Anglo American Platinum fired 12,000 striking miners

[Tiberius]

Any contractual obligation of labor [here] which the laborer cannot terminate at any time is unlawful. I think that's a good way to handle labor. I suppose we could mince words over the specifics of either side of the rest of your post but it "all flows from here" in this instance, for me.

I think that's a rather silly way to handle labor. It costs the company time and money to find people for various jobs. The whole point of having notice periods in contracts is so that someone can't come into work one day and say "I quit", leaving the company with a vacant (and possibly mission-critical) position that they need to quickly fill. With a notice period, a person can pass all their work to someone gradually (e.g. teach other employees how to use systems), or the company can use that time to find a replacement who can immediately take over when the worker finally leaves. Again, that should be in the contract from the beginning. If the company leaves it out, it is their own fault.

That is not the way it usually works on this side of the pond. Take for example the recent teacher's strike in Chicago. They were striking between contracts. Their old contract had run its term and expired, and they had been unable to agree to terms on a new contract with the city. The result was there was no contract in place when the school year began. The teachers elected not to come to work (a decision that resulted in them not being paid by the city) until the two sides agreed to terms. Once an informal agreement had been reached between the two sides the teachers returned to work before the formal contract had been signed.

Like I said before; I wouldn't consider that a strike, since the contracts had expired. You can't strike from work that you aren't currently employed to do. I fully support the teachers in this case, but I wouldn't call it striking. It's a failure of contractual obligation on the part of the school(s). If teachers want to work before a contract has been signed, that is of course entirely up to them.

In this case the main point of contention wasn't even compensation. It was a change the city wanted tying the teacher's performance evaluation to student performance. Something that I can't really blame the teachers for not wanting as you can't teach a child that doesn't want to learn no matter how good you are.

I'm not saying that all strikes over here are for malicious reasons, but certainly a lot of them are. Take for example the British Airways cabin crew strikes of 2010 and 2011. The BA cabin crew are the highest paid of all cabin crews in England, with the most benefits. Striking over pay seems more like greed than anything to me in that situation.

There are also multiple occasions when a strike is arranged by a union, despite less than 10% of union members voting for it.

[popeyespappy]

Like I said before; I wouldn't consider that a strike, since the contracts had expired.

What you consider a strike is considerably narrower than how the term is generally applied.

Most strikes are undertaken by labor unions during collective bargaining. The object of collective bargaining is to obtain a contract (an agreement between the union and the company) which may include a no-strike clause which prevents strikes, or penalizes the union and/or the workers if they walk out while the contract is in force. The strike is typically reserved as a threat of last resort during negotiations between the company and the union, which may occur just before, or immediately after, the contract expires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_acti...of_strikes

You can't strike from work that you aren't currently employed to do.

Here in the US, being employed by a company is separate from any collective bargaining agreement. It is a three way agreement between employee, employer and union.



Lack of a contract between the union and an employer does not automatically terminate the agreement between employer and employee.

There are also multiple occasions when a strike is arranged by a union, despite less than 10% of union members voting for it.

The opposite of that is called a wildcat strike. It is when the union agrees to terms the members do not support. It is my understanding this is the case at Anglo American Platinum.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that's a rather silly way to handle labor. It costs the company time and money to find people for various jobs. The whole point of having notice periods in contracts is so that someone can't come into work one day and say "I quit", leaving the company with a vacant (and possibly mission-critical) position that they need to quickly fill. With a notice period, a person can pass all their work to someone gradually (e.g. teach other employees how to use systems), or the company can use that time to find a replacement who can immediately take over when the worker finally leaves. Again, that should be in the contract from the beginning. If the company leaves it out, it is their own fault.

Sounds like a failure of retention policy to me Tibs. These people do want to do business...right? If you have a "mission critical" employee I can hardly see how turning that employee into a captive is a very sensible way to go about things.......
(not that we haven't tried that before.........)

"Maximising profits", btw, somehow ends up being "malicious reasons" in the case of the individual in your responses....I had to mention that Tibs. Renegotiating a contract to maximize profits is generally regarded as "good business" where I'm from.

[Tiberius]

How are they a captive??? They agree to the notice period when they sign the contract. A notice period only means that you cannot just up and leave (unless you are fired). When you tell your boss "I quit", you still have to finish your contract. When I quit my job earlier this year, I worked for another two weeks making sure that other people in the company knew what to do.

I'm astounded that the US doesn't have notice periods. They are considered very good business practice over here.

[The Grand Nudger]

We do have notice periods, failing to give notice can (and I think should) negatively impact your future employment prospects, they are still (like all labor) voluntary. They are a captive in the sense that they cannot terminate their own employment without potential consequence of law if such a contract is enforceable in any way. What are we thinking about here in the way of enforcement btw, a fine? We're going to fine someone for not showing up to their job as a frycook? This is probably the least ridiculous potential enforcement option and it still doesn't get over the bar of absurdity for me....but...this may be due to my being born and raised in a place where there is no way to (legally) force or coerce a person to work for you.

Amusingly, btw, we did once have a system that allowed an employer to dictate where and when and employee could go or be while they were under contract. It culminated in one of the largest civil uprisings in american history. The US Army intervened (going so far as to drop explosives from their brand new flying toys). I'm assuming that the laws in the UK in this regard are similar. I'm assuming that while you have notice periods you are perfectly able to get up and walk out on day 2 of 14 (or however long it is) if you so chose. How (and why) are those laws set up the way they are in your country? What led to the establishment of the principle (and primacy of the principle) of voluntary labor?

[Tiberius]

We do have notice periods, failing to give notice can (and I think should) negatively impact your future employment prospects, they are still (like all labor) voluntary. They are a captive in the sense that they cannot terminate their own employment without potential consequence of law if such a contract is enforceable in any way.

I wouldn't call that captive. Captive to me suggests that there is no way out for them, which isn't true. There are just steps that ensure an employee can't screw an employer over. Notice periods are more important in small business, where less time and money is available for hiring people.

What are we thinking about here in the way of enforcement btw, a fine? We're going to fine someone for not showing up to their job as a frycook? This is probably the least ridiculous potential enforcement option and it still doesn't get over the bar of absurdity for me....but...this may be due to my being born and raised in a place where there is no way to (legally) force or coerce a person to work for you.

I'd think a fine would be good. However, you are correct in that fining a frycook for not showing up to work is absurd; if the company can easily replace someone (as they can with a frycook), it probably isn't in their best interests to go to court over it. The best they can do is give a bad reference if the frycook ever tries to use them as such.

However, if you are the head chef or are some other person of importance in the kitchen, it would definitely be in the company's best interests to take them to court for breach of contract. Finding a good head chef isn't as easy as finding a frycook, and there may have been things only the head chef knew about the running of the kitchen. The company may lose a lot of business, and they deserve compensation for that (provided a notice period is stipulated in the original contract).

Amusingly, btw, we did once have a system that allowed an employer to dictate where and when and employee could go or be while they were under contract. It culminated in one of the largest civil uprisings in american history. The US Army intervened (going so far as to drop explosives from their brand new flying toys). I'm assuming that the laws in the UK in this regard are similar.

Well, I think the only times when a company can dictate where and when an employee can go are within work hours. For instance, my work may require me to be in the office from 9-5 unless I am unable to make it (traffic, sickness, etc.). However, after those hours, they have no control over me, and cannot. Of course, I get one hour for lunch, when it is also up to me where I go.

I'm assuming that while you have notice periods you are perfectly able to get up and walk out on day 2 of 14 (or however long it is) if you so chose.

As in, physically walk out? Yes, of course. Legally they are in breach of contract, and could be taken to court by the company in question, or given a bad reference, but other than that, the company can't legally hold them inside against their will if they want to leave.

How (and why) are those laws set up the way they are in your country? What led to the establishment of the principle (and primacy of the principle) of voluntary labor?

I'd guess they are set up to protect businesses, especially where the employee is mission critical. If those laws didn't exist, I could easily see a big corporation abusing them by hiring people to apply for jobs at a competitor, and then refuse to work or walk out on the first day, forcing the competitor to rehire...etc. How quickly could businesses (especially small businesses) be bullied out of the market if this was the case?

I'm not sure I understand where voluntary labor comes into this. Voluntary labor is unpaid; when you quit your job and have a notice period, you are paid your full salary for that entire period. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. A notice period can really be thought of as a clause in a contract to say that when quitting a job, you must give the company x amount of notice (usually 2 weeks, but it can be longer) before you actually "quit" and stop working.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't call that captive. Captive to me suggests that there is no way out for them, which isn't true. There are just steps that ensure an employee can't screw an employer over. Notice periods are more important in small business, where less time and money is available for hiring people.

Retention and replacement are the costs of doing business. I personally don;t see the need to subsidize someone else's investments in this manner (and I couldn't..with a straight face, ask someone else to subsidize mine in this manner...particularly the motherfucker I'd be levying the fine against....).

I'd think a fine would be good. However, you are correct in that fining a frycook for not showing up to work is absurd; if the company can easily replace someone (as they can with a frycook), it probably isn't in their best interests to go to court over it. The best they can do is give a bad reference if the frycook ever tries to use them as such. However, if you are the head chef or are some other person of importance in the kitchen, it would definitely be in the company's best interests to take them to court for breach of contract. Finding a good head chef isn't as easy as finding a frycook, and there may have been things only the head chef knew about the running of the kitchen. The company may lose a lot of business, and they deserve compensation for that (provided a notice period is stipulated in the original contract).

Isn't it in the company;s best interests to properly screen and interview prospective employees and then take steps to ensure they have good retention rates? I'm not personally sure that a binding contract of labor is what's called for in the retention dept.

Well, I think the only times when a company can dictate where and when an employee can go are within work hours. For instance, my work may require me to be in the office from 9-5 unless I am unable to make it (traffic, sickness, etc.). However, after those hours, they have no control over me, and cannot. Of course, I get one hour for lunch, when it is also up to me where I go.

You can also leave between the hours of 9-5, I'm guessing, without being fined. The companies in question btw also felt that they should be able to dictate where a person was under penalty of fine during the hours that their contract was in effect. Just so happened that their contract was in effect all the time. There were a lot of fun things in their contracts, none of them enforceable (not even by a fine) anymore.

As in, physically walk out? Yes, of course. Legally they are in breach of contract, and could be taken to court by the company in question, or given a bad reference, but other than that, the company can't legally hold them inside against their will if they want to leave.

Again I think this is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

I'd guess they are set up to protect businesses, especially where the employee is mission critical. If those laws didn't exist, I could easily see a big corporation abusing them by hiring people to apply for jobs at a competitor, and then refuse to work or walk out on the first day, forcing the competitor to rehire...etc. How quickly could businesses (especially small businesses) be bullied out of the market if this was the case?

We have different laws to handle that...and IIRC it would be in the arena of fraud and malfeasance.

I'm not sure I understand where voluntary labor comes into this. Voluntary labor is unpaid; when you quit your job and have a notice period, you are paid your full salary for that entire period. Sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. A notice period can really be thought of as a clause in a contract to say that when quitting a job, you must give the company x amount of notice (usually 2 weeks, but it can be longer) before you actually "quit" and stop working.

If you "must" it is not voluntary. Further, if this "must" is enforced by legal proceedings and fines it has firmly left the territory of what I would call voluntary. I mean, sure, paying a speeding ticket is "voluntary" as well... The elephant in this particular room is what happens if said employee, upon quitting their job with no notice "voluntarily" decides not to pay the fine. There really isn't any way around having what you're describing called a compulsory obligation of labor. There are far shittier words for this. Here (and I'm assuming where you are as well) it's been decided that affording a business the power of the state to tell an employee what they "must" do, specifically with regards to their labor, is a recipe for tears. We have a long, violent history full of precedent that has led us to this decision. After the abolition of the most obvious form of compulsory labor (slavery) various other types of compulsory labor existed (in various industries) for quite some time. The most horrid examples, being contractual agreements.

(all labor here in the US, is, by law, voluntary - paid or unpaid)

[The Grand Nudger]

Something occurred to me re-reading this. Your comment about it not being in a businesses best interests to "go to court over it" over a frycook. I can;t imagine a situation or position which would not warrant this claus in a contract if it were enforceable, whether or not you felt that you were going to avail yourself of such a handy tool probably shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you set yourself up so that it is available. We're proposing legislation that is (at the very least) potentially horrid...and then just waving our hands to say "but these guys will use this highly questionable tool responsibly and ethically". Well, all evidence points to the contrary.

[Tiberius]

Retention and replacement are the costs of doing business. I personally don;t see the need to subsidize someone else's investments in this manner (and I couldn't..with a straight face, ask someone else to subsidize mine in this manner...particularly the motherfucker I'd be levying the fine against....).

Right, and if a business can lower the cost of replacement by putting a notice period into a contract, that is a good business plan.

Isn't it in the company;s best interests to properly screen and interview prospective employees and then take steps to ensure they have good retention rates? I'm not personally sure that a binding contract of labor is what's called for in the retention dept.

Sure, but screening / interviewing can only go so far. At the end of the day, you could interview a person who has really good references and seems to know the stuff, but leaves without warning on some particular day. People are ultimately unpredictable.

You can also leave between the hours of 9-5, I'm guessing, without being fined. The companies in question btw also felt that they should be able to dictate where a person was under penalty of fine during the hours that their contract was in effect. Just so happened that their contract was in effect all the time. There were a lot of fun things in their contracts, none of them enforceable (not even by a fine) anymore.

