Metals Industry strike - my take

[irisyang]

what we can do is to keep peaceful of our society...

[IanF]

well obviously one cannot speak on behalf of someone else. One can speculate but that is all it would be "speculation"

Teco I think you meant except then it makes sense here is an explanation Anyway how do we stop the confrontation between employee and empoyer?

[tec0]

Teco I think you meant except then it makes sense here is an explanation Anyway how do we stop the confrontation between employee and empoyer?

Honestly why don't you answer that question. I have been up for over 48 hours and my mind is not thinking clearly. When I have time to sleep I will have a look at the labour laws contact a few friends schooled in laws and if he is willing explain to me in layman terms what is written and what was amended and why.

like any situation you need to know what have changed. As I was corrected by your local labour Guru the laws have changed and my knowledge as it stands is outdated so my conclusions may not even be applicable.

Actually why not ask your local Guru this question. He is clearly qualified and knows the law by heart and according to other members he is credible so ???

There you go Mister Greig Whitton, the stage is all yours.

[PeterRich]

To be honest, I really don't think that the legal requirements for dismissing an employee are that onerous. Obviously it is a lot easier for an employee to quit their job than it is for an employer to fire someone, but I don't agree that requiring employers to have a fair reason for dismissing someone and giving their employees an opportunity to respond to those reasons is that unreasonable.

Furthermore, there are some employers that have no interest in complying with any labour regulations - even those that are reasonable and fair - and have used labour brokerers to exploit their workers without breaking the law. Which is why the changes to the Labour Relations Act will make these practices illegal.

Consider the dilemma of a small business. A few of the skills he requires. Firstly he/she needs to be an expert in his field, and in addition, financial skills, selling skills, management skills, business law, employing skills, laws governing contract, labour law and all this on a budget that would fold any corporate.

What happens when someone is employed. A mistake was made due to lack of skills or psychometric testing could not be afforded. Should such a company be allowed to fold because he could not afford to comply with the labour laws

If just one person develops a bad attitude, that company is at the risk of folding. A small company seldom has the time, energy, money and often lacks the skills to deal with these situations.

Your comments are valid, but cannot be as broad based as you may be suggesting

Do you you beat up your baby, because it can't walk well yet?

[Greig Whitton]

Consider the dilemma of a small business. A few of the skills he requires. Firstly he/she needs to be an expert in his field, and in addition, financial skills, selling skills, management skills, business law, employing skills, laws governing contract, labour law and all this on a budget that would fold any corporate.

As a business owner myself and someone who helps other entrepreneurs, I very much sympathise with the challenge that you have perfectly summed up. So many of my clients began their business because they excelled at a particular trade or skill - be it catering, IT, engineering, or some other profession - only to discover the hard way that building a business around those talents involves a whole different set of complex skills.

We absolutely need simpler, less onerous rules - particularly with respect to our labour laws. But that does not mean that all regulations are bad. And when it comes to dismissal situations, I don't think that our laws are particularly complex:

1. Don't fire someone unless you have a fair reason (e.g. poor performance, incapacity, misconduct, operational requirements).
2. Before you fire someone, explore alternatives to dismissal and give the affected employee an opportunity to respond to your reason for firing them.

You don't need to be a labour law "guru" to get to grips with this. I've sat down with clients and explained it to them in half an hour or less. I've written plain English business guides that require less than an hour to read and apply.

Part of the problem is that many small business owners don't want to learn, or assume that it is a lot more complex than it really is. They want the freedom to do as they please. And in some respects, they do deserve more freedom. But dismissal is not one of those situations. You can't have business owners (irrespective of the size of their company) firing people on a whim. It would lead to exactly the sort of exploitation that labour brokering has been used for (not, of course, to suggest that all labour brokers or their clients are exploitative).

As you correctly point out, business owners often make mistakes due to a lack of business expertise. But their employees shouldn't have to pay for those mistakes. Being a business owner opens up fantastic opportunities, but it's not without risk or responsibility.

[Slow Blow]

60K cash a month, no K4's, fook em all

[adrianh]

As a business owner myself and someone who helps other entrepreneurs, I very much sympathise with the challenge that you have perfectly summed up. So many of my clients began their business because they excelled at a particular trade or skill - be it catering, IT, engineering, or some other profession - only to discover the hard way that building a business around those talents involves a whole different set of complex skills.

We absolutely need simpler, less onerous rules - particularly with respect to our labour laws. But that does not mean that all regulations are bad. And when it comes to dismissal situations, I don't think that our laws are particularly complex:

1. Don't fire someone unless you have a fair reason (e.g. poor performance, incapacity, misconduct, operational requirements).
2. Before you fire someone, explore alternatives to dismissal and give the affected employee an opportunity to respond to your reason for firing them.

You don't need to be a labour law "guru" to get to grips with this. I've sat down with clients and explained it to them in half an hour or less. I've written plain English business guides that require less than an hour to read and apply.

Part of the problem is that many small business owners don't want to learn, or assume that it is a lot more complex than it really is. They want the freedom to do as they please. And in some respects, they do deserve more freedom. But dismissal is not one of those situations. You can't have business owners (irrespective of the size of their company) firing people on a whim. It would lead to exactly the sort of exploitation that labour brokering has been used for (not, of course, to suggest that all labour brokers or their clients are exploitative).

As you correctly point out, business owners often make mistakes due to a lack of business expertise. But their employees shouldn't have to pay for those mistakes. Being a business owner opens up fantastic opportunities, but it's not without risk or responsibility.

Well said.

[adrianh]

[FONT="]The ultimate problem[/FONT]: Forcing human capital to work happily for an amount the employer determines

I disagree, the ultamate problem is a third party holding a wedge between employer and employee.

I say this because my staff and my famility have overlapping lives because not only do we have similar problems they also work at my home. We have a very clear understanding of their issues and they have the same understanding of ours. When they don't deliver nobody gets paid and sometimes they do deliver and the customer doesn't pay so they still don't get paid. We all sort of suffer together. When things pick up we all share in the spoils. Ok, so what I am trying to say is they work hard and we work hard and we all have our nuts on the same line. They understand that there is a light at theend of the tunnel but that it is up to each and every one of us to suffer together till we reach that light. It is their choice, they are free to leave if they want, they understand that if they don't do the work then mywife and the girls and I will do it and it will get done with or without them. They cannot hold us at ransom simply because there is nothing that they can do that we cannot or will not do ourselves. Ok, so what would the situation be with a union shop steward wedged between us and the workers, well for starterse wouldn't have the level of personal contact that we do. They would be the workers and we would be management. They would stop all work if their salaries are paid late and that would simply worsten the situation because now more work isn't getting done. We would be unable to address issues as they arisebecause all communications have to go via the union...etc..

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I have no time for unions and I believe that they are the single most destructive force not only in the workplace but also in this country. I have witnessed numerous smallish businesses close down due to unionisation and the militancy that goes with it and I vow that I will close my doors before I will allow a arrogant incompetent knitwit to dictate to me and my workers what we may and may not do.

[cyppokagain]

One of the reasons I got here was following metals prices vis a vis geopolitical and macro/micro impacts.

Two things the mines in SA suffered from was capital wasn't being put in due to all the regulation, BEE(taxes), and other aspects which not only limit capital returns at the time of investment, through the development and mining phase but also at the time of equity return and capital recycling. The second aspect is capital investment in other locations where you could be certain of capital you put in remaining yours and labor being substituted by more intensive(underground) development. Think Finland and Canada where and underground mine might cost a multiple of what it would in SA but if you lay things out long term it becomes cheaper since the fixed costs amortize over time and theoretical inflation or deflation would help you recoup a larger share of capital due to labor/capital machinery break-down. Regulation regarding pollution may be tougher but capital certainty regarding ownership and benefits is also carries more trust.

The only way to keep a society going is to have everyone have a stake that they earned, and not just phantomly redistributed based on someone's preconceived notions today and then tomorrow, and then after that and so on. Everyone should be able to have a chance to participate in the market and make ends meet. Gov't wants barriers because it gets fees from entry/exit/participation and so on irrespective of weather there is growth through the system or it simply stagnates.

[gac]

And the truth is that throwing more money at employees doesn't necessarily improve the level of initiative - initiative is an ingrained attitude to life in general and it can only be rewarded when displayed - not rewarded in advance in the hope it gets displayed.