Publications
Partners
Labour Q&A with Terry Bell
Fin24 user Hannes Piek says he finds the whole labour situation rather fascinating as well as scary.
He writes: "During pre-1993 I was mainly involved in community development activities on behalf of the Governing body. Many a time I said to my spouse that had I been black I would have taken the fight to the bosses - some aspects were downright racialist. [And to boot, Africa had an Egyptian summer with warnings that this could spill over to South Africa!]
"But, my services where terminated (in 1993) since we were viewed to be an embarrassment to the ruling party.
"I then joined a provincial development agency which amalgamated with the one in Nelspruit – and during my tenure (1993 to 1998) I got involved in Labour Relations.
"What astounded me was that management was and is kept accountable for the low wages, yet the increase in the number of people became akin to a horse bolting from its stable.
"During the pre-1993 era the ANC stated categorically that any call for a reduced household size was a political ploy - and now we see the chickens coming home to roost and we have to pay the price!
"However, the demand for increased wages because of larger support to families seem to be rather stupendous. My understanding is that once I am employed the relationship is governed by the contract of employment - so also the rate of pay - and nobody is forcing me to accept the contract.
Questions
• How come the employee representative organisations now demand a certain increase when it is the employees’ right not to work for said organisation? If we live in a free market society why this attitude?
• Is it possible that the current approach towards production have changed and is there not a better way to address skewed perceptions?
• When has the horse and cart changed status?
• If unions are paid monthly subscription fees to represent employees, and above a certain threshold it is a % of salary, who really benefits in the long run - the employee or union bosses?
• If there are structural faults in the process, why did the ruling party allow this to happen and why is more stringent control not exerted?
• What am I missing here (your underlying assumption that the situation is more complex and needs to be looked from a holistic approach is valid].
Your reply will be appreciated.
Terry Bell responds:
Good day to you, Hannes. I would agree with you that the overall situation is both fascinating and scary, but on a global basis. And I don't think our problems have much - if anything - to do with procreation.
This free market and the contracts of employment offered within it can, I think be answered by a favourite quotation of mine (from French writer, Anatole France): "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." In other words, the poor and the low paid do not have the luxury of choices that the rich do.
Your questions:
I think the above quotation and remark serve to answer your first question because, no matter who we are, most of us, in this society, need to work in order to survive.
I do not think there is any change in general attitude toward production, nor do I think there is evidence of any generally skewed perception toward production.
Which cart before which horse? Without labour there can be no production (even automation requires labour to create the machines and to service them).
Union subscriptions are usually 1% of salary and this can mean millions a month for bigger unions. How that money is used and spent should depend on the democratic will of the union members. Obviously, there are cases of maladministration and misappropriation of funds (as there are in business) but, by and large, the benefit of subscription and other revenue benefits the members, although, at the same time, some union leaders do receive what many unionists regard as exorbitant incomes.
Ruling parties are as trapped within the system as are employers and employees.
When we live with the absurdity of over production and over capacity to produce while making hundreds of millions of people effectively redundant, we need to seriously challenge the whole basis of the system, not merely attempt, as politicians tend to do, to simply patch up the worst aspects.
Maybe the questions we should be asking here are: if our technological ability has got to the stage where we can produce more than enough for everyone on earth, what sort of system is necessary to stop the waste of human and other potential and truly create a better life for all; is such an alternative possible and, if so, how do we achieve it?
Hope that helps,
Terry
*Have a question for Terry? Drop us a line.
- Fin24
* Terry Bell is an independent political, economic and labour analyst. Views expressed are his own. Follow him on twitter @telbelsa.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
Fin24 user Hannes Piek says he finds the whole labour situation rather fascinating as well as scary.
He writes: "During pre-1993 I was mainly involved in community development activities on behalf of the Governing body. Many a time I said to my spouse that had I been black I would have taken the fight to the bosses - some aspects were downright racialist. [And to boot, Africa had an Egyptian summer with warnings that this could spill over to South Africa!]
"But, my services where terminated (in 1993) since we were viewed to be an embarrassment to the ruling party.
"I then joined a provincial development agency which amalgamated with the one in Nelspruit – and during my tenure (1993 to 1998) I got involved in Labour Relations.
"What astounded me was that management was and is kept accountable for the low wages, yet the increase in the number of people became akin to a horse bolting from its stable.
"During the pre-1993 era the ANC stated categorically that any call for a reduced household size was a political ploy - and now we see the chickens coming home to roost and we have to pay the price!
"However, the demand for increased wages because of larger support to families seem to be rather stupendous. My understanding is that once I am employed the relationship is governed by the contract of employment - so also the rate of pay - and nobody is forcing me to accept the contract.
Questions
• How come the employee representative organisations now demand a certain increase when it is the employees’ right not to work for said organisation? If we live in a free market society why this attitude?
• Is it possible that the current approach towards production have changed and is there not a better way to address skewed perceptions?
• When has the horse and cart changed status?
• If unions are paid monthly subscription fees to represent employees, and above a certain threshold it is a % of salary, who really benefits in the long run - the employee or union bosses?
• If there are structural faults in the process, why did the ruling party allow this to happen and why is more stringent control not exerted?
• What am I missing here (your underlying assumption that the situation is more complex and needs to be looked from a holistic approach is valid].
Your reply will be appreciated.
Terry Bell responds:
Good day to you, Hannes. I would agree with you that the overall situation is both fascinating and scary, but on a global basis. And I don't think our problems have much - if anything - to do with procreation.
This free market and the contracts of employment offered within it can, I think be answered by a favourite quotation of mine (from French writer, Anatole France): "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." In other words, the poor and the low paid do not have the luxury of choices that the rich do.
Your questions:
I think the above quotation and remark serve to answer your first question because, no matter who we are, most of us, in this society, need to work in order to survive.
I do not think there is any change in general attitude toward production, nor do I think there is evidence of any generally skewed perception toward production.
Which cart before which horse? Without labour there can be no production (even automation requires labour to create the machines and to service them).
Union subscriptions are usually 1% of salary and this can mean millions a month for bigger unions. How that money is used and spent should depend on the democratic will of the union members. Obviously, there are cases of maladministration and misappropriation of funds (as there are in business) but, by and large, the benefit of subscription and other revenue benefits the members, although, at the same time, some union leaders do receive what many unionists regard as exorbitant incomes.
Ruling parties are as trapped within the system as are employers and employees.
When we live with the absurdity of over production and over capacity to produce while making hundreds of millions of people effectively redundant, we need to seriously challenge the whole basis of the system, not merely attempt, as politicians tend to do, to simply patch up the worst aspects.
Maybe the questions we should be asking here are: if our technological ability has got to the stage where we can produce more than enough for everyone on earth, what sort of system is necessary to stop the waste of human and other potential and truly create a better life for all; is such an alternative possible and, if so, how do we achieve it?
Hope that helps,
Terry
*Have a question for Terry? Drop us a line.
- Fin24
* Terry Bell is an independent political, economic and labour analyst. Views expressed are his own. Follow him on twitter @telbelsa.
Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on Fin24 have been independently written by members of the Fin24 community. The views of users published on Fin24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent those of Fin24.
