News24

Labour broking is slavery - Numsa

2012-03-06 14:39

Johannesburg - Labour broking amounts to human trafficking, National Union of Metal Workers of SA (Numsa) general secretary Irvin Jim said on Tuesday.

"Numsa is firm that labour broking, like all forms of slavery, cannot be regulated. It must be banned," Jim told reporters in Johannesburg.

Numsa would join Cosatu's protest on Wednesday against labour brokers and e-tolling.

"If we are to defeat labour broking with all its precarious exploitative conditions, we must be organising every sector of our society to say no to this cheap labour system which is equal to modern slavery."

The trade union called on its members to join the protest.

Standstill

"Make sure the economy is bolted tomorrow [Wednesday], at a standstill. This is our opportunity to bury labour brokers."

Jim quoted from the Freedom Charter which states: "All shall be free to travel without restriction from countryside to town, from province to province, and from South Africa."

Numsa believed the e-tolling system, set to come into effect in Gauteng at the end of next month, would have a financial drain on the working poor, who could not afford the new tolls.

"These tolls are especially destructive to poor people because of the way apartheid planning placed our Gauteng townships at long distances from centrally-located jobs, commerce, and recreation," Jim said.

Electronic tolling of 185km of the N1, N3, N12 and R21 around Johannesburg and Pretoria is scheduled to start on April 30.

Motorcycles with e-tags will pay 20 cents a kilometre and those without 38 cents. Light motor vehicles will pay 30 cents and 58 cents respectively, and non-articulated trucks 75 cents and R1.45.

- Are you going to take part? Send us your eyewitness accounts and photos.

Comments
  • Michele - 2012-03-06 14:51

    Very sneaky of the unions to lump the labour broker issue with the etoll issue. They have been trying to do away with labour brokers for years and not been succesful. What they don't tell you is that banning labour brokers is going to cost the country round about 400 000 jobs. that at a time when people are desperate for work. I think NUMSA should go and do their homework again.

      hayden.cajee - 2012-03-06 15:00

      My sentiments exactly, its 2 completely different issues and should be addressed in that manner. Im all for labour broking as its the lesser of 2 evils, meaning at least its still creates jobs, 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing. With regards to the e-tolling, NO NO NO. There isnt any lesser evil!!

      Henri - 2012-03-06 15:07

      Now that the Bulls play in pink.... 0) Die Bulls se nuwe version van "Touch, Pause, Engage" is nou "Vroetel, Vryf en Cuddle"! 1) One lucky season ticket holder will win a free make-over during half time of each match. 2) Fans will no longer be allowed to braai before kick-off, instead fondue stations will be available for snacks. 3) The beer tent will no longer sell beer, but a wide variety of fruity drinks will be available. 4) The dancing girls will be replaced by a French poodle parade. 5) The man of the match will not receive a trophy, but rather a subscription to House and Home magazine. 6) The yellow card area will not be referred to as the sin bin, but will now be known as the temper tantrum tank. 7) The stadium will change from the Bull-Ring to the Fairy Garden. 8) The new mascot will be Lady the French Poodle. 9) A booth will be provided to exchange those dangerous horned helmets for the more appropriate silk scarf. 10) Liefling will still be the unofficial song.=))

      Marion - 2012-03-06 15:16

      Those who are saying 'any job is better than no job' would not be happy if they only got paid for hours worked without provident fund, medical aid etc. Michelle, how can it cost the country 400 000 if the 'slaves' are employed by the company. If they are currently employed how would the jobs they are in suddenly fall away just because the broker falls away? Surely the work still has to be done? Could be same cost to the company except with the brokers approximately 35% fee going towards benefits for the employees.

      Mouldy - 2012-03-06 15:59

      Marion, don’t be dense: The 400K jobs referred to are the actual employees working at the Labour Brokers, not the workers they place. A labour Broker works much the same as an employment agency: Identify the position, source the appropriately skilled person for the job and then get paid for it. I use labour brokers all the time for shutdown work. Presently I need 2 welders, 5 fitters, 8 riggers, 1 Electrician and 1 Instrument Tech. I do not have these skills in my workforce, (well I do, but not enough of them) When the job is completed in two weeks from now, I let the contract workers go. I cannot afford to employ these 17 people permanently; it will drain my finances to have them sit around for 50 weeks a year with nothing to do. Incidently, I see many familiar faces coming back each year to my business to work here, and I have on occasion employed one or two of them permanently after getting to know them and their quality of work. I have also offered the one welder a permanent position in my company, but he decline saying that I cannot pay him enough, he makes more as a freelance contractor. What now?

