We are in our strike season again, a bit later than usual after everyone behaved so nicely during the World Cup, and since yesterday there has been reports all over about violence and intimidation by the strikers.  This is totally uncalled for!

Everyone has the right to strike, as long as all the processes are followed to ensure that the strike is legal and for the right reasons.  The current reason is that our public servants are not happy with an increase that is already slightly higher than the official inflation rate, which is more than what most people in the private sector got.  The official inflation rate is a farce according to my calculations, but that's a story for another post altogether.

What is sad about the increases is that our government ministers and other politically connected officials received increases far higher than what the workers are asking for.  So there are two new "laws" I am suggesting in this regard.

1) A committee, made up of the President, Finance Minister, and 2 or 3 other people with the right qualifications, needs to determine increases once a year according to the official inflation rate, and that is what everyone in public service gets, from the top to the bottom, as long as they have achieved their personal performance goals.

2) You still have your right to strike.  But at the first signs of violence or intimidation, whether committed by the strikers or not, the strike is declared illegal, and everyone has 2 hours to get back to work or lose their jobs.

I dare you dear South African Government to fast-track these 2 laws, because it can only have a positive impact on the country as a whole.

                          

Related posts:

1. Legalised Corruption
2. When will it stop
3. Rant: What government is doing to combat corruption

How does he get to this?

Lets look at the fruit exporting business.  They are currently in peak season for a number of different fruit, and cannot ship any of their product out of the country.  That means that the industry as a whole will not make their profits, and may make a loss if they have to dump all of their produce on local markets.  Who suffers?  The farmers, and the workers that they now cannot afford to pay anymore.   Their estimate is that they will lose R1billion equalling 30,000 jobs.

Economists say that the economy will probably lose R15billion therefore some 450,000 possible jobs will be lost, taking the scenario of the fruit producers. Take 10% of that and it amounts to some 45,000 additional jobs that may be lost. If this is not theft legalised what is it then?

The Coal industry, probably the largest Transnet customer.  Their system is normally running at capacity, which means that for the 2 weeks lost so far, they've lost 2 weeks in production, because they cannot cath up on lost shipping, there is no more capacity available.  Who suffers?  The coal miners, the workers.

So please, fire your greedy union leaders and accept the 11% offer, it is more than what most of us got.

Why do I say the union leaders are greedy?  Remember that the union takes a percentage cut of your salary, 4% over 100,000 workers is a lot of money.  If they get you 15%, a figure which is probably their upper target, I'll put money on them getting paid "super" performance bonuses, out of the extra money that you're now contributing to the union's coffers.

Update: According to Business Report, government wants to declare the fruit farming issue a disaster.  I've included some figures above, all in italics.

                          

Related posts:

1. How about laws we actually need?
2. Perpetuating corruption
3. Why are we funding electricity for a large mining house?

The current government/Eskom management will probably come up with some feeble excuse to blame the previous dispensation, but these contracts were signed in 1997, 3 years after the ANC took office.

This means that either a BEE candidiate with not enough experience & knowledge negotiated the deal, without taking into consideration that production cost could rise significantly.  Like it did.

Or we're looking at some hidden corruption, with the person/people that negotiated the contract taking some bribes to sell electricity below cost.

Which is it?

Either way, us regular household and small business consumers are being screwed. Eskom has received permission to hike their tariffs by almost 100% over the next 2 years, yes they say 3 years, but the first hike happen now, and the 3rd will happen in 2 years time.

Surely these hikes have to be retracted and investigated now that this has come to light.

                          

Related posts:

1. Legalised Corruption
2. This is exactly where BEE in its current form fell short
3. Some consideration

Where our current government went off the tracks was to try and get as many previously disadvantaged people into as many posts as possible, with dire consequences for our country.  They neglected to make sure that the people they appointed had the necessary skills to perform before getting rid of the people that had the skills.  It bit them, hard.

