LABOUR brokers have a lot to answer for and also have themselves to blame in the recent outcry by the unions that want them banned.
Reading between labour law lines, it is very clear that these brokers callously survive by hiding behind the Act's description of "an employee" which is a contract between employer and employee. They have diluted the definition of employee by introducing a third party - the broker. Thus they "eliminated" the laws of contract as defined by the Labour Act.
Very clever. But now they have been caught out and have nowhere to hide. The government needs to return to the original definition and they will see that the first contract between broker and workers is invalid.
The government will also see that this gives workers no rights over the goings-on of where "real" employment is taking place, and where the full definition is being exercised in practice.
Brokers have had their day, have conducted themselves with impunity against the laws of contract and the Labour Act and have disregarded workers' rights to privileges under the conditions of employment.
Companies also need to motivate Home Affairs why they have to employ foreigners rather than locals. Companies should also explain why they employ casual labour year in and year out when a permanent position is what is needed.
Caleb Thondhlana, Cape Town