Political Perspective

I’M not quite as excited about the outlawing of labour hire as most other people seem to be.

Mainly because I feel that the heart of the issue is, and should fundamentally be, a question of how to end exploitation. Companies that are exploiting workers (and to all intents and purposes a major culprit is one of the foremost labour-hire initiatives) can and should be dealt with, but simply banning labour hire may, I fear, be too simplistic to solve the general problem of exploitation.I think other solutions need to be looked at, key of which is the (for some) thorny question of a minimum wage.I THINK the ‘ban’ on labour hire companies is something of a knee-jerk reaction, something to make Government feel good that they have done something about exploitative labour practices.I’m not sure though, that they’ve examined all the practicalities associated with it, for example whether companies hiring out security guards (and there are many of them and many employees too) don’t fall into the labour hire category and will therefore soon be ‘illegal’ as well.There are, presumably, good and bad labour hire companies.Some which are blatantly exploitative, and others which fulfil a good service to employers on the one hand, and employees on the other.So I am not sure the solution lies in making labour hire companies illegal.What we really need to tackle is the issue of exploitation itself and this can be done by means of implementing a minimum wage.Minimum wage legislation is in force in a majority of countries worldwide.It is really a way of determining the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that workers should be paid.There are obviously proponents and opponents of a minimum wage: the former maintaining that it can ensure social justice in the sense that it helps reduce exploitation and ensures that most (particularly poor) workers are able to get the basic necessities, and most importantly, what can be termed a living wage.Detractors, on the other hand, claim that a minimum wage increases unemployment, especially among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers.They argue that it doesn’t allow freedom of contract in that individuals wanting to work for less are unable to do so.Namibia has already implemented a minimum wage for farmworkers, generally considered one of the most exploited sectors of the country’s workforce.But I’ve always asked the question why Government could do it for this sector, yet are unable to implement it across the board? Perhaps there hasn’t yet been a study done on whether the minimum wage for farmworkers directly impacted on this sector in terms of increased layoffs and dismissals due to farm labour becoming unaffordable, but there needs to be one.And if there has been a perhaps marginal loss of jobs in this sector, then the question could be asked whether the negative impact on employment prospects in this sector is not in fact modest when compared with the social benefits derived from the higher wages.I’m of the pro-minimum wage opinion, and I feel that if there was one in force, it would deal very effectively with companies exploiting workers whether in the labour hire industry or anywhere else.It would protect ALL Namibian workers and not just those in certain sectors, which is presently the case with the labour hire ban.The minimum wage requirement in my view, is probably also a lot easier to administer.And there is no reason why it cannot incorporate categories for different sectors if necessary.Domestic workers, as one category of lower-paid workers for example, have no laws to protect them.Some may argue they need a minimum wage more than farmworkers, as the latter don’t carry the costs of living in expensive urban areas and generally also get some form of food rations at least.The argument has always been that fewer unskilled and semi-skilled workers would get jobs, but I would agree with those who say it would have minimal negative effect on employment, which in turn would be offset by the fact that more people are earning a living wage.At any rate, one could argue at length on the issue of a minimum wage.I do feel that there should have been more discussion on the matter of labour hire prior to the ‘ban’.The new Labour Bill has not yet run its course through the National Council, so perhaps there is still room for more consideration and trying to tackle exploitation in a more holistic way.Companies that are exploiting workers (and to all intents and purposes a major culprit is one of the foremost labour-hire initiatives) can and should be dealt with, but simply banning labour hire may, I fear, be too simplistic to solve the general problem of exploitation.I think other solutions need to be looked at, key of which is the (for some) thorny question of a minimum wage.I THINK the ‘ban’ on labour hire companies is something of a knee-jerk reaction, something to make Government feel good that they have done something about exploitative labour practices.I’m not sure though, that they’ve examined all the practicalities associated with it, for example whether companies hiring out security guards (and there are many of them and many employees too) don’t fall into the labour hire category and will therefore soon be ‘illegal’ as well.There are, presumably, good and bad labour hire companies.Some which are blatantly exploitative, and others which fulfil a good service to employers on the one hand, and employees on the other.So I am not sure the solution lies in making labour hire companies illegal.What we really need to tackle is the issue of exploitation itself and this can be done by means of implementing a minimum wage.Minimum wage legislation is in force in a majority of countries worldwide.It is really a way of determining the lowest hourly, daily or monthly wage that workers should be paid.There are obviously proponents and opponents of a minimum wage: the former maintaining that it can ensure social justice in the sense that it helps reduce exploitation and ensures that most (particularly poor) workers are able to get the basic necessities, and most importantly, what can be termed a living wage.Detractors, on the other hand, claim that a minimum wage increases unemployment, especially among low-wage workers, harming rather than helping the poorest workers.They argue that it doesn’t allow freedom of contract in that individuals wanting to work for less are unable to do so.Namibia has already implemented a minimum wage for farmworkers, generally considered one of the most exploited sectors of the country’s workforce.But I’ve always asked the question why Government could do it for this sector, yet are unable to implement it across the board? Perhaps there hasn’t yet been a study done on whether the minimum wage for farmworkers directly impacted on this sector in terms of increased layoffs and dismissals due to farm labour becoming unaffordable, but there needs to be one.And if there has been a perhaps marginal loss of jobs in this sector, then the question could be asked whether the negative impact on employment prospects in this sector is not in fact modest when compared with the social benefits derived from the higher wages.I’m of the pro-minimum wage opinion, and I feel that if there was one in force, it would deal very effectively with companies exploiting workers whether in the labour hire industry or anywhere else.It would protect ALL Namibian workers and not just those in certain sectors, which is presently the case with the labour hire ban.The minimum wage requirement in my view, is probably also a lot easier to administer.And there is no reason why it cannot incorporate categories for different sectors if necessary.Domestic workers, as one category of lower-paid workers for example, have no laws to protect them.Some may argue they need a minimum wage more than farmworkers, as the latter don’t carry the costs of living in expensive urban areas and generally also get some form of food rations at least.The argument has always been that fewer unskilled and semi-skilled workers would get jobs, but I would agree with those who say it would have minimal negative effect on employment, which in turn would be offset by the fact that more people are earning a living wage.At any rate, one could argue at length on the issue of a minimum wage.I do feel that there should have been more discussion on the matter of labour hire prior to the ‘ban’.The new Labour Bill has not yet run its course through the National Council, so perhaps there is still room for more consideration and trying to tackle exploitation in a more holistic way.