News24

Labour broking: Cosatu not backing down

2012-03-07 13:23

Durban - Labour brokers will remain a contentious issue between Cosatu and government until they are abolished, Cosatu president S'dumo Dlamini said on Wednesday.

"We will never understand the regulation of labour brokers, we want a total ban," he told Sapa at the union federation's protest in Durban against labour brokers and e-tolling.

He said the Congress of SA Trade Unions had discussed the issue with government and was not happy that only regulation was on the agenda. Another protest about it would be held later in the year.

He said the state and Cosatu were still in agreement on a number of issues and the ANC government retained the federation's backing.

When asked if it would support President Jacob Zuma at the ANC's elective conference in Bloemfontein later this year, he said the strike had nothing to do with succession in the party.

"We are not trying to propel our view to Mangaung."

Dlamini admitted the nationwide protest was costly for both workers and businesses, but it was necessary to air concerns.

"This should not stop Cosatu raising issues."

Earlier, the protest started an hour behind schedule. There were numerous police officers along Dr Pixley ka Seme Street - formerly called West Street - and the crowd was under control.

Most of the shops were open prior to the march, but many of the usual informal traders who sold fruits and sweets were absent.

- Are you there? Send us your eyewitness accounts

Comments
  • Alex - 2012-03-07 13:31

    simple honest question here, because i genuinely do not know: Why does cosatu oppose labour brokers?

      Delils - 2012-03-07 13:36

      Labour brokers takes up 60% of moneys paid for labour they provided - which means that should the cost of a labourer be R100 for a day the labourer will get R40 and the broker R60. Which does not explain why they are totally against labour broking, I think it should be properly regulated!

      Sean - 2012-03-07 13:46

      I make use of labour brokers . I would also like to know the accurate percentage of who gets what ? Don`t forget , it also costs money to keep labour broking firms running ! Another question I would like to know , how much money don`t these unions make ? What is VAVI`S and the rest of those FAT-CATS salaries ??

      sizwe - 2012-03-07 14:04

      so @Sean you use the labor brokers and you don't know how much they are paying your employees? Sean that is just disgusting man, how can you not know what your employees are taking. This is exactly the problem with the brokers

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:06

      @ Alex Panicco. There is a full article released by COSATU thi smorning at the National Press Club explaining why their are on strike. He has covered the reasons they reject labour brokers extensively. For me it make good reason and it is not as simple as Delils put, that its only about salary. The issues of casualisation of labour, employers do not want to take responsibility of their employees. Different benefits of employees and more importantly its a way of trying too sidestep labour lawsand regulations.

      Jayb - 2012-03-07 14:12

      @ Delils i once received an email by miskate from my agency , only to find out they are billing thier client R88 000 a month for me while i'm earning less than R15 000, labour broker are greedy

      cj.venter - 2012-03-07 14:13

      they are like the government's tax laws. 60% for government, 40% to the worker, yet taxes are fine, but not labour brokers. what a joke.

      ChristopherGlenHarrison - 2012-03-07 16:25

      It's about more than just money. Labour broking often allows companies to bypass, sidestep, or just ignore various aspects of labour law - especially where they're used to fill permanent positions in a 'casualised' manner. Part of the trouble with doing this is that a lot of people have jobs, but are employed in a way that denies them a lot of the direct (secure income, freedom from arbitrary dismissal) and indirect (creditworthiness, promotion opportunities) benefits that usually come with employment.

      lloydbdicks - 2012-03-07 16:55

      Alex, the reason that Cosatu opposes labour brokers, is because they see the 1 million people who are employed through labour brokers on a daily basis, and realise that Cosatu could get a lot of membership fees if these people were unionized. A ban on labour brokers would only make our country less attractive to foreign investors who are looking to South Africa to open factories, call centers etc. We need to make it easier to employ people, not more difficult. The nature of "Decent Work" is changing globally. South Africa needs to keep up or we will be left behind. Countries like Australia are embracing ideas like job sharing (where 2 people each work a half day). They may not earn as much each, but they both earn something. We need more people employed. No one says that labour brokers must not be regulated. Lets just be sensible.

  • logical007 - 2012-03-07 13:34

    What is the difference between a labour broker and an employment agency dealing in part time staff? Employment agency also take a high percentage of wage meant for employee. Why strike against a company getting you work part time when you have nothing better lined up. Cosatu certainly has no work for the masses of unemployed. Cosatu and the labour laws are not making FOR employment but rather the opposite - increasing unemployment. Until labour laws are change unemployment rate will continue to increase

      sizwe - 2012-03-07 14:00

      So by your logic a person should be ok with someone taking R60 from the R100 you can be getting a day? And employment agency\broker all sounds the same to me. If you worked at a company for 2 years and this arrangement was in place for two years would you not see this as a problem too? It seems you are saying that a person must not protest when they are being ripped off over a long time like this. Also in my understanding a part time employee would mean a person who does not work full time. Meaning maybe 3 days a week much like a part time student. A temp on the other hand works full time Mon-Fri but has to give up some of their wages year in and year out... You cant propose a doomsday theory when what the brokers are doing is wrong, I would expect you to be on the side of the people getting ripped off. Also principally they should be taking a high percentage of your wage for two years or something ridiculous like that. COSATU said at max 6 months, but no the brokers want to rather take your money for 18 months instead... Greedy b@stards

      Nick - 2012-03-07 14:24

      they don't take 60% government uses labour brokers to fill positions in post office municipalities and other areas like power, arms etc majority of the time a salary is determinded by employer then that is what employee will get paid broker will charge that amount + a service fee below 10% the brokers that advertise cost to company should be shut down you know what you are being paid before you start not happy then walk out

      Craig - 2012-03-07 14:48

      @S1zwe, essentially, yes, why should the employer really be concerned about the remuneration split? It is good that some of them are, but that at the end of the day is neither here nor there. I have been contracting for twenty years, and during that time I have worked through many labour 'brokers' both in South Africa and in the UK. The broker essentially provides a service at a given cost to the company hiring and a service to the individual seeking work, which could include training and other benefits. Sure, there are many unscrupulous brokers, who will take both their clients (employer and employee) to the cleaners if they can get away with it, but at the end of the day, they offer service that is required in all sorts of ways in all sorts of businesses. And this is not specific to South Africa. This should not necessarily boil down to regulation, education is important here too. For instance, as a contractor, I have the right to negotiate the contract to better my cut on the deal if I want to and feel my education / experience warrants it. If the broker does not offer sufficient recompense, or commensurate training and experience given the employee environment, then I am fully within my rights to find another position with another broker. If times are tough, then I might have to take the offer regardless.. But I as the contractor can make that decision. Take away the labour broker completely, and I no longer have that option. That aint democracy.

  • Patrick - 2012-03-07 13:40

    Perhaps Cosatu and others need to realise that disruptive strike action is a perfect example of the very reason that labour brokers exist in the first place!

  • cosmos.ndebele - 2012-03-07 13:41

    In most European countries labour brokers ar paid by companies not deductions from people s pay check, Before i moved overseas i was a victim those labour sharks Horrible Horrible

  • Elizebeth - 2012-03-07 13:42

    There needs to be a tipping point in SA. Back in the early 80's great britain was in a lot of trouble, they were going very much backwards in term of GDP compared to the world amongst a host of other indicators. Not that she was everyone's favourite person, Margaret Thatcher turned them around. Will labour broking be the point where the government says to the unions, enough is enough ,or will they capitulate yet again? Somewhere a stand has to be made as we are in danger of drifting more and more down the left. I dont have a problem with state capitalism - but if we are going the way of the populists - look at Argentina for a lesson on how not to do things (For years their public debt has climbed to fund social reform and now they are bankrupt to the point where they are raiding banks and pension funds) I am in full support of workers rights but there has to be a balance.

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:14

      @Elizabeth. We actually do have a balance on our labour laws. Employers have rights similar to employees as well but what employers want is to have more powers than workers. The day to day complaint by employers is that it is difficult to fire workers. I totaly disagree, if only employers can follow the law and don't arbritarily dismiss workers just because he exercise his right, it will be easy to dismiss workers. Stick to procedure and the substantive reasons as stipulated by law, you can fired lazy or out of order workers.

  • Victor - 2012-03-07 13:48

    As I have said before I would like to see the masses sitting in front of their computors writing their CV's and then looking for job's themselves, JA NEE the unemployment record will soar to new limits.

      Nick - 2012-03-07 14:28

      exactly that is just one of the many services brokers offer everything from the job spec, adds, cvs, interviews, criminal checks etc those that take a cut from your pay should be jailed but those companies are few and far between my extansive dealings never come across one that touches the pay the company offers to maximize profit on that candidate

  • Alan - 2012-03-07 13:48

    Cosatu's main problem with Labour Brokers is that most of the workers in them are not Union members. Thus there are thousands of potential Union members who do not pay Union fees. This means millions of rands for conferences and parties is not coming into their coffers.

      Bahle Mathe - 2012-03-07 14:09

      Labour Brokering is an inhumane and exploitative practice most companies malafides use Labour brokering to avoid paying benefits that employees would ordinarily be entitled to. No medical aid, no pension and no Job security. They use people like animals and throw them away like objects. If U also involve in this practice Allan, you should look for others business opportunities because soon its over.

      Linda - 2012-03-07 14:13

      VIVA COSATU VIVA!!

      cj.venter - 2012-03-07 14:16

      did you know that if you're employed in a factory and opt NOT to be a union member, you still get to pay a fee which is deducted as NON-UNION fees and that money goes to the union anyway? it's on every payslip i have.

      Marion - 2012-03-07 14:56

      cj.venter - perhaps they reckon they have the right to charge you because any strike action that the union members are involved in will benefit you too?

  • Mzamo - 2012-03-07 13:50

    I would think it will make more sense to regulate them at the moment. But if the doesn't work, i.e. they still exploit people, ban them! It is really not fair that 60% of the money that suppose to go to the worker ends up taken by the Labour Broker!! That's "mordern slavery"!!

      Lebogang - 2012-03-07 14:10

      Mzamo, until last week I was earning 40% of what my peers were earning. I took the job because I was jobless from a failed business, did I think it was exploitation? NO, because I signed the contract myself and accepted terms and conditions. Was I satisfied? No, that is why I found another Job. My point, Exploitation comes with coession of some kind, no coession no exploitation.

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:17

      @Mzamo. This is not just about money. COSATU have given ample reasons this morning why they don't want labour broking. The attitude is to evade the labour laws and regulations which the workers have fought so hard. many people died in this struggle. It must be banned outright, I actually don't know why Mdladlana brought this barbaric practice in the first place.

      Gerhard Grobler - 2012-03-07 14:28

      @Lebo- I totally agree. Said to one of my colleages earlier, this strike to bannish labour brokers might not be because of the monies they take, radical as it may be but rather to try and eliminate contract work. Meaning that employees could not easily get fired or retrenched, thus decreasing unemployment and increasing their numbers and obviously their revenue. This would however burn the economy down because an unproductive labour force, the cost of labour and the impact of trade unions are costing employees and businesses more than what could ever be recovered. Just one of the many possible theories though.. No one forces people to use a labour broker and beggers can't be choosers.

      Nick - 2012-03-07 14:29

      amazing cause vavi says it's 60% then that's law if i tell you two clowns the moon is made of cheese suppose you will believe me

  • Marion - 2012-03-07 14:01

    Check out this aerial pic of the Joburg march. http://twitpic.com/8t40ik

  • Herman - 2012-03-07 14:03

    Labour brokers do not create jobs. They are not helping in anything except taking away the rights and salaries of the workers, parasites, sies!!!

      MrAversion - 2012-03-07 14:13

      Dude, labour brokers are not supposed to create jobs. Businesses create jobs and labour brokers provide a service to the businesses, which is to populate those jobs with warm bodies. I think the idea of banning labour brokers outright is stupid. Having said that, I think there is a need for the way the labour brokers operate to be managed better. There has to be a transition from casual to permanent labour, ie if a business is continually relying on labour brokers to fill the same jobs over and over again, then that's a clear abuse.

