IT is clear from the mail I am receiving that casualisation is a sensitive subject that is viewed differently by different players in the labour market.
There have been mixed reactions to the ban on casualisation and unjustified termination of contracts of employment which followed President Edgar Lungu’s signing into law of the amendment to the Employment Act No. 15 of 2015 Cap 268 of the Laws of Zambia.
The President signed the new law on November 26, 2015.
Richard Sheppard, who is managing director at Best of Bikes, Sporting Guns Ltd, Big Rush (Pty) Ltd, and African Horizons Ltd holds that strict labour laws do not create more jobs but rather put people off employment.
“You can see this in France and Spain that have very strict labour laws and very high unemployment, and the USA and UK that have lax labour laws and very high employment.
“There are dozens of other examples worldwide of this same correlation. Over the last 15 years Zambia has had a high employment rate (compared regionally) due to flexible labour laws, but now any new investor or n business person looking to expand may well shy away from doing so if he is forced to keep on labour when market conditions dictate that he downsizes,” Mr Sheppard wrote recently.
This week I have a letter from a human resource management student, calling himself EM, who agrees with Mr Sheppard’s opinion.
EM wrote: “Hi Charles, first of all I would like to thank you for your articles on labour for they are helping me so much in terms of staying up to date with labour and employment issues.
Secondly I would like to agree with Mr Richard Sheppard on the issue of having flexible labour laws.
As much as the Government is trying to create meaningful jobs for the people by, for example, getting rid of casualisation of jobs which are of a permanent nature, they should also see to it that these laws do not discourage investors from investing in our country.
The laws should benefit us as a country and the investors. Thirdly and finally, I would like to commend the President for introducing the performance-based contract system for the public service because not only will it improve the performance of the public service but also prevent the Government from paying people for just being present [in their offices].”
As for Benjamin Ngalande, a Bachelor of Labour and Employment Relations student at Mulungushi University, the following is his viewpoint:
“The main cause of casualisation is that employers seek lower costs of doing business and profit maximization.
The increased prominence of casuals across diverse industries brings about high rates of underemployment in the current labour market.
A significant number of workers have stayed in casual jobs because it has not been easy to find a job in the first place. This is not because they lack skills and qualifications, but simply because of a lot of competition for the available jobs.
Casual workers’ rates are also cheaper for weekend work and nights than overtime rates for permanent workers.
Furthermore, casualisation comes without basic employment rights and protection like having full entitlements such as transport, leave allowances, and medicals, among other things.
In addition, casualisation has no employment security in that one can turn up for work and be told ‘sorry, we have no job for you’. Casualisation affects the employee’s social security contingencies like employment injury benefits, medical care and survivors’ benefits.
It also affects pension schemes for the reason that some industries, companies or institutions may require an employee to work a certain number of years continuously or to contribute for a certain number of months to be eligible for a pension package, which is very difficult for casual employees.
Casual workers have no representation in the industry and, therefore, these employees can easily be exploited for there is no one to bargain for them.
In such a situation, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not normally apply to them.”
I would like to thank all the readers who take their time to share their views on this platform. All your contributions are valuable.
***
I stumbled on an article which has quoted some economists as saying seven million jobs will be lost to computers by the year 2020.
At this year’s Davos conference, the results of a survey indicate that in just four years, technology could effectively destroy more than 7.1 million jobs.
Jobs replaced by software
The survey included senior-level executives from more than 350 of the world’s largest corporations in both emerging markets and developed economies, accounting for around 65 per cent of the global workforce.
It found that innovations in computing and information technology (IT) are increasing at a rapid pace, and in just a few years many jobs thought to be in the realm of humans only will be replaced or automated by machines.
While the industrialisation revolution saw mechanical labour replaced and automated by technology, the IT revolution is on the verge of being able to replace jobs that require cognition and creativity.
Currently, algorithms can write short articles covering simple news events such as corporate earnings, sporting events, or weather updates that are difficult to discern from those written by people.
Technology is also replacing (or has replaced) many radio DJs, tax accountants, stock brokers, travel agents, librarians, bank tellers and postal workers.
The advent of driverless cars could eliminate most driving professions, including drivers of trucks, buses, taxis, trains and limousines.
Soon, rudimentary artificial intelligence (AI) will give way to more sophisticated learning algorithms which can then replace many more types of jobs, including those in the medical, legal, and education professions.
The upside
While many millions of jobs will be lost, new technologies will also create approximately two million jobs, according to the survey, which did not exist before.
This would net the total jobs lost to five million: still a startling number of unemployed. Unless these workers learn quickly how to develop or interface with software, they will be at a huge disadvantage.
Increased automation will also serve to lower costs, making goods and services cheaper for consumers and allowing them to save more – if they still have a job.
Technological progress can also offer non-monetary benefits that improve quality of life by improving health outcomes, improve the environment, and streamline efficiency.
The bottomline
Unlike the industrial revolution, which created more jobs than it destroyed, by most accounts the new wave of technological innovation involving computing power, AI and connectivity will destroy more jobs than it creates.
A net five million jobs could be lost, according to a survey conducted by the forum at Davos, by the year 2020.
Of course, some good will come out of this new wave of cognitive automation. However, the benefits to society may be muted by the increase in unemployment.
Dear readers, let us keep the link open as we share issues on labour and employment.
For comments or questions, email niza12001@yahoo.com