When panties are hyped over livelihoods Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga once had the audacity to display ladies’ underwear during debate in the National Assembly
Umzingwane legislator Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga found it appropriate to display and talk about undergarments than the burning issue of thousands workers who have been sent home in the past week

Umzingwane legislator Priscilla Misihairabwi-Mushonga found it appropriate to display and talk about undergarments than the burning issue of thousands workers who have been sent home in the past week

Lloyd Gumbo Mr Speaker Sir

Mr Speaker Sir, while the Labour Act is going through some amendments, there is need to strike a balance that will benefit both employers and the employees. There can be no employees without employers. As such, there is need to ensure that companies also remain afloat.

At a time when every citizen is concerned about the consequences of the recent Supreme Court ruling that common law subsisted, some of our representatives find it appropriate to expend energy discussing other things that some quarters take as trivial.

Since last week, media headlines have been awash with employees being sent packing, some of them empty-handed, following the ruling by the Supreme Court, that employers could terminate contracts of employees on three months’ notice.

It was also indicated that this could be done without offering an explanation or retrenchment packages.

Never mind arguments that companies erred in interpreting the judgment, the fact of the matter is that thousands have lost their jobs while thousands more are waiting in the wings unless there is an urgent interdict or a miracle.

Even those who claim not to be interested in news would not have missed what has been happening because this has been one of the major talking points in the country.

No employee can guarantee their job security at the moment given the interpretation of that judgment.

It is for that reason that one would have expected Members of Parliament to burn the midnight oil trying to find a solution to this problem, which has the potential to brew disaster both politically and economically.

Instead, they found it appropriate to display and talk about undergarments which to some appear more important than the thousands who have been sent home.

Unfortunately, what they, including Priscilla Misihairambwi-Mushonga herself, failed to appreciate is what was supposed to be the import of their concern.

No sane person would dare buy or inherit even from their siblings a second-hand undergarment if they could afford a brand new one.

The reason women end up buying second-hand undergarments is because they cannot afford brand new ones.

The reason companies, the majority of whom have viability problems, rushed like vultures to send their employees packing is because they cannot sustain the cost of doing business especially paying workers.

Employers had been pushing for amendments of the Labour Act to enable them to part ways with their employees without grounding the company.

Yet on the other hand, workers have been against the amendments arguing that they were retrogressive and arbitrarily taking away their rights.

There is obviously more to it than meets the eye.

What is clear is that the majority of these companies have always wanted to trim their staff complement but could not afford the expensive retrenchment demands.

As a result, these companies had resorted to retaining the services of workers even without paying them beyond transport money.

Some workers had gone for almost a year without salaries but remained at work because their employers could not afford to retrench them.

The albatross is also heavy on the Government’s purse whose majority of revenue is going towards salaries, a situation that is unsustainable for any enterprise.

Obviously, there are people who are mad with the Supreme Court bench for interpreting the law that way given the consequences.

But what is clear is that the Supreme Court made it clear that this situation could be addressed through either an Act of Parliament or a Statutory Instrument.

On the surface, these are the things that our representatives should have been pushing for since Monday when it became clear that people were losing jobs because of the gap in the law.

But by hindsight, the companies also need to survive.

It is normal for people to be emotional when such things like this happen, but there is serious need for a comprehensive approach in dealing with the matter.

While it is critical to protect employees, it is equally important to enable companies to operate because they can easily go under if we are not careful.

Air Zimbabwe is a classic example of how companies can bleed.

The national airliner drew a restructuring plan during the inclusive Government but up to now it has failed to restructure because it does not have the money for retrenchment packages.

Other companies have also folded because they could not afford to retrench and as a result they went down with the workers.

It would certainly not help to let companies that have viability problems collapse because they cannot afford the packages.

However, it would be unfair for such an exercise to target those who are at the bottom of the ladder, who earn peanuts.

Mr Speaker Sir, while the Labour Act is going through some amendments there is need to strike a balance that will benefit both the employers and the employees.

There can be no employees without employers.

As such, there is need to ensure that companies also remain afloat.

It must be a win-win situation if the country is to manage the potential disaster well.

While investors have made it clear that our labour laws are not investor-friendly, they must not be crafted in a way that is anti-workers.

 Feeback:[email protected]

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey