Sihlalo obekekileyo, Mphathiswa obekekielyo, maLungu ePalamente abekekileyo. [Hon Chairperson, hon Minister, hon Members of Parliament.]
Hon members, guests, ladies and gentlemen in the gallery, ndiyanibhotisa [I greet you]. I have chosen four main areas to focus on as my contribution to this Budget Vote. I will touch on skills development, the UIF, the Compensation Fund and labour brokering.
I do, however, also want to touch briefly on the productivity of our workforce in the country. This is an area that we should all be interested in watching carefully in going forward.
In the context of skills development, we support the integration of education and training and the transfer of the Skills Development Programme to the Department of Higher Education, because we understand that skills development - which is highly involved - is but one of the training programmes.
However, we would like to raise the aspect of unintended consequences, that the element of all job creation should not be affected, and neither should the productivity structure, or the programme of re-establishing the Quality Council for Trades and Occupations, QCTO.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is one of the most progressive pieces of legislation that the Department of Labour has in hand. It takes account of the most vulnerable sectors of our working people, the domestic workers and farm workers. It has, no doubt, evolved over time and the Minister, despite all the criticism he has received in the past, should be commended for spearheading those revolutionary changes to the Act. Of course, given the sector it addresses, it is unavoidable that with the implementation of this Act there will be problems.
We commend you, hon Minister, for the improvements made to this fund. We know that at some point in the past it was very popular with Scopa, but recently it recorded reserves. As a committee, Minister, we would be keen to engage with you and your department on how to further improve this very important Act. In particular, we know that there are debates around how we should further open up the fund to either give more, or admit a wider section of the unemployed at this difficult time of the global economic meltdown.
Ngokubhekisele kwiNgxowa-mali yeMbuyekezo akukho nto ibuhlungu njengovuka ngonyezi endlini yakho ushiya iincukuthu neentwala zakho usiya kuxelenga, ufike emsebenzini wonzakale ube ngumlwelwe,akukho namnye onqwenela into enjalo. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[Regarding the Compensation Fund, there is nothing as painful as leaving your house, your possessions and responsibilities behind in the wee hours of the morning to go to work, only to get injured and be disabled. No one wishes for that.]
I am informed that this section, however, is what one would call a "black sheep" in the overall good work of the department. The Compensation Fund is plagued by huge administrative problems, huge capacity problems, and is fraught with corruption. It is not only some officials who are corrupt; sometimes there is collusion between doctors, patients and officials. It does look bad.
Our view is that this unit plays a very critical role, especially when one considers workers in dangerous work situations such as those found in the construction industry. Aligned with this unit, the inspectorate of the Department of Labour should be reinforced so that they are able to inspect work places in advance so as to prevent incidents or injuries. That means they should be proactive.
Hon Minister, we would like you to focus on the Compensation Fund and we would welcome a more detailed discussion about it, so that we can understand more clearly those issues that bedevil this good institution. We would, as always, want to see where we can also help as MPs. We are not just pointing fingers at the problem; we stand ready to roll up our sleeves and help where we can.
On the issue of labour brokering, there are indeed pieces of legislation in place to protect workers, their jobs and the many other conditions that will lead to decent working conditions.
However, the adoption of the Private Employment Agencies Convention, PEAC, in 1997, by the International Labour Organisation which recognises labour brokering, brought about unintended consequences globally. Labour brokering is the replacement of formal standard employment by nonstandard employment. This causes workers to lose their permanent status, as they are employed by a third party. The nature of the employment is regarded as temporary, part- time, or outsourced - that is, the worker is from outside.
The reason given by companies to embark on labour brokering is that they have to focus on the core functions of the business. However, the main objective is to save costs by reducing the cost of labour, especially unskilled labour. Trade unions and progressive liberation movements, like the ANC, strongly object to this naked exploitation of workers by labour brokers.
This form of employment contract gives labour brokers the freedom to pay workers as they wish, change the number of workers and decide where and when work is to be contracted. The sectors of our population that are most affected by this form of exploitation are domestic workers, farm workers and security guards. The statistics show that about 400 000 mineworkers are subcontracted. According to the research done so far, there is concurring evidence that labour standards are generally eroded in some or all respects in the following categories. Firstly, in theory, workers are protected under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act as far as the condition of work is concerned. However, that is not always the case with the part-time and temporary workers.
The situation is worsened by the contracts which temporary workers enter into with the Transformation and Entrepreneurship Scheme, where such contracts explicitly disregard the provisions of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
Secondly, in terms of employment security, workers are covered by legislation and, in instances of unfair dismissal, the employer would have to give reasons to the CCMA. However, for temporary workers, the legislation is based on the premise that ideally, the worker would have agreed to employment on a temporary basis. It fails to acknowledge other compelling factors that place workers in a vulnerable position, such as having to choose between unemployment and temporary unemployment.
Lastly, on the issue of organisational rights, it must be borne in mind that it is extremely difficult to organise part-time and temporary workers, due to the nature of their work. The current definition of a workplace, under the Labour Relations Act, makes it difficult for unions to organise this section of workers. This is because the workplace, where workers conduct their work, is not actually controlled by their employer, but is in fact the workplace of a client.
What could be the problem with the current labour legislation? It does not fully recognise the changing nature of the work relationship. As a consequence of labour brokering and casualisation, there are few workers in standard employment relationships. Although the Labour Relations Act already defines temporary employment services - that is, labour brokers - the existing definition is arguably, however, not adequate and needs to be harmonised with the definition of "employment services for gain" in the Skills Development Act.
Even in cases where the CCMA could have a major role in defending the vulnerable, the legitimacy of labour brokering with the legislation, makes it difficult to protect workers. For example, when the CCMA reports on the number of cases referred to it, and conciliated and arbitrated by it, its main focus should be on the number of cases that the institution dismissed based on the "out of jurisdiction" defence. Employers are therefore finding a loophole in the definition by arguing that the person was never employed by them. It is on this contractual argument that the CCMA refers to such cases as "out of jurisdiction".
The existence of labour brokers in the labour market is due to open space created by the current labour law. Firstly, the legislation regards labour brokering as a legitimate activity. It also defines the broker as an employer of the worker it provides to a client. The law does not provide an active means to monitor labour brokering. Labour brokering is a form of temporary employment service in the country. In another study of labour brokering, it is suggested that labour legislation has been the impetus for externalisation.
Basically, the externalisation of work - or labour-brokering - forced government, unions, business and everyone affected to go back to the drawing board in order to come up with some new solutions to the new forms of challenges expressed in the new employer-employee relations. Proposals to amend the law are in order. In South Africa, the laws making labour brokering legal were passed before the new Constitution came into effect.
Other limitations and weaknesses regarding the Namibian court ruling include the fact that the judgment relies on outdated law, and does not take into consideration the labour conversation.
In conclusion, South African labour legislation is comprehensive and most progressive. However, certain challenges, such as those stated above, compromise the protection of the most vulnerable groups in the workforce.
The ANC supports the Budget. I thank you. [Applause.]