At the same time, they failed on the education side, twofold.  Our youth were never provided with the correct training, and their parents were never educated on why it is important to make sure that their children attended, and actually learnt something.

You cannot blame the previous dispensation for this, because the stats show that things have been going backwards for the last 15 years in this critical area.

Where does it stop?

                          

Related posts:

1. What has happened to common sense?
2. The law is now going against my religion
3. Should we stay or should we go?

But hang on here, this cannot be, how can he get such a big performance bonus?  Utter bullshit male bovine excrement.

Taking a step back here, lets see how a performance bonus works in the private sector.

Normally, you and your manager, or in the case of a CEO, you and the board set your objectives for the year.  Then you get measured on these, most of the time on a 5 point scale, 1 meaning that you missed the boat completely, and you're on your way out the door if you don't pull up your socks in the next few months, and 5 meaning that you exceeded expectations on every one of the goals that we set.  And in the middle, 3 means that you're doing a good job.

Added to that is the performance of the company, so if the company doesn't perform, you don't get a bonus, or you get a small one, no matter how well you perform.

Individual Performance

Now, the way that you get measured differs from one company to the next, but most places I've worked at least part of the measurement came from a 360 review, meaning that everyone around you gives some feedback on your perceived performance from their point of view.  If this is the way that our public servants get measured (and IMHO, it should be) then I should have had input in the JRA CEO's performance review.

Back to the article.  In the article they mention that they measured him on percentage of potholes fixed within 3 days, which came in at a staggering 86%.  Not sure where in Joburg they measured, because the roads I frequent never got service like that.  But that measurement is flawed, because if you measure him on potholes fixed, then he's failed already.

If our roads got the maintenance they need, then the chances of potholes forming in the first place  are limited.  But the maintenance, meaning resurfacing and repainting doesn't happen, or at least it doesn't happen on the large number of roads that I frequent.  Being a cyclist, I think I see more roads than most people, and I also see the state they're in, because I travel at a lower speed, and have a better viewing angle from the bike.

So my input on the CEO's performance comes in at a 1, at a push, maybe a 2.  In my books, that does not get a bonus, and if my staff come in with those measurements, they don't even get an increase.

Company Performance

Ok, so here you cannot measure the same as in the private sector, because a government department is not profit or turnover driven, or at least it shouldn't be, but this is questionable in South Africa.

So the way I'll measure the company is to see whether they are getting done what they are employed to do.  Every government department is there to serve the people, in different ways.  The City of Johannesburg, is there to provide services to keep the city going.

Are they performing well?

Ignoring the department of the individual in question here, let's name a few other examples.

• Billing is a disaster, and they admit it.
• Metro cops aren't enforcing any laws, except the ones that make easy money (you shouldn't be profit driven, remember)
• Electricity sub-stations are being maintained, so they burn down (then new ones have to be built, much higher cost)
• Long term planning is not being done, or not being done properly (The sheer amount of roadworks required now shows this)
• Public transport is a shambles, instead of fixing metro bus, they bring out a new service, covering very little of the city (once again, at a much higher cost)

I could go on, but you get the picture.  So overall, the company in question is not performing like it should, and therefore no-one should be getting bonuses.

That leaves me with the only possible conclusion, that the bonus is legalised corruption, and they're skimming as much as they can before the city goes bankrupt.

What do you think?

                          

Related posts:

1. Executive bonuses – Justified?
2. Rant: What government is doing to combat corruption
3. FIN24 : No Bonus for Eskom CEO

We condemn in the strongest possible terms the reprisals against journalists by Shivambu. His actions constitute a blatant attack on media freedom and a grave infringement on Constitutional rights. It is a disturbing step towards dictatorial rule in South Africa. We call on the ANC and the ANC Youth League to distance themselves from the actions of Shivambu. The media have, time and again, been a vital democratic
safeguard by exposing the actions of individuals who have abused their positions of power for personal and political gain.

The press have played a vital role in the liberation struggle, operating under difficult and often dangerous conditions to document some of the most crucial moments in the struggle against apartheid. It is therefore distressing to note that certain people within the ruling party are willing to maliciously target journalists by invading their privacy and threatening their colleagues in a bid to silence them in their legitimate work.

We also note the breathtaking hubris displayed by Shivambu and the ANC Youth League President Julius Malema in their response to the letter of complaint. Shivambu and Malema clearly have no respect for the media and the rights afforded to the media by the Constitution of South Africa. Such a response serves only to reinforce the position that the motive for leaking the so-called dossier was not a legitimate concern, but a insolent effort to intimidate and bully a journalist who had exposed embarrassing information about the Youth League President.
We urge the ANC as a whole to reaffirm its commitment to media freedom and other Constitutional rights we enjoy as a country.

Blog Roll

http://thoughtleader.co.za/siphohlongwane
http://rwrant.co.za
http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/munadia/
http://vocfm.co.za/blogs/shafiqmorton/
http://blogs.news24.com/needpoint
http://capetowngirl.co.za
http://thoughtleader.co.za/sentletsediakanyo
http://thoughtleader.co.za/davidjsmith
http://letterdash.com/one-eye-only
http://boyuninterrupted.blogspot.com
http://amandasevasti.com
http://blog.empyrean.co.za/
http://letterdash.com/brencro
http://6000.co.za
http://chrisroper.co.za
http://pieftw.com
http://hamishpillay.wordpress.com
http://memoirs4kimya.blogspot.com
http://thoughtleader.co.za/azadessa
http://watkykjy.co.za
http://fredhatman.co.za
http://thelifeanddeathchronicles.blogspot.com/
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/common-dialogue/
http://www.clivesimpkins.blogs.com/
http://mashadutoit.wordpress.com
http://nicharalambous.com
http://sarocks.co.za
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/stompies/
http://helenmoffett.book.co.za/blog/
http://01universe.blogspot.com
http://groundwork.worpress.com
http://iwrotethisforyou.me
http://fionasnyckers.book.co.za
http://attentiontodetail.wordpress.com
http://blogs.women24.com/editor
http://www.missmillib.blogspot.com
http://snowgoose.co.za
http://dreamfoundry.co.za
http://www.vanoodle.blogspot.com
http://www.exmi.co.za
http://cat-dubai.blogspot.com
http://alistairfairweather.com
http://www.zanedickens.com
http://www.nickhuntdavis.com
http://guysa.blogspot.com
http://book.co.za
http://baldy.co.za
http://skinnylaminx.com
http://blogs.african-writing.com/zukiswa
http://www.mielie.wordpress.com
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/gatherer/
http://thoughtleader.co.za/sarahbritten
http://stii.co.za
http://blogs.news24.com/FSB_AP
http://twistedkoeksuster.blogspot.com
http://whensmokegetsinyoureyes.blogspot.com/
http://trinklebean.wordpress.com
http://commentry.wordpress.com/
http://matthewbuckland.com
http://blogs.news24.com/colour-me-fran
http://gormendizer.co.za

                          

Related posts:

1. Wake up Jon Qwelane
2. Keep your blog from sucking
3. This is exactly where BEE in its current form fell short

Personally I don't think that it makes sense.

It looks like the government is just trying to appease a few activists with this tax.   Or, and probably closer to the truth, adding just another tax for the few to support the many.  Your guess is as good as mine.

Why tax new vehicles? If you do a bit of research you'll quickly see that even big cars like the Hummer puts out a lot less toxic fumes than the average old car on South Africa roads.  Start looking at the taxis and trucks that are out on our road, average age is probably 5years or older.  And the maintenance on these is just enough to keep them running, most definitely not to minimise the output of harmful gases.

In my mind it would be much better for the environment to put a "green" tax on older cars that are spewing out far larger amounts of carbon than new cars.  This is the actual target of these "green" taxes, isn't it?

