Zimpapers Logo

Lloyd Gumbo Mr Speaker, Sir
Some companies have taken advantage of the recent Supreme Court ruling that they can terminate their workers’ contracts on three months’ notice on the basis of common law. Thousands of workers have since been sent home as a cost containing measure by employers operating in an economic environment that is facing structural malady.

Salaries are considered one of the major cost drivers despite the fact that the majority of workers both in the public and private sector are generally underpaid compared to their counterparts in the region.

As such, workers have become victims as some of them who had served at some companies for years left empty-handed.

Mr Speaker Sir, it goes without saying that it is only a capitalist system that finds comfort in sending long-serving workers away without any form of package despite working for the company through thick and thin.

For advocates, that was a necessary evil considering that the majority of companies were already struggling, therefore laying off workers without going the route of expensive retrenchment packages became sweet music to them.

To liberals, that was inevitable given the fact that it was a matter of time before some companies folded because they could not sustain their operations.

Following the Supreme Court ruling, employees – especially ordinary ones – became an easy target.

The fact of the matter is that companies were and are still struggling which justifies their call for restructuring.

But Mr Speaker Sir, while cutting down on costs by laying off a certain number of employees is a step in the right direction, there is, however, a growing trend that is quiet disturbing.

The current exercise, however, falls short of bringing significant changes in terms of company savings because most companies are top-heavy given that senior management’s allowances and benefits far outweigh the combined cost of workers down the ladder.

What it means is that if the whole management, some of them bloated and duplicating roles, remain in office and still entitled to outrageous benefits and allowances, the laying off of workers at the bottom of the hierarchy would not lead to significant changes in terms of the companies’ financial standing.

What needs to be addressed are the numbers at the apex of organisations who walk away with seven-fold what those at the bottom are entitled to.

If the laying off of workers was a genuine exercise meant to contain costs then those who are earning more, including allowances, are the ones who should have also faced the boot.

Mr Speaker Sir, sending away workers whose income is less than 30 percent of the wage bill will not achieve the desired goals.

For instance, we have management who are well paid and are still entitled to fuel and other allowances that may not be necessary compared to the majority of workers whose livelihoods hinge on the meagre salaries that they get.

It is baffling to hear that some members of management at various companies both in the public and private sector are entitled to about 800 litres of fuel per month besides other monetary benefits.

They get such huge quantities of fuel despite the fact that they will not be driving out of the city.

What further complicates the matter of fuel allowances is the fact that rarely do companies have mechanisms in place to monitor the use of that fuel.

If the truth be told without fear or favour, 800 litres of fuel is too much even for those with fuel guzzlers.

Surely, these are some of the unnecessary costs that can be done away with for companies to remain afloat while at the same time ensuring that ordinary workers’ livelihoods are not jeopardised.

From the foregoing, it is clear that sending workers away will not do the magic if it is not complemented by other actions that reduce unnecessary costs.

These are the things that companies should consider such as scrapping hefty managerial perks than rushing to fire workers who are only getting peanuts, sometimes not even enough to cater for their basic needs.

What companies need to do is to bite the bullet and part ways with the majority of those at the top who are draining the lion’s share of their revenues.

There are risks associated with the Supreme Court ruling that allowed companies to terminate contracts on three months’ notice in the same manner employees are allowed to.

The firing of workers is likely to impact the financial services sector as some of the workers who have been laid off were probably servicing loans but now with no stable source of income, it is inevitable that the majority will default.

At the end of the day it is depositors who will lose out since it is their money that will not be paid back.

Moreso, financial institutions are unlikely to approve loan applications on the grounds that there is no more job security in the country since workers can be laid off a day after accessing loans.

Given the current economic challenges where people are living from hand to mouth, the majority of them who have been using loans to supplement their meagre salaries are likely to sing the blues.

The other lesson is that while the common law assumes that both the employer and the employee are on the same footing, nothing could be further from the truth.

For instance, when an employer sacks an employee, the former will not take more than a day without finding a replacement but the employee does not have a guarantee that they would find another job.

Moreso, employers have the means of production while employees may have nothing except their skills.

But in all fairness, there are other companies that are facing viability problems and have legitimate expectations to have the burden lifted if the economy is to have some semblance of normalcy.

Feedback: [email protected]