The Sunday Mail
KARL Marx’s bones must be rattling in the London grave they are interred.
Far from what he forecasted, societies the world over are still bogged down by the ideological battle between capitalism, which is much more inclined to businesses and employers, and socialism, which is sympathetic to labour.
What might be worrying to Karl Marx the most is that capitalism, unlike his prediction of a working class conquest of political power, seems to be winning the battle of the “isms”.
Yet the eminent thinker’s pre-occupation with workers’ rights consumed much of his wit and life.
Clashes between the two competing ideologies, which heightened in the 19th century, have mainly been played out in the legislative and legal arena.
There has always been enduring speculation that labour laws are most often a creation of the state apparatus to advance the interests of the dominant class, which is usually business. Up to this day, there is also suspicion that greed – often at the expense of labour – is the primary motivation of business interests.
In 1954, Karl Marx wrote of capitalism: “To the outcry as to the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of overwork, it answers: Ought these to trouble us since they increase our profits?”
Nowhere has the battle between the ideological underpinnings of business and labour been more pronounced than in both pre and post independent Zimbabwe.
It is therefore not surprising that when the colonial administration was established in 1890, the British South African Company, which in itself represented the intrusion of capital into the country, prodded the authorities to promulgate legislation that would help it control labour.
Cheap labour mainly was needed to oil the estates and mines of the administration.
In his paper titled “Labour legislation in Zimbabwe: Historical and contemporary perspectives” published by the Zimbabwe Institute of Development Studies, academic Mr LM Sachikonye notes that the earliest steps to establish and regulate a labour market were the founding of Provincial Labour Bureaux in 1895 and the Labour Board of Southern Rhodesia (RNLB) in 1903.
These institutions were labour procurement agencies whose role was facilitated by such legislation as the Pass Law (1902), which controlled the flow of unskilled labour and penalised desertions; the Masters and Servants Act of 1901; and the Private Locations Ordinance of 1910.
Further labour legislation, which the state formulated and administered on behalf of capital, included the Compulsory Native Labour Act of 1943 and the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1934.
In order to ensure that more workers sought employment, the administration also introduced multiple taxes.
So, it was a fairly sophisticated architecture where labourers were “slave-driven” to grinding work on estates and mines by the coercive force of multiple taxes demanded by the colonial administration.
Through such legislation, businesses, with the collusion of Government, made sure that they spied on the activities of trade unions and also controlled labour tribunals and labour courts.
Ultimately, labour was kept in check.
The advent of independence in 1980, however, saw the birth of the Labour Relations Bill of 1985, which, to a large extent, was informed by the socialist philosophy that was held by the new Government.
Naturally, it emphasised the right of workers.
In view of the crucial role that legislation plays in the interface between business and labour, it is thus not surprising that the current debate on laws governing employer-employee relations has been renewed by the Supreme Court ruling of July 17, 2015, which effectively reinforced the employer’s common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice.
Although the Supreme Court only re-stated a legal position that already existed, it wired into the psyche of business the possibility of shedding jobs with the minimum of fuss, especially at a time when there are significant headwinds from the current deflationary environment.
Before the current development, businesses that were undergoing a staff restructure would apply through the Retrenchment Board, but such applications were not always favourably considered. In addition, the process involved a significant pay-out that was designed to cushion the affected workers.
As a result, most of the companies who were confronted with the need to restructure after the transition from the Zimbabwean-dollar era could not do so as this was prohibitively expensive.
Banks are presently offering expensive short-term funds that are not ideal for such an inherently long-term process.
But such an avenue was appealing as it provided a win-win scenario for all the parties, with businesses expected to make cost-savings in the medium to long-term, while employees were given the much needed relief to pursue other options of survival.
Conversely, dismissals, which are another option afforded by the law, are considered to be bureaucratic and cumbersome.
All this is expensive for business.
In an environment where companies are struggling to remain afloat and are actively seeking ways to lessen their burden, the termination of an employment contract has provided a cost-effective way out.
This explains the current bloodbath in the labour market.
Although the 2002 amendments to the Labour Act – in particular Section 12B, which clearly spells out the employee’s right against unfair dismissal, and Section 12C, which in part outlines the procedures to be followed when retrenching – provides a semblance of job security, the termination of a contract takes all that away.
However, it is important to note that the current legislation does not give companies the right to terminate on notice in order to avoid disciplinary action or retrenchment procedures that are provided for in the 2002 amendments.
But it is known that capital always has an efficient and mean machinery at its disposal than can scour the legislative field for any loophole that can be exploited.
Workers, on the other hand, can only hope for protection from Government.
Fortunately, all this is happening at a time when Government is already working on reforming the Labour Act.
The law needs to be tweaked to ensure that it balances the interests of both business and labour.
What has mainly stirred debate in the current circumstances is the realisation that under the present legislation, the employer can even thanklessly terminate the contract of a long-serving employee – who has contributed a lot of equity over the years – without any meaningful benefits.
Such an inhumane situation needs to be reviewed to ensure that there is a cut-off period where an employee is supposed to accrue additional benefits.
This is the natural justice that the law seeks to protect.
While of course Section 12B generally protects workers against unfair dismissal, the reasons that might force employers to terminate contracts have to be outlined to avoid any ambiguities in the law.
The wholesale terminations that were reported last week indicate that there is something that is patently wrong in the system.
And this loophole has to be closed.
While acknowledging that there is no employer who is willing to get rid of an efficient and valuable employee, there is need to curb against the excesses of unscrupulous employers, which is the essence of law.
There needs to be an efficient allocation of labour in the market.
Obviously the need for companies to be accorded the same right to adjust in difficult times need to be respected.
Thirty years ago, on January 27, 1985, The Sunday Mail noted as much when it stated that: “The rationale for the Labour Relations Bill is, therefore, tacit and commonsensical. But it would be harmful to the economy for the Bill to go to the other extreme and seek to protect the interests and rights of workers alone… Experience shows many of them to be hypochondriac malingerers, chronic absentees or lazy or undisciplined drones. Therefore, while it is necessary to protect workers from unscrupulous employers, it is equally necessary to protect industry from irresponsible workers. The law must seek to balance the interests of the three essential factors – employers, industry and workers.”
The same position holds true even today.
Feedback: [email protected]
