23 October 2009

The Context

The IFP recognises that like every other public policy question, labour brokering has a context: an international context. Over the last decade, we have witnessed the proliferation of large and prestigious building, transportation, and public work projects across the world: soaring skyscrapers from Shanghai to Dubai, the Gautrain and Maglev trains, bridges and sports stadiums etc. But it is not just in such large-scale projects that labour-brokers are playing a big role: the ubiquity of temporary workers is also fuelling the fast growth of call-centres and transnational financial institutions.

It is in this global economy, South Africa must compete while, at the same time, upholding the human rights provisions of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and labour legislation. It is relevant to note that over half-a-million people are placed at any given time by labour-brokers. Some analysts believe that as many jobs could be lost if onerous burdens are placed upon labour-brokers. The IFP therefore expresses a note of caution about the need for government to measure the likely impact of reforming labour-brokering upon job and wealth creation. We must not with our good intentions, inadvertently, "kill the goose that lays the golden egg." Nor should we impute to labour-brokers carte blanche the faults of some bad labour-brokers.

In Europe, there are three quite distinctive labour market traditions: the Anglo-Saxon countries, which emphasise the individual contract, the 'continental' economies, where there is more of a tradition of written legislation, and the Scandinavian system, where the stress is on collective agreements. Germany, in line with its corporatist traditions, is taking an activist stance, despite its centre-right head of government: a combination of state intervention and collective agreement has spurred numerous short-time working agreements. Workers hold on to their jobs, but work fewer hours for less money, with the pill sweetened by training, sometimes provided for by the EU. States like Denmark and Austria combine flexibility for firms with strong social protection - "flexicurity". And while joblessness in Austria may be rising, the unemployment rate there is still 4.5% - compared with the UK's 7.9%.

The IFP is implacably opposed to labour casualisation and believe that temporary workers must enjoy the same rights as full-time workers, and therefore, as a free-market party, we would look to implement the "flexicurity model" in South Africa.

Recommendations

(a)    The Department of Labour undertakes comparative studies of 

Europe, Japan and the USA to evaluate if any lessons can be drawn for the South African situation.

(b)   That the Department of Labour undertakes predictive modelling of 

the likely impact of labour-brokering reform upon GDP and the job creation.

Contact: Velaphi Ndlovu, 083 625 0803.