The community employer
I was watching the news a while back, and a story was featured on the Metrorail strike that is plaguing the commuter industry. The Labour court has just ruled that the strike is legal (wow, what a precedent!). The central issue in the strike, as with most in SA, is a dispute over wage increase. The Union is “demandingâ€? a 6.5% increase across the board while, and Metrorail is “offering” a 5.5% increase. And so, we have a deadlock. Neither party is prepared to move on the issue, let alone compromise. The Union is claiming that anything less than a 6.5% increment is unjust and underserved, while Metrorail is claiming that any increase beyond 5.5% will severely cripple its viability i.e. it cannot afford the increase. This scenario is typical of most strikes in SA, almost to the T. I ask Why is an annual increase seen as a right? Why should companies give wage/salary increases when there is not a related increase in their revenues?
So the strike is deadlocked on a single percentage – a 1% difference on either side of the coin. Let suppose that a train operator earns R5 000 per month, while the monthly revenues of Metrorail are in the region of R5 000 000 a month. The difference between 5.5 and 6.5 percent increase on the salary is R50, while the same in the revenues is R50 000. And so, a large section of the economy’s workforce cannot get to work over these figures i.e. a R50 increase to our salary at the expense of R50000 to the organization. Clearly, my personal take on this is that the strike is absurd – as is any strike! Our country is still left with this belief that the company should look after the employee, to the standards expected by the employee. Does this feeling accurately reflect the employment contract? No. A company merely pays for a person’s time and talent. An employee receives remuneration for this effort. Or is it this simple?
While watching the news, I realized that the Union’s fervour over the strike taps into a widely held belief that a company’s 1st priority should be the social care of its employees. A company should therefore be a community organization. A manifestation of this belief is seen when a company is required to lay down huge capital on a venture that ensures its survival in the market. The employee questions whether this is necessary. The employee instead feels that this sort of capital should be directly invested into the employees (Oh, I don’t classify all employees into this category, but definitely the lower income earners). Somehow, a company is expected to take responsibility directly for the rise in consumer prices. The argument I hear again and again is, how does the company expect me to live when all the prices are going up. Therefore the company should give me an increase! But what about increased productivity? Increased turnover? Increased profitability? How can a company give more, when there is not necessarily anymore in the coffers?
To a capitalist mindset, these questions ring true in frustration. But under interrogation from a community (ubuntu) mindset, these questions represent resounding issues. A company should be a steward of the employees and the community in which those employees find themselves. The company ceases to be a company, but becomes the parent the employees never had. The parent who has – seemingly – sufficient resources to significantly improve the lot of its employees. This should be a company’s 1st priority. The question is asked, “Does my company look after me?� “Does my company put money where it is needed?� So what is the solution for the conscientious, caring employer? This debate rages on, and will continue to rage on. Owners will argue how much they look after their employees, and the majority of employees will argue how little they are looked after. As we move into the connection economy, we are learning that what will make customers buy from us is our ability to connect with them as people. How does this apply to the internal side of a business? How does a company look internally sufficiently to connect with its employees?
Related posts:
- Building your own healthcare community Many years ago when I was in community development, some...
- The cost of (dis)engagement Research Works recently released a series of reports from the...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
These union people are not very smart in my estimation. By standing by their demand for that extra percentage point, they are at the same time, losing it by doing nothing.
Unions are seriously outdated. Their members pay them a fee for ‘looking out for them’. But do they really? With all the money pouring into their coffers, how much of it is used towards getting their members computer literate, teaching them new skills relative to their job etc? THAT’s what a union’s job should be – to ensure that their members are always employable. (and the obvious one of protecting their basic employment rights within a company).
But what unions are really doing is getting fat on those monthly contributions and then raising themselves once (or twice) a year to ‘fight’ for their members’ increases.
Maybe I’m being cynical here. But if the union had to come to an agreement with the company in a couple of days, the members would feel shortchanged (I’m paying my union all this money and that’s all they do for me?). So the union has a role to play in this annual farce. They sit around in boardrooms for days – this dance between company and union. Then the obligatory strike, then some more time over lunch in boardrooms, then maybe a threat of another strike – then voila! an agreement is reached and everyone’s happy. For this year.
Then the union goes back to counting its money till the next round.
And the higher the increase, the higher the members’ contributions to their union……. It’s always been a numbers game.
If I’m wrong, please enlighten me.
I fully agree with your sentiments. Unfortunately, it seems to me that union members are believers in unions. Unions in the United States may have been OK up to a point, but then demands were such that the business was weakened.
I suppose there may be a number of people who have to join. I have seen this, too. Some places, if don’t join the union, you can’t get the job. In such a case, then there is not much choice.
One of your comments about unions reminded me of upper management of corporations. Seems to me they get a little more money than they deserve, but that is just me. Even if a CEO is “dismissed”, he gets a pretty good sum of money. The little guy just gets the pink slip. Maybe some are worth it, but not if they are fired.