BL Premium reports that economists have warned that a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) judgment on replacement labour during a strike could have far-reaching consequences for SA and discourage new investments.
The ConCourt ruled on Tuesday that employers may not use “scab labour” during a lockout while workers are on strike. Stanlib chief economist Kevin Lings said the judgment added to the “burden of doing business in SA, on top of load-shedding and Transnet. It’s a discouraging environment for everyone. In general, SA has a complicated set of labour legislation, it’s extensive and all of that adds to the complexity of doing business.” He indicated that companies took the decision to use replacement labour in the “interest of business” and because they were trying to look at the business in total. He argued that the judgment could result in business owners being reluctant to expand their operations and take on additional employment. “If you are having difficulties with labour unions, you will be reluctant to expand your labour base. Over time, you are going to ask yourself how do I increase technology in my business, how do I automate it and introduce robotics, as that would lessen the complication labour brings to your business,” Lings said. Econometrix chief economist Azar Jammine said that considering the unemployment levels in SA, “no doubt the labour regime is too tough” and added to the cost of doing business. Commenting after the ConCourt ruling, Numsa general secretary Irvin Jim said they went to court to prevent employers from abusing lockouts and to ensure they did not “give employers disproportionate and unfair power.”
- Read the full original of the report in the above regard by Tauriq Moosa & Luyolo Mkentane at BusinessLive (subscriber access only)
Get other news reports at the SA Labour News home page