But once again, our government is scared of offending the, proven violent, taxi industry.  Far easier to tax new cars, these people want the cars no matter what, and they will pay the price.  Yet another reason not to buy a new car then.

                          

Related posts:

1. Mayor ‘puts Merc before water’: South Africa: News: News24
2. Good mileage

"If you include everything a MP could possible want as a staff perk, they won't steal anymore, right?"

By the looks of things, our government officials have free reign on the purse strings, and they do their damndest to spend as much as possible while that lasts.  After the whole luxury car debacle, where every government minister, and, what seems like, the top 10 people in every department got a million-rand-plus car, or 2 in some cases.  There is now the question of the police leadership's new residences.

Why on earth would a lowly official like the police commisioner even warrant an official residence?  He is supposed to be on the road, visiting his staff and sorting through police issues.  And when he needs to be at home with his family, what the hell is wrong with his current house?  In every company I've worked at, if you needed to relocate for work reasons, they would pay your relocation costs, but you would have to sell your current house, and buy another, in a price class that you could afford.  A policy I can find no fault with.

For government ministers that spend extended times in either Cape Town or Pretoria, I can understand that they get a government residence, in the city where they spend the least amount of time, and their own in the other.  And it does not have to be worth millions?  What is wrong with houses in more affordable areas?  Not convenient?  No, they do not carry enough status, and in this country it is all about status, screw whether you can actually do the job you have been appointed for, as long as you can display your status.

If I understand correctly, it looks like the police commisioner's new residence is being transferred into his name, but I hope I'm misunderstanding.

I would like some answers from the government though.  If we've historically bought houses for all and sundry in state employ, how much have we spent, and what happened to those houses once these people got fired moved on?  If the police commissioner needs to have an official residence, why isn't there one appointed, as there is with the president, and he doesn't have a choice, and once he vacates the post, he also vacates the residence?  Same goes for anyone else that has a residence thrown in as a perk.

                          

Related posts:

1. Why we will never get rid of corruption at government level
2. Government’s accountability
3. How about laws we actually need?

My view on this is that if the executive made a significant change to the bottom line of a company, he deserves a percentage. But...

I don't agree with the way it is measured!

All companies measure the performance based on a year on year change, with dire consequences in the long term sometimes.

The way I would do it is to agree on a percentage, but base it on a long term strategy. The executive only gets the bonus 5 or 10 years down the line if the changes that were made panned out to be sustainable, and not to the detriment of other facets of the corporation.

What say you?

                          

Related posts:

1. FIN24 : No Bonus for Eskom CEO
2. Legalised Corruption
3. This is exactly where BEE in its current form fell short

In the large parastatals, highly skilled people were replaced willy-nilly, without making sure that the replacements could actually do the job that was expected from them, and without making sure that there was some kind of knowledge transfer on exactly what was required in these jobs.

As we all know, this has come back to bite the country in a big way.

I've said this before, and stand by my words, that AA should be implemented at a education level first of all, our kids should have the best education possible.  For this to succeed, they obviously would need a stable life with a roof over their head and food in their mouth.  This is where social grants come in.  Another flawed system.  In SA you get a social grant based on how many kids you have in your household.  But at no point do anyone make sure that the kids actually get any benefit from the grant.

How do we fix this?  

Not so easy, but doable.  I say that the person receiving the grant, should be forced to prove that they are actually making sure that every child they receive a grant for is getting the education the kid deserves.  There should be pressure on the kids to learn, and perform well at school, otherwise they lose the "stability" that the grant is supposed to bring.  

Currently, there is no pressure on the parent to do anything for the kids with the money they receive, and in my opinion, a lot of this grant money is definitely not spent on the children, it is spent on alcohol & drugs.

This is just my idea on how to make a slight improvement to the children's lives, I'll leave the implementation of it to the people in government, by now you should have picked up the skills to implement ideas...

                          

Related posts:

1. Our shocking school system
2. The law is now going against my religion
3. The unspoken rules of teaching