Well, if you are required to be at the job between 9 and 5, and only show up for work between 10 and 4, you'll get fired pretty quickly for being in breach of contract. I don't agree with the companies you mention; no contract should be in effect 24/7 unless there are special circumstances. By the way, could you give the name of the companies involved? I'd like to read up on this.

Again I think this is a fundamental difference of opinion between us.

Not sure how this is a difference of opinion? If a contract stipulates that you must give two weeks notice before leaving the job, and you leave the job before complying with that, then assuming you signed the contract, you are in breach of it. Period. What is the point of a contract if either employer or employee can just ignore sections of it?

We have different laws to handle that...and IIRC it would be in the arena of fraud and malfeasance.

Sure, but only if the smaller company could prove it. A case against a big corporation is going to take much longer than a case against an individual who broke their contract. In any case, this is probably one of the reasons why the law is in effect. As I've said before; it makes things easier for a company to function, since your vital employees can't just decide not to work one day.

If you "must" it is not voluntary. Further, if this "must" is enforced by legal proceedings and fines it has firmly left the territory of what I would call voluntary. I mean, sure, paying a speeding ticket is "voluntary" as well...

It is voluntary because the employee signed a contract in which the clause existed. Effectively, the employee agreed to a legally binding contract where they agreed to give x weeks notice before leaving the job. They weren't forced into the contract; they could have turned it down.

If you go by your definition, then no job is voluntary, which is absurd since jobs are entirely based upon an agreement between employee and employer.

The elephant in this particular room is what happens if said employee, upon quitting their job with no notice "voluntarily" decides not to pay the fine. There really isn't any way around having what you're describing called a compulsory obligation of labor.

Yes, there is...if they've agreed to it! It's a stipulation of the job, just as having to go to work is a stipulation of the job.

Here (and I'm assuming where you are as well) it's been decided that affording a business the power of the state to tell an employee what they "must" do, specifically with regards to their labor, is a recipe for tears. We have a long, violent history full of precedent that has led us to this decision. After the abolition of the most obvious form of compulsory labor (slavery) various other types of compulsory labor existed (in various industries) for quite some time. The most horrid examples, being contractual agreements.

I think you're entirely getting the wrong end of the stick here. A company must to some degree have the power to tell an employee what they "must" do, otherwise how can any employee be handled? Granted, an employee does not have to do what the company tells them they "must", but if they choose to do that, they must face the consequences, having signed a contract which stipulates what they must do.

A contract which says that you must come to work between the hours of 9 and 5 is not compulsory labour; it's a simple contract that both parties have agreed to. One could only call it compulsory labour if the employee was being made to do it against their will. Likewise, a contract which says that before an employee leaves they must give a notice period is not compulsory labour, since once again the employee has already agreed to this, and thus is not being made to do it against their will.

It only becomes compulsory labour if the worker leaves without giving notice, and the company drags them to court and the court orders that the labour be completed. That, I would agree, is compulsory labour...the person is being forced to do work against their will, and I don't agree with it. However, a simple stipulation of a contract is not compulsory labour (it's voluntarily signed), neither is a fine or other form of punishment (bad reference, etc.) since at the end of the day, it was the employee who broke the voluntarily agreed contract.

(all labor here in the US, is, by law, voluntary - paid or unpaid)

As is labour here in the UK. You cannot be forced to work against your will. That is not what a notice period is, since the employee has already agreed to it when they signed the contract.

Something occurred to me re-reading this. Your comment about it not being in a businesses best interests to "go to court over it" over a frycook. I can;t imagine a situation or position which would not warrant this claus in a contract if it were enforceable, whether or not you felt that you were going to avail yourself of such a handy tool probably shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you set yourself up so that it is available. We're proposing legislation that is (at the very least) potentially horrid...and then just waving our hands to say "but these guys will use this highly questionable tool responsibly and ethically". Well, all evidence points to the contrary.

Erm...it is in a contract. That is what a notice period is!

[cratehorus]

Zuma under fire for costly upgrade of his home

New security fences. A medical clinic. Fire-fighting services added for a helipad. That and other upgrades, all for South African President Jacob Zuma's home to the tune of more than $23 million in taxpayer money. And all for his rural private residence.

Zuma's standing has already been shaken by the recent police killings of 34 striking platinum miners in the continuing wave of ongoing wildcat strikes. He is widely seen by striking miners as aloof to their concerns that they're not paid enough for the difficult and dangerous work they perform. Firebrand politician Julius Malema, ousted this year as ANC Youth League leader, says Zuma should not be allowed another term in office.

The government has refused to disclose the precise cost of the work on Zuma's countryside home. Local reports say the upgrades cost about 200 million rand ($23 million).

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/A...1-14-57-45