An interesting contribution in yesterday's editorial in The Post, entitled 'Let's review our Labour Laws'.
It notes, "we agree with International Labour Organisation country director Gerry Finnegan’s observation that Zambian labour laws should seriously be updated and modernised if people are to feel the value and importance of employment."
The editorial accepts that some part-time labour is necessary in Zambia, but, I think rightly, focuses on the poor treatment of short-term employees, and on 'causalisation' in general, where full-time workers are being employed on poor terms through rolling short-term contracts. It argues that this practice is prevalent in Zambia due to a loophole in the Employment Act which fails to explicitly make it illegal to hire casual workers to fill permanent positions. As the 'For Whom the Windfalls report pointed out these employees are denied pension contributions from their employers, lose out on sick pay and medical protection and, though legally free to unionise and organise collective bargaining, are extremely vulnerable to intimidation without legal protection of their jobs. The report argued that these issues, rather than either reform of taxation or improved corporate social responsibility, lay at the heart of the social and political crisis on the Copperbelt.
The Post argues, "through casualisation, employers ultimately pass the burden of providing workers with social security onto families, the government, the church, charitable agencies, and so on and so forth." Given the weakness of state and the inevtable inadequacies of voluntary sector provision, I would suggest what such contracts typically do is simply to immiserate the Zambian population.
The Post notes that Zambia's Employment Act has not undergone major modifications since the time when all employees in Zambia either worked for the government or for parastatal companies, and is completely inadequate for today's needs. Confusion about the legal obligations of employers has been the primary cause of labour disputes in this country and has also allowed employers to exploit legal loopholes to minimise investment in workers. The editorial also provides detailed discussions of the problems with pension arrangements. It notes, "The current debates about adjusting the law on minimum wages and conditions of service have stalled since 2002 over the issue of terminal benefits. Employer groups claim that the cost of hiring labour is too expensive in Zambia, and at the root cause they cite their legal obligation to pay retirement benefits and the expectation of all workers to receive gratuity at the end of employment. It is for this reason, they claim, that the wages of all employees are kept low and that contracts are set for periods less than 10 years. On the other hand, the unions constantly face resistance in negotiating for wage increments that even meet the costs of basic food items and that keep up with the rapidly rising cost of living. The union leaders claim that employers pay exorbitant wages to top management and take home large profits, while at the same time bluffing that wage increases for the average worker are financially impossible."
The editorial concludes: "It is clear that there is urgent need to review our labour laws and the heart of our revised labour laws needs to be a clear, comprehensive and grounded minimum wages and conditions of employment Act that promotes the common good within individual places of employment. And the minimum wage should be tied to a poverty datum line."
Hear hear to that.
It notes, "we agree with International Labour Organisation country director Gerry Finnegan’s observation that Zambian labour laws should seriously be updated and modernised if people are to feel the value and importance of employment."
The editorial accepts that some part-time labour is necessary in Zambia, but, I think rightly, focuses on the poor treatment of short-term employees, and on 'causalisation' in general, where full-time workers are being employed on poor terms through rolling short-term contracts. It argues that this practice is prevalent in Zambia due to a loophole in the Employment Act which fails to explicitly make it illegal to hire casual workers to fill permanent positions. As the 'For Whom the Windfalls report pointed out these employees are denied pension contributions from their employers, lose out on sick pay and medical protection and, though legally free to unionise and organise collective bargaining, are extremely vulnerable to intimidation without legal protection of their jobs. The report argued that these issues, rather than either reform of taxation or improved corporate social responsibility, lay at the heart of the social and political crisis on the Copperbelt.
The Post argues, "through casualisation, employers ultimately pass the burden of providing workers with social security onto families, the government, the church, charitable agencies, and so on and so forth." Given the weakness of state and the inevtable inadequacies of voluntary sector provision, I would suggest what such contracts typically do is simply to immiserate the Zambian population.
The Post notes that Zambia's Employment Act has not undergone major modifications since the time when all employees in Zambia either worked for the government or for parastatal companies, and is completely inadequate for today's needs. Confusion about the legal obligations of employers has been the primary cause of labour disputes in this country and has also allowed employers to exploit legal loopholes to minimise investment in workers. The editorial also provides detailed discussions of the problems with pension arrangements. It notes, "The current debates about adjusting the law on minimum wages and conditions of service have stalled since 2002 over the issue of terminal benefits. Employer groups claim that the cost of hiring labour is too expensive in Zambia, and at the root cause they cite their legal obligation to pay retirement benefits and the expectation of all workers to receive gratuity at the end of employment. It is for this reason, they claim, that the wages of all employees are kept low and that contracts are set for periods less than 10 years. On the other hand, the unions constantly face resistance in negotiating for wage increments that even meet the costs of basic food items and that keep up with the rapidly rising cost of living. The union leaders claim that employers pay exorbitant wages to top management and take home large profits, while at the same time bluffing that wage increases for the average worker are financially impossible."
The editorial concludes: "It is clear that there is urgent need to review our labour laws and the heart of our revised labour laws needs to be a clear, comprehensive and grounded minimum wages and conditions of employment Act that promotes the common good within individual places of employment. And the minimum wage should be tied to a poverty datum line."
Hear hear to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment