# Social Category > South African Politics Forum > [Opinion] Xenephobia

## adrianh

My Zimbabwean staff have been told on numerous occasions to move out because they are going to be forcefully removed after the world cup.

I hereby vow that if anything happens to my Zimbabwean staff that I will *NOT* hire South Africans to replace them. If the South Africans think that they can intimidate good hard working people and thereby forcefully get jobs for themselves, they are making a moerse mistake. :Headbutt: 

It is time that South Africans learn that they should work for their money like everybody else.  :Chair:  I work 16 hours a day, mostly for peanuts to keep the business going and to make sure that the staff get paid. :Banghead:

----------


## tec0

Ah yes, this is not the first time that I was told that Zimbabwean staff is worth gold. However if your staff is "legal" then you can relocate them âif you have the means to do soâ. I know of a famer that did just that. His employees were legal and he gave them proper secure shelter. 

However, the growing problem is the fact that Zimbabweans are also used as a cheap form of labour. Now I am not saying you are, but the fact is, it is happening across South Africa. Then there is also the alarming crime factor to consider... a lot of âattacksâ on South African people are largely blamed on illegalâs... Again I am not saying that all people that cross our borders are evil. The truth is, it takes really very little to create unrest.  
 :Frown:

----------


## sgafc

People will always look for greener pastures..and if you think we the only ones with a "problem", look at the US(Mexicans), or the Eastern Europeans"invading" England.

It is the refusal of the authorities to deal with these issues constructively that is the problem, NOT the illegal immigrants!

Jobs can never be taken away... they have to be created..that the South AFricans have to realise :Smile:

----------

desA (08-Jun-10)

----------


## Butch Hannan

You have my sympathy and I admire your stand. 

This is a situation that has been created by the powers that be. The trade unions have unfortunately created an ethos of more and more money for less and less work. You will not get the same production out of the locals.

Good Luck to you!!!!

----------

Dave S (17-Jun-10)

----------


## twinscythe12332

I agree with you adrianh. It's just like how Muslims have been labeled as terrorists and are treated with suspicion and hatred, all because a few idiots decided to blow stuff up... often enough it is the minority that ends up making a name for the majority.

----------


## Dave S

> You have my sympathy and I admire your stand. 
> 
> This is a situation that has been created by the powers that be. The trade unions have unfortunately created an ethos of more and more money for less and less work. You will not get the same production out of the locals.
> 
> Good Luck to you!!!!


No Kidding!! We currently have a case where an employee, a member of SACAWU has outright refused to do anything more than his Job Statement identifies as his tasks. This same employee is asking for more money and a promotion! Here's where we have a problem.

How are we to know that he is capable of doing a more advanced task? If it's never been on his job statement, he would never do the additional tasks and therefore would not be legible for a promotion.

If his attitude has always been to do only what is stated in his JS, then obviously, he is on a fixed salary that relates to his JS, so he isn't eligible for an increase either?

Trying to get this fellow to understand that he must show his initiative in order to advance is like trying to tell a brick wall to grow taller.

There are many staff members that I, personally, have advanced in leaps and bounds over the years, because they have "gone the extra mile" in proving their worth to the company.

The motto of all unions seems to be "More money - less work". It's getting so bad that nowadays you have to include bathroom breaks in a job statement...

----------


## tec0

> No Kidding!! We currently have a case where an employee, a member of SACAWU has outright refused to do anything more than his Job Statement identifies as his tasks. This same employee is asking for more money and a promotion! Here's where we have a problem.
> 
> How are we to know that he is capable of doing a more advanced task? If it's never been on his job statement, he would never do the additional tasks and therefore would not be legible for a promotion.
> 
> If his attitude has always been to do only what is stated in his JS, then obviously, he is on a fixed salary that relates to his JS, so he isn't eligible for an increase either?
> 
> Trying to get this fellow to understand that he must show his initiative in order to advance is like trying to tell a brick wall to grow taller.
> 
> There are many staff members that I, personally, have advanced in leaps and bounds over the years, because they have "gone the extra mile" in proving their worth to the company.
> ...


This is an interesting scenario. What you may want to consider is to bring in training modules. To be considered âeligibleâ for training the employee must agree with the new terms and conditions stated on a new contract that he must sign and agree too. If he/ she wish not to partake then let them state there reasons and allow them to sign by it. 

When promotion time comes then those that did the training will be considered first. Secondly, a lot of companies âbig companiesâ now use a 3 month to 5 month contract base. Thus if employee is troublesome then you just donât renew the contract. 

Talk to your legal advisor about this system.

In the end it is about protecting your business from abusive employees.

----------

Dave S (18-Jun-10), tonyflanigan (24-Jul-10)

----------


## Dave S

You make a good argument Tec0. We are, in fact, drawing a new job statement and contract for this individual, and he will now be on a 6-month contract, with a negligible increase. His new JS now itemises almost every task he must perform and includes the clause "and other reasonable tasks as may be required from time to time", he will also be assessed on a monthly basis. He must now either come to the party or ship out.