      Banele - 2012-03-06 17:17

      Marion is right- labour broking is another modern evil. People work for labour brokers for years without being permanent and having any job security. Anyone who supports them obviously isn't and has never worked for a labour broker. Besides the 60% mark-up rate they take from monies due to you, they also exploit you. You can get fired for no reason, just because the manager doesn't like you pants. Its that stupid and petty and exploitative in its nature. Mouldy you should do your homework!! Clearly you have never worked fro them cause if you have, you would have known this. Plus what about retirement? Imagine working for 10yrs and no cent when you leave the company. Well it happens everyday.

      bernpm - 2012-03-06 20:39

      @Mouldy: a sensible comment. Labour brokers are an economical necessity and more so when labour laws reduce the use of labour beyond economic feasibility. Nothing to do with slavery, just cost control.

  • rowan.maulson - 2012-03-06 14:51

    Labour broking is like slavery? Wow, thats a bit of stretch there Irvin. How about I tell you that labour broking has accounted for approximately 20% of the jobs created over the last decade? Or that without labour broking, those people would all be unemployed and not earning anything to survive.

      morecats - 2012-03-06 15:29

      What this idiot doesn't see is that in big industrial shutdowns, labour brokers are the only companies geared to supply labour. In our industry, a typical shutdown lasts between 36 hours and 5 days with a frequency of every six weeks and what these idiots are proposing is that all extra labour needed for this eventuality, be permanently employed. This would solve their problem of creating jobs but the spin-off would be that most companies specializing in contract services for big business, will have to close their doors due to the added payroll burden that no mid size company would be able to sustain. So this is a stupid plan, hatched by stupid people for a stupid solution for a thorny problem. Cosatu needs to have more members paying fees for the fat slobs at the top to maintain their lifestyle as with the labour force of labour brokers, they cannot get their grubby paws on the loot! Morons deluxe!

      Banele - 2012-03-06 17:21

      Rowan- thats a lie, because when a company needs workers, they need workers. Those people would be employed, cause the running of the company depends on it. No one can justify this madness, and again, people who support labour brokers are those who are permanent in their jobs and do not fully understand the nature of this slave trading.

      bernpm - 2012-03-06 20:45

      Is buying cup of coffee in a restaurant any different from using a labour broker??? I cannot pay a monthly salary for a coffee maker, so I hire one for 30 minutes!!

      Em - 2012-03-06 21:49

      They don't create jobs, they just fill vacancies with slave labour. I know from experience. Some of them take 60% of the rate. They ascertain what the client is prepared to pay and then they take what they want. And the slave is left with peanuts. Its not just the money issue. Their conditions or they call their fact sheet. Leave etc, etc, etc you're basically locked into a cycle from which you cannot return. Try telling your children there is no Christmas because the agent has closed the office from 23 December till 09 Jan. You get told to make arrangements and save to cover debt till then. So I do agree with them to a point. They are not taking care of their contract workers, just their own pockets.

  • jaz82 - 2012-03-06 14:53

    Work is hard to find these days, I do not know why must one complain if there is a way to make income. beggars cant be choosers.

  • Annelise - 2012-03-06 14:55

    Exactly how is labour broking slavery? Don't they get paid at all, or is it you get paid when you work? What is their problem with this?

      Adrian - 2012-03-06 15:04

      When I was working at SAPOS they had a company supplying us with staff on a regular basis. The people employed by them got wages which were based on the hours that they work. I don't see how this can be classified as slavery as it is a no work no pay situation. You are not forced to work and can resign anytime you want. The bottom line is that people had jobs!!!

      gerry.pelser - 2012-03-06 15:04

      Annelise – the (very flawed argument) is as such: When you work for a labour broker, the broker outsources you to your place of labour for a monthly fee, of which he then takes a percentage. This is seen as your “boss” – the labour broker – selling you off to someone else to do his work for him. This mindset cannot distinguish between “outsourcing your services” and “selling you off to the highest bidder”. The ideal is the employees (or workers, to be terminologically anal) would rather be directly employed at the place of labour, and the figure that would have been paid to the broker, go directly to the workers. Under a labour broker, there is also the perception that employee protection falls away. If you are employed by a broker, then your place of employment can terminate your contract immediately, whereas normal procedures need to be followed by direct employment. Of course you still work for the labour broker, which means you have that protection, but certain people’s thick skulls do not want to grasp this concept.

      Malesela - 2012-03-06 16:48

      Clearly you don't know anyone who has been exploited by this modern day slavery.My father and uncles are victims of this vicious practice, yes it feeds/has fed most of us but this came at unnecessary blood and tears of our fathers which can no longer be tolerated. They accept it, not by choice but as means of survival. Most of you who oppose this no nothing about what most of our blue collar workers have to endure.So keep your "intellectual" opinion to yourself or in Juju's words "JUMP" To answer ur "intellectual questions", it's modern slavery if 60% of your CTC is paid to your "slave master" known today the Labour Broker (fact). The remuneration is not based purely on the worker's contribution to output but to Labour broker's vested interest and bottom line to the employer. If anything, these guys are colluding at the expense of our blue collar workers.

      Em - 2012-03-06 21:51

      The fact that they take any % they want. They make loads of money. Its also the conditions of the contract you are forced to sign with them. Believe me, the rate is only the tip of the ice berg.

  • evdwesthuizen1 - 2012-03-06 14:56

    shows you the mentality of our comrades! I would rather have A job, than no bloody job!

      Farta - 2012-03-06 15:05

      They do not want 'jobs' - they want 'money'...

      Andrew Worrall - 2012-03-06 15:08

      I would rather have a job and no job is the very mentality that employers use to exploit people so that they can drink fancy wine and drive nice cars

      Andrew Worrall - 2012-03-06 15:08

      I would rather have a job and no job is the very mentality that employers use to exploit people so that they can drink fancy wine and drive nice cars

      mike.clery - 2012-03-06 17:54

      @Andrew Worrall. "I would rather have a job than no job". Isn't that true? Should people rather starve to death in protest because they believe that they should earn more? Don't you notice the people standing at the side of the road begging for work? Most of the comments here are ill-informed. People who work through labour brokers are employees (with all the "rights" that entails) of the labour broker, who has to carry all the administrative costs and risks of being an employer in SA. http://www.labourguide.co.za/contracts-of-employment/labour-laws-apply-to-all-types-of-employers-428 Banning labour brokers WILL cost jobs. You can bet your last rand that businesses WILL find ways of containing labour costs by reducing the number of jobs. And the unskilled will be the worst affected.

      Em - 2012-03-06 21:54

      Once again, if the company you are placed with is paying R100 an hour for you and you are being paid R40, how is that fair? The company thinks they're paying you R100 an hour when in fact they are paying the agent R100 an hour. THATS not fair practice now is it. Thankful to have a job? Sure, especially when you cannot afford most of your debt or to eat after the tax man and UIF have taken their cut. Clearly most of the comments here come from people who have absolutely no understanding of how labour brokers work,

  • Tulani - 2012-03-06 14:58

    the only problem they need to fix with regards to labour broker is that remuneration of employee should be controlled by the employer not the broker.... secondly the e-tolling is just stupid plan...that they need to kick it with all four legs...

      Farta - 2012-03-06 15:22

      I think they need to fix the gap between Irvin Jim's 2 front teeth first.

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:03

      Tulani, to add to your point: everyone in very concerned about the increase in food prices that will result due to e-tolling. Labour brokers keep labour costs down for many organisation including most food retailers. So would everyone be happy if those costs also get thrown on the pile? Secondly, where is the unemployed's voice in all this? I wonder what they would have to say. Something tells me they'll be willing to lose a percentage (btw it is nowhere near 60%) of their wage so that they can get a some money.

  • Andrew Worrall - 2012-03-06 15:02

    They are so right. I was a manager at a labour brokerage. A fee is discussed between the client (company) and broker for the use of the slave. The company scores, the broker scores due to high margins and the slave gets peanuts and abused. I hated it. There are big companies I can name who abuse labour brokers who in turn abuse desperate unemployed people.

      Gail - 2012-03-06 15:11

      Who, if it wasn't for the labour brokers would STILL be unemployed!! I worked for a labour broker for a while, and those employees who turned up for work regularly and were prepared to work got paid regularly...it was the lazy ones who had the problem.

      Marion - 2012-03-06 15:13

      @Andrew - I have never paid much attention to the labour broker issue, but with this strike coming up I did a bit of research and the only thing I can say is that working for a labour broker has to suck. The reason for outsourcing to labour brokers is, as you say, to the benefit of the company and the broker, not to the employee.

