The Sunday Mail
HUMAN beings usually fear what they do not understand and hate what they can’t conquer.
This is precisely what is happening on the local job market. Many workers – who are obviously not conversant with the provisions of the Labour Act and the import of the Supreme Court of judgement of July 17, 2015 – have every reason to be spooked by the current environment, what with the wholesale contract terminations in industry today.
An estimated 6 000 workers have become jobless in the past 10 days via termination of their contracts on three months’ notice. But what is curious is that the newly-discovered power of employers, which is mainly ground in Common Law, comes at a time Government was already in the process of reforming the Labour Act to make it easier for companies to re-size their staff and operations.
The transition from the Zimbabwe dollar era to the multi-currency system exposed many companies that had unsustainable staffing levels, but they couldn’t restructure because of the big severance packages that restructuring could have demanded. So, effectively, many companies were stuck in a rut. The definitive ruling of the Supreme Court was, therefore, a God send for many firms. But is this what Government envisaged when it wanted to appropriate more powers to employers by amending the Labour Act?
What is worrying is not the fact that companies are exercising their right to terminate contracts of unwanted workers, but the fact that some long-serving employees, even after contributing so much in sweat equity over the years, are leaving empty-handed. A reasonable pay-out beyond a three-month notice period would help them transition into the informal sector or any other activity to sustain livelihoods. Not only that: The current situation where companies are not obliged to give reasons for firing workers is very open to abuse, a situation that Section 12B and 12C of the Labour Act sought to remedy.
A personal disagreement between a manager and an employee that is not work-related can have negative consequences for the latter, and this is where Government must intervene. The need for job security, which in itself is a key ingredient for production, cannot be over-emphasised. While it is generally believed that no employer wants to fire a competent employee, we rarely see a perfect world.
One needs to take into account the aberrations of capital and, by extension, capitalism. This is not peculiar to Zimbabwe.
China, which has developed a hybrid system of capitalism and communism, travelled down this path before. Faced with numerous staff-sacking scandals in companies, the Chinese government decided to promulgate the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China on January 1, 2008. It is now the primary source of labour law in China. In essence, the 98-article-long Labour Contract Law entitles employees who have put in more than 10 years of active service of a company to contracts that protect them from being dismissed without cause.
Apart from requiring employers to contribute to employees’ social security accounts, it also sets wage standards for employees on probation and working overtime. Local employees are entitled as much.
Happily, the Supreme Court judgement provided a window for amending the law to either limit the right to terminate contracts with notice. There is definitely need to balance the interests of both employers and employees. Early this year, legal practitioner Tapuwa Kasuso made a fair assessment in an article for The Sunday Mail. He talked of “flexicurity”, which entails balancing the inherently competing interests of companies and workers. By their very nature, employers crave for freedom to freedom to change employment levels quickly and cheaply and determining wage levels without restraint.
They also need to change work processes, terms and conditions cheaply and quickly.
Equally, employees need job security, labour market security and a living wage.
Undoubtedly these interests have to be balanced. When reforms to the Labour Act are crafted, policymakers have to address the anomaly that the current situation presents.
At the very least there has to be a threshold on the amount of years that a worker has been committed with a particular employer for them to qualify for additional benefits beyond just terminal benefits.
Also, there has to be a provision that makes it mandatory for companies to explain to either the affected worker or Government – not necessarily cumbersome – why their contract is being terminated.
This will ensure that the law is not abused for narrow personal interests.
Certain rights have to be limited.
This is the burden that Government has today and it has to move with haste, if not move with obscene haste, not ensure that a fairly ideal labour environment is restored.
There can never be a perfect world, but an ideal world is something we should all work towards.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: Labour law: A balanced approach is possible
The Sunday Mail
HUMAN beings usually fear what they do not understand and hate what they can’t conquer.
This is precisely what is happening on the local job market. Many workers – who are obviously not conversant with the provisions of the Labour Act and the import of the Supreme Court of judgement of July 17, 2015 – have every reason to be spooked by the current environment, what with the wholesale contract terminations in industry today.
An estimated 6 000 workers have become jobless in the past 10 days via termination of their contracts on three months’ notice. But what is curious is that the newly-discovered power of employers, which is mainly ground in Common Law, comes at a time Government was already in the process of reforming the Labour Act to make it easier for companies to re-size their staff and operations.
The transition from the Zimbabwe dollar era to the multi-currency system exposed many companies that had unsustainable staffing levels, but they couldn’t restructure because of the big severance packages that restructuring could have demanded. So, effectively, many companies were stuck in a rut. The definitive ruling of the Supreme Court was, therefore, a God send for many firms. But is this what Government envisaged when it wanted to appropriate more powers to employers by amending the Labour Act?
What is worrying is not the fact that companies are exercising their right to terminate contracts of unwanted workers, but the fact that some long-serving employees, even after contributing so much in sweat equity over the years, are leaving empty-handed. A reasonable pay-out beyond a three-month notice period would help them transition into the informal sector or any other activity to sustain livelihoods. Not only that: The current situation where companies are not obliged to give reasons for firing workers is very open to abuse, a situation that Section 12B and 12C of the Labour Act sought to remedy.
A personal disagreement between a manager and an employee that is not work-related can have negative consequences for the latter, and this is where Government must intervene. The need for job security, which in itself is a key ingredient for production, cannot be over-emphasised. While it is generally believed that no employer wants to fire a competent employee, we rarely see a perfect world.
One needs to take into account the aberrations of capital and, by extension, capitalism. This is not peculiar to Zimbabwe.
China, which has developed a hybrid system of capitalism and communism, travelled down this path before. Faced with numerous staff-sacking scandals in companies, the Chinese government decided to promulgate the Labour Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China on January 1, 2008. It is now the primary source of labour law in China. In essence, the 98-article-long Labour Contract Law entitles employees who have put in more than 10 years of active service of a company to contracts that protect them from being dismissed without cause.
Apart from requiring employers to contribute to employees’ social security accounts, it also sets wage standards for employees on probation and working overtime. Local employees are entitled as much.
Happily, the Supreme Court judgement provided a window for amending the law to either limit the right to terminate contracts with notice. There is definitely need to balance the interests of both employers and employees. Early this year, legal practitioner Tapuwa Kasuso made a fair assessment in an article for The Sunday Mail. He talked of “flexicurity”, which entails balancing the inherently competing interests of companies and workers. By their very nature, employers crave for freedom to freedom to change employment levels quickly and cheaply and determining wage levels without restraint.
They also need to change work processes, terms and conditions cheaply and quickly.
Equally, employees need job security, labour market security and a living wage.
Undoubtedly these interests have to be balanced. When reforms to the Labour Act are crafted, policymakers have to address the anomaly that the current situation presents.
At the very least there has to be a threshold on the amount of years that a worker has been committed with a particular employer for them to qualify for additional benefits beyond just terminal benefits.
Also, there has to be a provision that makes it mandatory for companies to explain to either the affected worker or Government – not necessarily cumbersome – why their contract is being terminated.
This will ensure that the law is not abused for narrow personal interests.
Certain rights have to be limited.
This is the burden that Government has today and it has to move with haste, if not move with obscene haste, not ensure that a fairly ideal labour environment is restored.
There can never be a perfect world, but an ideal world is something we should all work towards.
Share This:
More Stories: