top of page
24/7 National Hotline: 0860 163 272 | Email: info@neasa.co.za
A MUST READ (Part 14): Why the so-called "consolidated main agreement" should not be extended to non-parties - 90% of employers in the Steel Industry.
Dear Steel Industry employer
What follows is another letter by a Steel Industry employer to the Minister of Employment and Labour.
Regards
Letter by employer:
To whom it may concern,
I am communicating as per the request of the Minister of Employment and Labour’s for public comment in respect of the MEIBC requesting an extension of the Consolidated Main agreement of the metal and engineering industries bargaining council.
Naturally, my first reaction to the extension was one filled with resentful emotion. However, having spent a few days attempting to evaluate the situation as objectively as possible, and keeping emotion out of my reaction, I have serious concerns regarding the purpose and outcome of the proposed MEIBC action.
I have a factory in XXXXXXXXXXX, South Africa manufacturing a product that all the other 15 ‘manufacturers’ supplying the same product import from China. As I only employ XX people my voice in the greater scheme of things is possibly inconsequential and fully overlooked. Therefore, it’s best that I keep my comment short, simple and in point form.
I am communicating as per the request of the Minister of Employment and Labour’s for public comment in respect of the MEIBC requesting an extension of the Consolidated Main agreement of the metal and engineering industries bargaining council.
Naturally, my first reaction to the extension was one filled with resentful emotion. However, having spent a few days attempting to evaluate the situation as objectively as possible, and keeping emotion out of my reaction, I have serious concerns regarding the purpose and outcome of the proposed MEIBC action.
I have a factory in XXXXXXXXXXX, South Africa manufacturing a product that all the other 15 ‘manufacturers’ supplying the same product import from China. As I only employ XX people my voice in the greater scheme of things is possibly inconsequential and fully overlooked. Therefore, it’s best that I keep my comment short, simple and in point form.
- As stated, my company manufacturers a product that all my opposition import.
- There is only one manufacturer, my company, of my product in South Africa. Yet there are 15 importers of the product.
- XX people are employed to manufacturer my product. The opposition each employ around 10 people as they only move boxed items.
- My company moved to manufacturing in order to attempt to meet the requests of our President, that being ‘to create employment for our people’.
- In addition to creating employment, I had the onerous task of taking the Chinese on at their ‘own game’. This was particularly onerous as the 15 opposition companies, supplying the same product, are able to bring their product into the country as zero tariffed items.
- The employees of my company have been in the company for between 15 to 30 years. All of which are paid well above the Countries minimum agreed rate.
- However, should the consolidated main agreement be brought into practice and my company had to pay the rates as set out in the main agreement we would immediately become uncompetitive. Our only survival option would be to join our competitors and purchase our product from China. Sadly, this would cause the job loss of nearly 40 good, loyal employees.
- This is point where I am totally bewildered and certainly don’t understand the general logic behind the request for the punitive main agreement to be extended:
- Business owners in South Africa, particularly in manufacturing, are continually asked to support our country in attempting to overcome, South Africa, with the unacceptably high level of unemployed people, by employing them.
- However, by actions such as implementing the main agreement my 15 opposition, who offer no real value to employment in South Africa as they support Chinese imports, are kept in business as they continue to apply the countries minimum wage to their 10 employees. Whereas my company, in attempting to create employment through manufacturing, will be massively punished as I’ll be forced to apply a punitive wage scale (which is way in excess of country norms ) for my employees. This action would undoubtedly dismantle and shut down all the good work I believed was being undertaken. Not to mention what it would do to good employees who have been with me for a long time.
So, when I stated that I needed to consider all angles objectively – the angle I can’t understand is “why would the MEIBC be allowed to create an agreement which would destroy local metal and plastic manufacturing yet at the same time nurture companies importing product?”. This seems extremely ill-advised, uninciteful and punitive to manufacturers in the steel industry wanting to promote the ethos of South Africa – that being to promote the employment of our people.
I would therefore like to recommend the total scrapping of the MEIBC proposal.
I would therefore like to recommend the total scrapping of the MEIBC proposal.
bottom of page