      Nick - 2012-03-07 14:33

      they don't create jobs but they get the masses with no internet access to the jobs if the pay you are getting is determined by the employer and not the broker then there can't be any issue if they ban them then might as well ban tenders since they are supposedly there to "spread wealth' and help create jobs limpopo x 2 premiers family , 1 business partner and julias can account for R2bn in tenders

      roger.pacey - 2012-03-07 18:27

      According to Adcorp, 25% of new jobs created last year were the result of labour broking. By that, they mean that the temporary posts that people were placed in by labour brokers became permanent. As an interested party, Adcorp's figure may be inflated but, if it's a valid mechanism of getting people into permanent employment, it would run counter to SA's interests to ban such activities outright.

  • Brian - 2012-03-07 14:07

    I used labour brokers in Durban and Joburg. If I needed a welder for a day or two, maybe even a few weeks, I would call them and get someone for that time. But also another company I worked for, we had contract labour guys there for three years and more. That is where it becomes problematic. We could just as well hired those guys, given them benefits and still come out on top! I used to do the billing, so I know the exact figures that brokers make. They are like temp agencies on steriods! Totally our of control. What if you need someone for a short project for three months or so? One cannot just hire for that period. So an analysis needs to be done and specific data needs to be available on who is abusing the system. They could ban them totally, then relax the labour laws to make employment "at will". Or the best option imo, is to find a nice balance - if that is at all possible...

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:13

      Brian, what provisions of labour law in you opinion need to be made less tight? Be specific please...

      Marion - 2012-03-07 14:16

      @Brian... 'temp agencies on steroids' - love it.

      Brian - 2012-03-07 14:34

      To be honest, when using contract labour and a persson is not performing, one calls the broker and that person is replaced the next day, no hasssle with HR or unions. To me, that is wrong. A person needs to be trained, and more importantly mentored AND given regular feedback. That is lacking in many companies. Managers want to hire and fire and treat the workers like cattle. (sorry to say) In my experience, the labour law makes provision IF managers do their jobs in terms of performance measurement which they (in a lot of cases) are too slack to do. To train and develope a person is so much more beneficial to the company and society if that person ever leaves. There is a place for agencies like I said, if you need someone for a day or two. But if the hiring process and training is done CORRECTLY you won't see half the CCMA cases you see. At will employment won't work in SA. We have a unique situation here, and we need to improve skills right across the board. One cannot perform if you don't know if you have a job tomorrow or not. The labour law is perfect for SA if you read and apply it.

      Marion - 2012-03-07 15:07

      @Brian - 'a person needs to be trained, and more importantly mentored and given regular feedback'. So right. In terms of labour legislation there are fair disciplinary procedures in place and, if followed correctly, there will not be any CCMA judgements against companies. I've been wondering what the hidden costs are to companies that use labour brokers and temp labour on a regular basis e.g. unproductive workforce because it keeps chopping and changing.

      Brian - 2012-03-07 15:45

      @Marion - I agree. people are too quick to see the labour law from one side only. It is there to protect the company AND the worker. In most cases, IF a company does their part correctly, they have no problem getting rid of a "non-performing" worker. On the other hand, workers are protected to some extent by the labour law from being exploited in one way or another. On thee role of contract labour, yes, there is a place for them if one needs a short project completed, etc, but these have been allowed to grow to where the companies use them to avoid sticking to their part of the agreement when it was written several years ago. Bargaining councils are meant to be represented by managemen and workers so if their bargaining skills are suspect, why must the worker suffer. Of course, as in all things in life, we get people who are problematic, but again, if one applies the guidleines set out in the act correctly, BOTH parties have recourse. I don't mean to have a go at business, but it's time to look at what our real motives are and what drove them to take this stance of calling for a complete ban.

      roger.pacey - 2012-03-07 18:33

      My understanding is that you can hire people for a fixed period on contract. The practice that labour law is aiming to eradicate is the repeated renewing of contracts so that workers end up working continuously without the benefits of permanent employment.