It's not quite as easy as that but I think you get the idea.

----------


## Butch Hannan

I would love to know what this individuals reaction is. Hopefully you are also doing it to some other members of your work force otherwise he is going to pull the "victimisation angle on you.
Best of luck

----------


## adrianh

You can't keep renewing short term contracts - they are then considered to be permanent employees. This is also why the unions are up in arms about labour broking.

----------

tec0 (19-Jun-10)

----------


## tec0

You are correct but you can sign someone on as being a semi permanent employee. Casinoâs and the Iron and Steel industry love this contract because they can let you go for whatever reason.  Secondly you can have people on a permanent short term base contracts. Sub contractors are doing this as we speak, because it is cheaper for them to be able to let you go then what it is to go and sit at the CCMA every-time they need to get rid of someone. I can think of two massif companies that is doing this at the moment! 

 But if it is illegal please point it out!!! You will help so many people  

But I have to agree with you it is not right.  :Frown: 

Labour brokers are like a hidden tax on any contractor because they take a massif chunk out of your earnings every month! And your money is always late. Companies like to use labour brokers because they can get rid of anyone they donât like for any reason! Basically labour brokers strip an employee of his/her rights and that is why the unions are out to boil labour brokers.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Dave S

> You can't keep renewing short term contracts - they are then considered to be permanent employees. This is also why the unions are up in arms about labour broking.


We have discussed this with the employee, and, of course, his Union rep. The contract is a once-off and as it was explained is to give both parties the opportunity to assess A) If the employee can adequately perform the tasks as per the new position. B) If the salary suits the workload/responsibility. C) The employee is comfortable with the arrangement. D) Buys the time to create/institute proper training modules.

Point D is very important as in the industry there are no training modules available, for instance, we have no SETA or Education institution where we can sign an employee to train in his field as it is unique to only the Sports Turfing industry, even Government doesn't recognise the industry. This, in itself, makes it a very difficult task, and when you have an employee with an attitude problem, where he wants to be trained before he will even try, makes it even more difficult, which if analysed is actually quite right, why should he be expected to perform tasks for which he was not trained? Unfortunately, all those that have done the same tasks before him have had to learn via hands-on experience, myself included.

So, yes, it is not a pefect solution (or world) and we would much rather try to find a permanent solution, but a bad attitude is not going to help at all. Unions are not prepared to listen or try to understand the problem, all they want is that the employee must be given more money and when he can't perform the tasks they will just claim he wasn't trained, or was victimised, etc.

----------


## tec0

Ask your legal advisor about âin house trainingâ this is done if the industry is not officially recognised. Design a training module and certification and note that it is for that type of work only.  This will allow you the ability to âtrainâ your workers and create the opportunity for better payment. 

I know his system is possible; a lot of large companies do this, especially when it comes to âproduction linesâ. They have their own systems emplace. See these âproduction linesâ are completely unique to that company and the training modules are useless else ware.  

Your training modules must always include health and safety, equipment training and just basic CPR. The safety and CPR training will allow for âexternal training at Suitable facilities. Equipment training may also have existing training facilities. The job training itself is unique to your industry, and this will allow you to create and maintain your own training modules within the company. But again you will need legal advice because it needs to be done right first time around.   :Wink:

----------

Dave S (22-Jun-10)

----------


## adrianh

We helped the Zim staff to move from the township to a flat nearby. In effect the Zim staff have moved up in life due to the local threats - Suck  on that lazy locals!

----------


## Superscenic

We employed Zim labour on a Pre-world cup thing (I wont say what exactly), but the parody of an all Zim crew wearing SA flag T shirts on a big parade for a country whose ruling tribe sets them on fire...?!

What was so refreshing was the gratitude from guys glad to get a job. Gratitude? Remember being shown gratitude? Remember when beggars thanked you for small change? vaguely? Well It was a new experience for me.

"Xenophobia: an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange."

I Hate the use of this *EUPHEMISM* to describe Genocide/atrocity and the most vile and barbaric behavior.

----------


## leuce

> His new JS now itemises almost every task he must perform and includes the clause "and other reasonable tasks as may be required from time to time"...


I was under the impression that a contract of service (i.e. employment, as opposed to freelancing) by default includes "other reasonable tasks" anyway.  So I'm not sure what additional force this extra clause might have above that which the type of contract already implies.

----------


## Dave S

By default, it is implied that by signing an employee to a permanent position, "all reasonable tasks" would be covered. But by adding this as a statement it is no longer implied but expected. Don't forget we're dealing with a bad attitude and a union member. Yes, I'm also not too sure it will have any more weight that a simply contract anyway.

On the feedback side, this chap seems to be settling now, although it's only been half a month, his work performance has improved and we have sent him for some additional training from an outside source, maybe, just maybe, there is some light at the end of the tunnel...

----------


## Butch Hannan

Should we be surprised that Xenephobia is rearing its ugly head again. The world cup has come and gone and what has changed. Nothing.

----------


## Dave A

> The world cup has come and gone and what has changed. Nothing.


It's going to be a crying shame if that's really true - the ubuntu/bonhomie during the World Cup was truly a pleasure.

----------


## tec0

Any event that is multi profitable for government will enjoy security and attention above all else. The truth is after the world cup violent crime shot up and the criminal aggressors are now just murdering and torturing their victims to a degree where one can no longer consider them criminal but just sadistic serial killers. Our police are none existent and things are now heading to a total collapse.  

If anything the world cup event just speeded up the process. UN intervention is probably our only hope, but there lack of interest is alarming. Can it be that the conspiracy about the UN is actually true? Time will tell...  :Fish:

----------


## deetee

What is the standing with the Law with regard to running a "closed shop," i.e. NO union members allowed??

Surely as the legal owner of a business you have the right to decide who to employ / not employ... :Confused:

----------


## Dave S

> What is the standing with the Law with regard to running a "closed shop," i.e. NO union members allowed??
> 
> Surely as the legal owner of a business you have the right to decide who to employ / not employ...


Would this not be seen as a form of discrimination :Confused:

----------


## Dave A

> What is the standing with the Law with regard to running a "closed shop," i.e. NO union members allowed??


By my understanding workers have been given the constitutional right to "organise". You could (very quietly) filter in the hiring selection process and probably get away with it, but I don't think a clause in the employment contract preventing employees from joining a union would pass muster.

For the record I have actually seen an employment contract with just such a clause, but I'd suggest it wouldn't prove enforcable. Even the Dept. of Defence is having the devil's own job getting some limitations on union scope of activity put in place - and they're pleading it's an issue of national security!

----------


## tec0

Sorry to say but Unions is not worth much... take good old Eskom... there people wanted reasonable housing and increases. Now some do say that Eskom workers are well paid but that is just BS. 

If you take an Eskom worker with a trade and a Mine worker with the same trade you will find that the mine worker gets twice as much! This is fact... unless you work at a private mine they sometimes donât even pay their workers.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

Fact Eskom workers cannot even get home loans... But their bosses get millions in bonuses. Now the Union couldnât even negotiate a proper increase. And they couldnât even organize a strike!!! 

And here is the kicker in the balls. If you are "job critical" it is illegal for you to strike because you may cause the economy to collapse so you are actually considered a terrorist!!!  :Slap:  

But a bloody criminal with an AK47 killing women and children while stealing is considered a minor problem.   :Confused:   :Confused:

----------


## deetee

> Would this not be seen as a form of discrimination


Surely this is *MY* business, and *I* decide who to hire and who not to, or has the state taken ownership of my business??

If so, then surely I am free to redirect any demands for payment etc. to the new "owners"??

----------


## tec0

Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 3. Interpretation of Act:

Any person applying this Act must interpret its provisions so as-

a>	To give effect to its objectives; and
b>	To comply with the Constitution.

I have looked through the Constitution and I stand to be corrected but there is no section covering businesses as such specifically. So basically it is still down to interpretation. But what you will find in the Constitution is â9. Equalityâ.

Now in 9. Equality it is written: â3)  The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.  

Now if this is true then why can some companies no longer do work for Eskom, Telkom, and mining industry because of their Broad-Based Black Economics Empowerment status? Then can it be that their actions are in essence pure discrimination? Also keep in mind b> To comply with Constitution. 

See the fact is Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment is still subject to the Constitution. Now if you take into account how many businesses closed down because they did not have proper âBroad Based Black Economic Empowermentâ suggest that something is terribly wrong. 

But I also want to point out Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996 Chapter 2 - Bill of Rights
29. Education: 1) Everyone has the right : A> to a basic education, including adult basic education; and B> to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible. 

Now I invite you to go as a citizen to the local CTC training facility and asked if you can do your trade there. Sorry but last time I was there I was told: Industry training only! Meaning individuals will not be trained at CTC only employed workers may attend training. Again it goes against our Constitution or does it?

See the truth is there is  massif missing bit of information. What is the base of the Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment? Meaning how was the policies used by Eskom, Telkom, and mining industry drafted? I would love to see the guidelines that were given.

----------


## wynn

Zapiro instead of sticking his finger on it, stuck his finger up at it again

----------


## Dave A

For what it's worth, here are two pieces by Pierre de Vos that gave me the notion that workers have the right to join unions in terms of the constitution - i.t.o. section 23 it seems.

----------


## tec0

23. Labour relations: 2) Every worker has the right a) to form and join a trade union; b) to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and c) to strike.

The real question is: what is lawful? And more importantly; What is within reason?   :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------