      Michele - 2012-03-06 15:24

      If we had fair labour laws ( fair to the employee and the employer and not skewed wholly in favour of the employee ) then there would be no need for labour brokers because firms would be happy to employ people directly. Simple as that, the unios have caused labour brokerages to come about ( albeit indirectly )

      Freddie - 2012-03-06 15:35

      ...and why has the labour broking industry suddenly grown and flourished over the past few years?? Because of our restrictive and business unfriendly Labour Legislation. Who implemented that?? Oh yes, the ANC, together with Cosatu!!!

      Vicker - 2012-03-06 16:01

      @Marion: The whole point of having one's own business is specifically to be in one's own benefit first and foremost. If it is also to the benefit of the employee then it is coincidental and advantageous, but not of primary importance. I cannot understand how intelligent people do not grasp the fact that the employer is the one link in the whole chain who should be looked after best of all - it is after all the employer who can grow the economy and create more jobs, NOT the employee. @Gail: You are correct - it is always the lazy sloths who bitch the loudest. I have used a specific labour broker for a number of years, and have "taken over" some of the gems that they placed by me. The useless ones I refuse to allow back here again, and I am sure they actually wonder why...

      rory.short1 - 2012-03-06 17:33

      Banning labour brokers does not alter the lack of morality of those who abuse other people trough the brokerage system. They will just find another avenue to exercise their abuse. Unemployment is what compels people in search of employment to resort to labour brokers. Provide another and better mechanism and the unemployed will go there instead.

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:04

      Then name them.

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:06

      @Marion. I don't know what kind of business you are in, but in the end, businesses are in business for the sake of the shareholders in the business. Do you iron other people clothes for free?

  • Deon - 2012-03-06 15:07

    If you don't like them don't use them. Unions should rather be banned.

      Annelise - 2012-03-06 15:19

      Yes Deon. I am going to strike tomorrow to have unions banned!!!!!Might even get a labour broker to lend me a couple of people to make up the numbers for my march!

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:12

      Annelise: I think we do it. Cosatu's strike estimated 100 000 for today. I can get you casual labourers at a cost to you of R2 000 000 (I'll give you discount). The labourers will get about R1 000 000 of that. Exactly R1 000 000 more than they got today. We can even ask them to sing and dance for us (I'll write it into the job description). If you've got the money, I can get the people.

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:13

      @Annalise: That will only cover us for an hour though...so it'll be a quick protest.

  • Lola - 2012-03-06 15:07

    Yes.. and you will afford those tolls even less without labour brokers who help people to get jobs.. I have not seen ONE logical argument on why they want to ban it... regulate it, sure.. ban??? Please... as usual some cronie gets an idea into their head and its jsut downhill from there.

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:16

      Yes, because a excellent boilermaker should certainly not be paid more than a terrible one...that would be outrageous. Who would even think of committing such a horrific deed.

  • Frikkie - 2012-03-06 15:11

    As owner of a labour broking company I have not had to chain or whip any of my employees yet.

      Marion - 2012-03-06 15:17

      Do they get benefits such as sick leave, annual leave, provident fund, paid lunch time etc.?

      Frikkie - 2012-03-06 15:23

      You still have to comply to all basic conditions of employment, plus I give my employees a provident fund.

      Jay - 2012-03-06 15:31

      To Marion Yes they get those benefits - SICK LEAVE, PROVIDENT FUND, PAID LUNCH, DEATH BENEFITS etc. etc. I work for a "Labour Broker"

      Jay - 2012-03-06 15:36

      And dont forget when their contract has ended they can claim UIF

      Marion - 2012-03-06 16:02

      @Jay - full unemployement benefits only accrue after every 4 years of service if my memory serves me correctly. @Frikkie - I am happy to hear that they do get all those benefits. Particularly that you give your employees access to a provident fund because I don't think that is required by law.

      mike.clery - 2012-03-06 18:07

      @lacoste.mokwena - And lets also ask what percentage goes towards the broker providing employee benefits as required by law, plus the administrative costs, plus contingencies for the costs of all the risks associated with being an employer. http://www.labourguide.co.za/contracts-of-employment/labour-laws-apply-to-all-types-of-employers-428

  • Phumi - 2012-03-06 15:13

    Numsa is also a labour broker to the workers just like Cosatu is a labour broker to other unions!

  • Piet - 2012-03-06 15:13

    With al these draconian labour laws people are going to invest a lot more in technology than unskilled workers. A robot does not demand every 6 months.

  • Jared - 2012-03-06 15:20

    Labour brokers mean not everyone needs to join a union, which means less money and power for the unions. They dont give a toss about the individual. Like anything in Africa, its about power and money. And Labour brokers don't help unions gain power OR money. Hence the ludicrous statements. The government should rather turn around and ban unions. At least some more jobs will be created.

  • Cliff - 2012-03-06 15:22

    i don't even know what labour broking is!

  • Freddie - 2012-03-06 15:22

    Labour Broking = Slavery??????? Since when can you kill your temp employees? I missed that memo!!!

      Martin - 2012-03-07 13:20

      Allegedly COSATU announced it this morning. It IS interesting. I feel like I should go get some 16th century get-up (a wig and a red coat perhaps) and prance about in tights.

  • richard.hipkin - 2012-03-06 15:25

    Our industry is such that we cannot employ a vast labour force, the work is sporadic, labour brokers supply us with skilled labour when we require them to.. If labour brokers are banned, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost because industry will not employ them... Hopefully these now unemployed masses will take this up with the unions, who called for them to be fired.

  • Mhlonso - 2012-03-06 15:34

    Why the unions need to negotiate salary increases every year?? Why not negotiate on five year contracts therefore we have stability in the country and less trashing. We can not have business held at ransom by unions. The Brokers are a revolt by the business. Unions need to do introspect..period!

  • Michele - 2012-03-06 15:41

    Marion, if you are a casual worker then you are not paying Union fees. In my opinion the Unions are feeling a little left out because they don't get a cut of the employees salary. Simple as that.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-06 16:04

      Michele, I agree Unions may have personal gain in advocating the strike but that doesn't make labour brokers and e-tolling correct. We need 2 challenge these issues even if it means we need the support from 'hijackers' like Union as u may call it!

      Guiliano - 2012-03-07 13:37

      no causal pay union fees too

  • Sean - 2012-03-06 16:33

    @Mouldy- Exactly !! These f@ckers think everyone can just employ hundreds of workers on permanent basis , ffs ! Labour Brokers work great for me , less problems !

  • terence.hess - 2012-03-06 16:48

    The comrade is speaking the truth it is a form of modern slavery because it is only the capitalist that benefits from this,not the workers,therefore it must be abolshed in its entirety.

      Brian - 2012-03-06 17:13

      You are so wrong here. The employee gains the wage he/she earned whilst on an assignment and if he/she is with a reputable Labour Broker he/she will be paid a reasonable rate. Without the Labour Broker he/she would probably not earn anything, because permanent jobs are not easy to come by.

      rory.short1 - 2012-03-06 17:17

      I think you need to broaden your perspective to include those who can only find employment through labour brokers. What will happen to them? They will just have to join the millions of unemployed.

      Brian - 2012-03-06 17:20

      Your suggestion (and the Unions)that the whole Labour Broking industry should be banned is crazy and like advocating that resturants should be benned in entirety because some restuarant owners don't pay their waiters and expect them to work only for their tips. You cannot merely generalise to this extent! By all means identify and weed out any unscrupelous players in the market, but don't paint every Labour Broker with the same brush.

      Henri James Christie - 2012-03-06 17:42

      You are clearly unable to think logically, what utter bull- of course the employees benefit, unless they are working for free. Do your homework on labour brokers and you will be astonished at the vast number of people employed by them, then ask yourself why this is so?? Because we as Employers are sick of kissing butts to get work done which is simple and straightforward. Do what you are paid for or move on!!!!!

  • Brian - 2012-03-06 16:56

    What is missing from most of the debate on Labour broking is that the people employed by Labour Brokers choose to be employed in this way. I own a business which is a Labour Brokerage and every one of my employees approached us to find temporary work for them, because they could not secure permanent employment. They are at liberty to resign and leave anytime they wish, so they are not in any way akin to slaves. Furthermore Labour Brokers are subject to all the statutory requirements of compliance with the Employment Act!The unions are way off line with their thinking in this matter.

      Chanki Modise - 2012-03-07 08:31

      Brain or brown whatever your name is stop talk sh+"t i went for interview for this company after everything they wanted me to work but they said i must work under a labour break for a year i said no way in hell ill work under this labour breaks sis broh get grip

      Chanki Modise - 2012-03-07 08:31

      Brain or brown whatever your name is stop talk sh+"t i went for interview for this company after everything they wanted me to work but they said i must work under a labour break for a year i said no way in hell ill work under this labour breaks sis broh get grip

      Chanki Modise - 2012-03-07 08:32

      Brain or brown whatever your name is stop talk sh+"t i went for interview for this company after everything they wanted me to work but they said i must work under a labour break for a year i said no way in hell ill work under this labour breaks sis broh get grip

  • Francois - 2012-03-06 17:09

    Comparing labour brokers to human traffickers is short of calling your first kiss an act of rape. If any research was done into the terribly wicked nature of human trafficking, they would be ashamed of this analigy.

  • rory.short1 - 2012-03-06 17:12

    Labour broking is obviously meeting two complementary needs, one, the need employers have for workers with, for the employer, flexible conditions of employment and two, the need of the unemployed for paid employment. Labour brokers, like any business person, are obviously responding to perceived needs. If both these conditions did not exist simultaneously there would be no opportunities in labour broking and as a business it would cease to exist. in this situation the Union's response of wanting labour brokers to be banned is worse than useless as it does not meet either of these very real needs within the community. Consequently I am not surprised that the government has not fallen in with the wishes of the various unions in this regard. It would be much more useful to all of us if the unions devoted themselves to meeting the needs which currently labour brokers are seeking to meet then labour brokers as such would naturally disappear.

      Chanki Modise - 2012-03-07 08:18

      Rory you don't know what you talking abt this labour brokers they suck peoples blood chana big time i worked for them couple of times this ppl they like brooms when you talk they sweep you under the table

  • Ali - 2012-03-06 20:42

    What about property agents? Want to ban them too?

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-06 20:56

      Ali are you clued up about labour brokers? You seem to miss the distinction between agents and labour brokers unless you kindly show how the two can resonates at same frequencies.

  • Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-06 21:14

    Most of our learned friends in this forum are failing to comprehend that Labour Brokers DO NOT create positions/employment in institutions but formulate contracts to exploit and profit from the system. Positions exist from company requirements and service needs and will not disappear with banning of Labour Brokers. Stop misleading the working class! Employment doesn't exist because of presence of Labour Brokers and will not cease when we do away with the scheme.

  • Lacrimose - 2012-03-06 22:19

    2012 and the best we can do is stay-away/march. These tired, raggedy means of protest not only cost in the usual way but also the inevitable rabble who will burn, destroy and kill. COSATU will, as usual, distance themselves from all 'unintended consequences', 'undesirable behaviour', yet will do zilch to remedy, rectify or repair. Oh wait, I believe there was a camp muttered about a few days ago. We're purported to be a civilised country - with laws and processes and procedures & a Constitution. There are many legitimate avenues here. If you want to march, join the army. If you want significant, meaningful change go to court, change your vote, report bad labour brokers and get better legislation and policing around them, don't sign-up for e-toll. Somehow a fundamental part of being a democracy is being missed here. We're all worn out here with marches and protests. The harm they do inevitably outweighs the final outcome.

      Pharaoh Malope - 2012-03-06 22:44

      Let us not view strikes as barbarian modes to make voices heard. Strikes can be made legally protected and are workers rights fought for by many of our brothers, sisters and parents. I can speculate that your fears are linked to the stigma attached to apartheid geared strikes. Relax and use the democratic right to strike even in 2012 if you feel the strike is necessary! Only the less informed will label your participation barbaric. Ok say you do not think the strike is the necessary way to force government to negotiate with the affected parties, what do you suggest the next practical step be from workers and consumer?

  • brechtje.gouws - 2012-03-07 12:52

    You know what, not all labour brokers are the same, we ask the client what they want to pay the temp and then we qoute the client. We are not stealing money, as you we also want to work and get money! We dont ask money to take your cv put it on our database and phone you when there is a possition available. You dont pay a cent!!! But fine if you want to buy newspapers, get internet ect. to find yourself a job. Be glad that you have a job even if there is no pension or medical you still have money for food. And no I dont have pension or medical im just happy to have a JOB.... Another thing is why dont you work but still look out for something with pension and medical or is it that you just want the best? Well you need to start somewhere..........

  • Guiliano - 2012-03-07 13:26

    labour borkers should go if not be given rules, like soccer agents they should not be making more off your employement then you, so the max a broker makes for placing you should be 15% off you annual salary.At the moment they making 80%. So say you get paid a hourly salary of R25per they getting R75 per. This needs to end soon. The rich get richer off Labour brokers. Niggias time for you to go or controled.

      Sinethemba Matshini - 2013-06-12 12:29

      I agree 100%

  • Mierra Mengal - 2013-09-28 15:26

    Job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer and you can work with your own working hours. You can work this job as a part time or as a full time job. You can earn from 65$ an hour to 1000$ a day! There is no limitations, it all depends from you and how much you want to earn each day. Go to this site Economy tab for more detail... http://clck.ru/8qntZ

  • pages:
  • 1