  • gerhard.klinger - 2012-03-07 14:08

    Labour brokers have their space..... why employ permanent staff with all the costs/hassles involved when you only need a high number of staff for a short period?

  • Chester Dk Muthelo - 2012-03-07 14:10

    Half bread loaf is better than nothing i dont agree with cosatu on Labour brokers

      Given - 2012-03-07 17:42

      Why have half a loaf of bread when u can have a loaf of bread

  • Siphiwo - 2012-03-07 14:11

    Should they win their battle, what happens to the ppl who are employed through labour brokers? are the measures that COSATU has put in place to ensure that these are offered employment. Maybe my logic is skewed but should they successed this would add to the high employement rate. I support the view to regulate them not get rid of them completely as there is reason why companies use them.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:16

      Siphiwo kindly share through technical projections how banning of Labour Brokers increases unemployment

      Siphiwo - 2012-03-07 14:22

      Pharaoh, companies are not obliged to offer perm employment to the people who are at risk to lose their jobs should their Labour Brokers close down or are they?

      Linda - 2012-03-07 14:49

      Easy those companies where people perform their duties would simple absorb them!

      Bahle Mathe - 2012-03-07 14:53

      If companies didn't need those people they wouldn't not have used them in the first place. They run to these Labour brokers for cheap Labour. Labour brokers on the other hand are parasites who live on other people's Blood and sweat, an employee works alone for a full month only for 50 percent of his hard work to go to someone else. Human rights are undermined in this country.

      Marion - 2012-03-07 15:09

      @Siphiwo - if the employee has been with the company for more than three months I think the company would have to offer them permanent employment if labour brokers are done away with. May be wrong though.

  • Jiri - 2012-03-07 14:14

    am also confused on this issue. Is it a fact that if i wanted a cleaner for my house/office etc i must pay the minimum prescribed wages. It does not matter if i employ the person directly or via the labor broker. Now why would i want to employ via the labor broker. Well simple i am prepared for the broker to ensure that i have the person coming to me. I appreciate that the basic cost is the same and i appreciate he will add his expenses on top. 60% I doubt that. By employing myself i will save this percentage, but i will have the headache of the hiring and firing, the screening, the replacement in case of marching in a strike or illness or just because today is not a good day to work.. this is especially so if i don't have a full ime work for the person. I am loosely thinking like picking fruit which is season dependent. Or the construction company which has a project for 1 maybe 2 months. Why must he sit with that problem of terminating the employment. What about the case where due to rains there is flood damage and clean up to be done. Why should the municipality not be able to go to the labor broker and get 20 or even a 100 staff to help in the clean up.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:59

      Majority workers refuse to allow establishment of labour laws the only protects interest of employers. Labour Brokers benefit the employer by getting work done at expense of abuse and exploitation of workers. From such sick scheme the employer run a less risk of getting whipped in case workers rights are undermined or abused. Labour brokers in exchange greedily profit while workers only benefit what all supporting the scheme called 'half a loaf better than nothing'. We never fought in apartheid struggle for half a loaf for your information, ANC need to be reminded of that!

  • Charles - 2012-03-07 14:16

    What COSATU are pushing for is ultimately to make it illegal to employ anyone who does not belong to a union. That conversly would mean that it would be illigal to work for someone if you are not part of a union. In order to be a union member you would have to pay your union dues every month. Go Figure!! The union bosses are all fatcats pretending to have workers rights at heart. They are liars. If they succeed in outlawing labour brokers the practice of facilitating short term employment will simply go underground. That will ultimately result in less tax being gathered. Employers will pay people to work and conceal the payments as other expenses and in so doing dilute the fiscus. Unions always rely on presenting a one dimensional version of the facts to a gullible uninformed workforce that only see collective bargaining as a means to demand increased earnings that ultimately the economy cannot afford.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:21

      We have plenty ununionized workers not under labour brokers, how do you explain this reality if you equate absence of labour brokers to forced affiliation with unions?

