation:

in AA logic form:
5 classroom
burn down 5 classrooms
equals 10 classrooms

in mathematical form:
5 and 5 equals 10

Now how can you lot not understand this AA logic, it must be Milky Bar thing.

[adrianh]

@murdoc - The problem as Cosato sees it is this: The government want to make a wage subsidy available to allow young people to be easily employed. The DA and others are of the view that implimenting this subsidy would create 460,000 new jobs. Cosatu says that what would happen is that companies would get rid of older workers so as to employ young workers and hence pay lower salaries. Cosato says that it would also cause salaries to go down in general. The pro-subsidy lobby says that Cosatu is wrong in their thinking because the LRA does not allow companies to dump older employees in favour of cheaper younger employees. There are companies who do employ cheap labour and will trade their current labour for cheaper labour (but if that were the case they would do so anyway - subsidy or not) then there are companies who have skilled employees and who would not go through having to retrain the employees.

The bottom line:
Cosatu highlights is that there are a finite number of jobs in the market and that subsidising employment will not create new jobs.
The DA says that the subsidy would create more jobs.

I think that both views have merit.

[tec0]

Whatever happened to month by month contracts and responsible hiring? If your business sits with useless employees it is your fault! This is classic actually. So because businesses hired the wrong people now the whole country must pay for it?

So whose fault is it anyway? Fact unions exist because people where unfairly treated. Safety laws exist because people died for profit. Now if the companies took responsibility in the very beginning before unions and safety laws then half of what you are crying about would not even existed!

It is easy to insult me BUT I didn’t higher the useless employee… YOU DID! YOU THE EMPLOYER DIDN’T DO YOUR HOME-WORK! YOU DIDN’T PROTECT YOUR COMPANY! Not me… So now labour broker is an easy fix for your own negligence. So you deem me an idiot. But you can only blame yourself for not protecting your business from the beginning.

A clever business person will never had the need for a labour broker Simple administration and proper responsible hiring of employees is all that is needed.

[adrianh]

No, a clever employer doesn't employ any locals, he either has all the work done in China or he hires Zimbabweans. Local employees are absolutely useless and their unions cause more trouble than anything else.

[Dave A]

The bottom line:
Cosatu highlights is that there are a finite number of jobs in the market and that subsidising employment will not create new jobs.
The DA says that the subsidy would create more jobs.

I think that both views have merit.

That's suprisingly narrow minded finite-resource thinking, considering whence it comes

Where does job growth come from?
I'd suggest growing businesses, or establishing new businesses via entrepreneurship.
For a business to grow, profits help (and in most instances would seem a critical component ).
To add new businesses, I suggest some workplace experience helps.

We wonder why so few youth that can't get jobs don't get off their asses and start working for themselves - well maybe with some workplace experience under the belt we'll see more youth being more entrepreneurial, because now they'll have an idea as to what to strive for.

I could see an argument that a youth employment subsidy should be subject to stringent conditions to prevent abuses... and I suggest that should be the area of debate before a final decision, rather than just dismissing the idea out of hand.

Just not enough "big picture" thinking out there at the moment.

And talking about "big picture" - I see COSATU justifies their actions of yesterday as justfiable self defence.

Self defence against what?
Being served with a list of grievances?

So now we know the appropriate response should a trade union happen to want to deliver a list of grievances on anyone...
Rent-a-mob here we come!

[Citizen X]

Sorry I am not going to take sides on this one; however labour broking is a profiteering slave trading business. .

I simply must agree with tec0's position on labour brokers. I too stand against it.The Consititutional rights:Freedom of association, freedom of speech and the right to protest are imperative in a democracy with constitutionalism. This, however does not mean that protestors should infrige another peoples rights of movement i.e. blocking roads, or damage private property and injure and sometimes even kill innocent third parties. It must be a nightmare for the businesses in Johannesburg. Surely they can't trade properly when these protests take place. If I were to speak on behalf of businesses in Johanneburg, i would tell protestors this:"I support your right to protest but please don't damage my shop! Please don't prevent my customers from entering my shop!You chasing my customers away!!
On the note of modern day slavery, there are textbook examples of slaves. Certain elements of mankind still trade in human beings in the 21st century! Slavery was wrong before, though it is illegal and morally reprehensible today, it still takes place especially the child sex slave trade.
"n average slave in the American South in 1850 cost the equivalent of $40,000 in today’s money; today a slave costs an average of $90.
In 1850 it was difficult to capture a slave and then transport them to the US. Today, millions of economically and socially vulnerable people around the world are potential slaves.
This “supply” makes slaves today cheaper than they have ever been. Since they are so cheap, slaves are today are not considered a major investment worth maintaining. If slaves get sick, are injured, outlive their usefulness, or become troublesome to the slaveholder, they are dumped or killed. For most slave holders, actually legally ‘owning’ the slave is an inconvenience since they already exert total control over the individuals labor and profits. Who needs a legal document that could at some point be used against the slave holder? Today the slave holder cares more about these high profits than whether the holder and slave are of different ethnic backgrounds; in New Slavery, profit trumps skin color. Finally, new slavery is directly connected to the global economy. As in the past, most slaves are forced to work in agriculture, mining, and prostitution. From these sectors, their exploited labor flows into the global economy, and into our lives."

[adrianh]

Ok, so I run a manufacturing business and I want to upgrade my IT systems - I know a thing or two about IT so I don't need to use a development company. I know that if I can pull the correct resources together that I can get the project done.

I will require 1 project manager for 36 months, 2 business analysts for 12 months, 1 DBA for 6 months and 10 programmers for 18 months - then my system will be in and I will no longer need their services.

what do you propose I do?

[Justloadit]

Whatever happened to month by month contracts and responsible hiring? If your business sits with useless employees it is your fault! This is classic actually. So because businesses hired the wrong people now the whole country must pay for it?

Oh Teco, just shows you how little you know about employees. Firstly you can not extend a contract for more than 3 times, then the part time worker becomes full time. Secondly, during the probation period, the future employee, does everything so right and everything is perfect, so after your 3 month stint, you think that you have a pretty good person here, WRONG, all of a sudden when they are permanent, they get this mental blockage, in which they can not do anything right, they are also influenced by the existing staff that if he outperforms them, they beat him up. Now you have a problem, as a small company, you have be a policeman, who knows the LRA laws inside out, because what ever you do, you are going to get it wrong. Ja, just hire an HR person to do this, but hello, my company barely makes enough money to pay the rent, and if I am lucky I have a spare Rands to buy some KFC for my family. You get the picture!

So the moral of the story, well I say WTF, I rather not employ anyone, and rather not grow, and rather not create any new jobs. Lekker ne. So we all suffer. Maybe to solve my problem, I could use a labour broker, oh hang on its not good for the employee of the labour broker, OK so fine, I must follow my original decision. I will import and I will automate, and make sure I have as few employees as possible.

Now don't come and say that I am being narrow minded about this stance, because maybe I can go To Mozambique, or Malawi or Zambia for that mater, they are looking for entrepreneurs. And where does that leave RSA?

So whose fault is it anyway? Fact unions exist because people where unfairly treated. Safety laws exist because people died for profit. Now if the companies took responsibility in the very beginning before unions and safety laws then half of what you are crying about would not even existed!

So what happened to freedom of choice?

I do not like that employer because he treats us unfairly. So why as a labour force we do not boycott him, and no one goes and works for him. Would that not weed out the bad employers, rather than making a general rule against all employers?

It is easy to insult me BUT I didn’t higher the useless employee… YOU DID! YOU THE EMPLOYER DIDN’T DO YOUR HOME-WORK! YOU DIDN’T PROTECT YOUR COMPANY! Not me… So now labour broker is an easy fix for your own negligence. So you deem me an idiot. But you can only blame yourself for not protecting your business from the beginning.

My explanation above highlights the exact reason. I have experience, where the oldest person of the work force, by virtue of his age becomes the chief of your work force, and controls your production, and you know what, you are not even aware of it, till one day they die or move on, and all of a sudden your output goes up. This happened to me, I have personal experience in this regard. I used to have 60 employees at one time, so don't tell me it is my fault that I do not know how to hire an employee. You never know when people change!

A clever business person will never had the need for a labour broker Simple administration and proper responsible hiring of employees is all that is needed.

True, I am now being clever and not employing anyone.

And another point, if we are free, why can I not make my own choice about an employee? If he can not do the job, or becomes unproductive, I think I have the choice to make the change, not jump through 25 hoops and pay to correct the problem. The employee has all the choices, and me as an employer has no choice, or limited. At one time i had to retrench an employee, and was then handed a labor law plea by the union for an unfair retrenchment, and they were part of the process. It did not go further, simply because I had to close the company down a few months later, due to the loses caused by my employees who were sabotaging the production.l

[tec0]

Ok, so I run a manufacturing business and I want to upgrade my IT systems - I know a thing or two about IT so I don't need to use a development company. I know that if I can pull the correct resources together that I can get the project done.

I will require 1 project manager for 36 months, 2 business analysts for 12 months, 1 DBA for 6 months and 10 programmers for 18 months - then my system will be in and I will no longer need their services.

what do you propose I do?

In this case I would contact a labour broker because as you said you don’t need permanent staff. I know this I am not stupid Adrian… My concern comes in when Permanent workers gets dismissed because of labour broking. It is not the same thing now is it? My concern is not general contracting. My concern is when people lose their permanent employment to make way for labour broking. And it is happening…

[tec0]

Justloadit > I know nothing

See your argument is that everyone is out to screw you… Truth is you want money and you want cheap labour. Point is however, you will get what you get eventually. I can scream my head of here but the truth is Labour broking will become a reality. You will get everything you wish for.

However, you will no longer be the owner of your company. Consider this if the Labour broker is unhappy with you? They pull out how much money will you make then? They own the manpower thus they own you... When you get a bad name with 1 labour broker and others refuse to do business with you?

En dan ou maatjie wat maak jy dan?

Make no mistake I know of no less than two businesses that labour brokers won't touch…

You make it sound like an employee cannot be held liable? They can and employers do keep them liable. I agree with the automation part. I would do the same. I will admit I lost this argument. But I fear employers and employees will lose more than ever if they hand over an asset such as manpower to another company.

But what do I know…

[Dave A]

OK - while you lot are having fun arguing the merits of labour brokers, I'm ROFLMAO on the "right to peaceful protest" angle (feel free to join in on that discussion any time )

Latest: DA vs Cosatu: From sticks and stones to slings and arrows

The cherry on top:

ANC chimes in
While the DA and Cosatu squabbled dover where to lay the blame, the ANC condemned the violence, but reiterated its view that the DA’s march was “misguided”, saying the DA was “using the wrong platform” to address their concerns and were as such “attention seekers”.

“We as the ANC condemn the violence that took place, but we are clear that the march was misguided as Cosatu is not responsible for government policy,” ANC spokesperson Keith Khoza told the M&G.

Khoza also accused the DA of undermining platforms such as Nedlac, where they could appropriately address their views.

“The issue of unemployment is not going to be solved through a march,” Khoza added. “All economic stakeholders need to come together in order to find a workable and lasting solution to the ongoing problems surrounding jobs in this country.”

While not outright blaming the DA for the violence that unfolded, the ANC maintained its stance that the march was “provocative” on the opposition party’s part.

“We are waiting for a full report on what happened before we lay blame anywhere. However, we will admit there was unnecessary violence and both parties were affected by this,” Khoza said

The ANC doesn't use protest marches?
And the ANC has exclusive rights to attention seeking.

Absolutely

BTW - Too early to tell, obviously - but I suspect in time this little incident is going to end up being the new South Africa's Sharpeville - a defining moment. Just relieved there were no fatalities.