  • Bahle Mathe - 2012-03-07 14:20

    If you need a high number of employees for a short period you hire them on short term contracts, there is no hustle in that. Companies do not care about how bad these Labour brokers treat People, they can use a new face everyday for that matter so long as s/he do the job, all they care about is making profit without being accused of unfair labour practices because that liability is shifted to the labour broker

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:30

      Fully agree Bahle we will fight against anything that seeks to reverse the labour laws we fought for many years. I don't think the majority worker is in harmony with weakening of labour laws we already have. The average worker wants a total ban of labour brokers at not cost to our labour laws already in practice.

  • cj.venter - 2012-03-07 14:21

    HA, told you all that they were using the e-toll as an excuse to further their own agenda against labour brokers. bet you the e-toll system goes ahead and perhaps it'll drop in price by 5c per KM. so much for us NOT paying for the road fixings

      Alan - 2012-03-07 15:15

      Don’t buy e-tags. I am not going to let anybody deduct money from my account without proof of service. I will insist that Sanral POST all photographs of my car (with my number plates) going through the toll gates. They cannot email them because my spam blocker won’t allow them. Then if they can get that right then maybe I will pay.

  • Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:22

    What interest me about the march is the conspicuous absence of the SACP and the YCL. Not a single word from the General Secretaries of these worker aligned organisation. Any member please help me, has the SACP and YCL abandon the working class projects???????

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 14:38

      YCL existence is pointless they are nothing but SACP with no clear mandate. SACP could not give Cosatu full support as far as the march is concerned because their party senior officials Blade and Jeremy (deputy minister transport) have gone soft on government for obvious reasons.

  • Lebogang - 2012-03-07 14:27

    Aren't negotiations taking place in NEDLAC. Cosatu is holding us to ransom, maybe because their negotiators have run out of sound arguments to a total ban of labour brokers. I think there is a delicate balance somewhere that can only be found by specialist labour economists, and not populist union bosses and ambitious politicians.

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:40

      COSATU's labour economist have made numerous submission on this subject and yet the exploitators at NEDLAC don't want to listen, unless you suggest that let us to listen to the so-called capitalist baised labour economist like Andrew levy.

      Rob - 2012-03-07 14:54

      Mzwandile: It sure is a difficult task feeding all those masses, educating and healthcare too....and let's not forget jobs (or at least the fiction of work to ensure some level of self-respect). Well, communism failed and collectivism hasn't done much better, so unless you want to take everyone back to being hunter gatherers or self-sustaining dirt-farmers, you are left with capitalism. Of course capitalists manipulate economies, maybe they even invented them, but I would rather put my fate in their hands than a bunch of lefties.

  • Rob - 2012-03-07 14:41

    It is governments job to establish laws that ensure fair treatment for all, even labour brokers! Today there must be a profit motivation for labour brokers, and there must be a market need.......Otherwise they simply wouldn't exist. The market need is "jobs", so only a crazy person would want these jobs to disappear. Seems to me to be obvious that regulation is the answer, regulation that ensures fair treatment for all and keeps, or even increases, jobs. As a country we have got to stop destroying stuff in the stupid and false belief that new is always better/cheaper/more effective/smarter/shinier than a properly maintained existing system.

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:48

      Please be critically honest in your argument, labour brokers don't create jobs, companies do and they can employ people directly themselves. There is no need of labour brokers except exploitation of the workers through reduced salary, no benefits and years of casualisation.

      Rob - 2012-03-07 15:06

      Mzwandile: You can read anything you like into what you read, but I did not state that labour brokers create jobs. The trouble is that YOU cannot change the reality by making a statement that there is no need for labour brokers. It is idiotic to try, but good luck maybe somebody will read and not think! Labour brokers serve a market need, now try to apply your mind to ideas that will make them more effective and fair.

  • Vic - 2012-03-07 14:46

    If labour brokers are outlawed, logic tells me it would leave many workers out of a job? Maybe I'm missing something. Brokers should be regulated. Many people, like myself, won't employ someone full time because of government's red tape. Fair wages should be criterior.

      Mzwandile - 2012-03-07 14:54

      Your argument Vic is flawed. Companies create jobs, if there is a need for a worker the company will employ them. There only problem we have in this counrty is the anti union attitute by the employers. Unions are here in stay

      Linda - 2012-03-07 14:56

      Vic, these companies do not create employment, they simply facilitate the recruitment procedures and abuse people. Which regulation/s in our country that you people respects? Road Traffic Acts, Income Tax Act, Inside information Act, Environmental Act, Air Quality Act etc. Do companies obey these acts?

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 15:11

      Then enforcement and monitoring of temp contract labour will be workers answer to that. You can not repeatedly renew temp contracts for time indefinitely or as it suits you Vic. We have the LRA that will protect us from your greedy illegitimate, unfair plans. Since you can not afford to be out of business I guest you will have no choice but to comply. I fail to understand why you are threatened by organized labour post apartheid. Maybe it has much to do with your unwillingness to respect workers rights and your resistance to treat them as important assets with rights. All you think of is making profit even if it means deriving it through unfair, unorthodox greedy ways at the expense of abused worker labour power. Stop thinking only for yourself you greedy capitalist. In this country at this point in time you will jump!

  • Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 15:24

    Siphiwo I guess you got the answer to your fears from Marion. Employers will be forced to comply with that regulation. So what now, are you going to create positions with new responsibilities every 3 months and renew temp contracts to avoid this legislation? You will be forced as an employer to employ workers on perm basis unless you can afford to be out of business.

  • Graham.Cooper2 - 2012-03-07 15:28

    And just how many people get work through these labour brokers. The other reason why people use brokers is the arogance the labour force has once employed.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 16:06

      Agent, approximately the same number of workers you mentioning would have benefited fairly from companies in absence of Labour Brokers. Companies were going to employ them on perm basis with rights to raise their concerns. Currently companies take advantage of government permitting Labour Broker practice and send a misinformed message to people like you to believe without Labour Brokers 'work as normal' would not be possible as workers are arrogant. BS! You will only support this if you are benefiting from the system if not you have extremely low degree of comprehension.

      Tshepo Modupi Kekana - 2012-03-07 18:40

      I hate labour brokers, because I am scared that when I die my kid is going to suffer because of this robbers...even today I don't know how much their taking from my salary.

  • Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-07 15:48

    Rob Labour Broker system benefit greatly employers by providing them with platform to abuse workers rights. Labour Broker system benefit greatly the labour broker who greedily and unfairly profits from exploitation of the worker. If anything 'positive' it does to the worker Labour Broker system rewards the worker with unfair 'half a loaf' slice. Labour Broker scheme is ONLY a necessity for unjust labour practice and profit for the employer and the labour broker not for the necessity for the country as you put it. Ask yourself: Can employers get the desired quality/quantity of work at relatively reasonable costs and cost, at low carbon footprints and safely in the absence of Labour Brokers? I say yes! If your answer is no then in my opinion you are benefiting from this sick scheme else you are ignorant.

  • Ernest - 2012-03-07 15:49

    in 1972 approximately- in jacksonville,florida-fruhauf ship yard-i was forced to pay 20 dollars to man power out of every 100 dollars and 20 dollars to job supervisor on daily cash basis. they would cash your check and take on the spot the cash,this unwritten contract was for 2 months. I turned in supervisor to labor commission he was fired and lost his pension he was 18 year employee of shipyard. I was threatened to withdraw my complaint but refused.

      Marion - 2012-03-07 15:54

      Ernest - well done.

  • David Nkagisang Gawa - 2012-03-07 16:56

    Away with this vampiers.

  • Bronwyn - 2012-03-07 19:40

    labour brokers seems to be the hot topic, but what about e-tolling? seems like something the working (etc) force is being forced to comply with so that we are able to get to our jobs.

  • Marc - 2012-03-08 09:41

    Countries with more relaxed labour laws encourage employment. FACT. I have employed tempory staff who work great. Take them on full-time and suddenly they are lazy,late, drunk etc.They know the hassle it is to fire staff. Labour brokers just need to be regulated. People willingly take jobs from labour brokers so where is this slavery we keep hearing about. Cosatu worry only about employed unionised workers but nothing for the unemployed. We live in a global market and the money goes to the most competitive markets.

  • pages:
  • 1