Attorney Michael de Broglio on: South Africa, Law, Politics, Attorneys, Sport, Photography, Technology, Gadgets, Media, Crime, Road Accidents Fund,
Divorce, Maintenance, Personal Injury, Medical Negligence
There were a lot of comments about my last blog article of the CCMA. A lot of people basically said that there is another side to the story, and that is when employees are working for terrible firms which don’t pay them and abuse them, etc they need to have rights. I don’t think anybody would disagree, but the point I am making is that the vast majority of big or medium size firms have a vast majority of staff members who are either happy or at least satisfied and are not having problems. The minority – whether it is 5% or 10% of staff members – that do have a problem are normally the problem themselves. There are just simply people who don’t have an ability to work, don’t want to work and are begrudgingly there because they need the money, whereas the best workers will always take pride in achieving their goals and doing well irrespective of whether they get the praise that they deserve, or are not noticed. A good work ethic, which normally comes from the parents, is not all that common but from what I have learned, people either have it or they don’t and it really does not matter on who the employer is or isn’t – something that comes from within the individual.
I think a few or so misunderstood my perspective as an employer, when it comes to somebody having a history of CCMA complaints, for example at their previous company. It is very easy as an employee to see your perspective but if you were an employer, or you do employ somebody in your private capacity, you will very quickly understand and appreciate that no employer, with any experience of hiring people, is interested in hiring somebody who left their previous job and brought a CCMA complaint against their employer. It spells trouble to an employer, whether employees like to hear that or not. I must distinguish that from the case where, for example, somebody tells me that their previous employer never paid them for the last three months, had financial difficulties and they had to approach the CCMA, but you hardly need to say things that sound like a troubled person – for example the now stripped of her title, FHM model, Jessica Leandra, who as her excuse for using a derogatory racist term, is now going for training on dealing with sexual harassment! In other words, everywhere she goes, men love her so much, that she is so totally harassed that she cannot help but use racist terminology. Most normal people reading that would say, “Please, get over yourself and get counselling for racism, because that is the real problem.” Some people just don’t see what the problem is and mostly in those types of case it is the individual. The bottom line though, is whether people who commented on my last blog like it or not, they do need to understand that indeed you are judged by prospective employers, by your previous work experience, and what your previous employer has to say about you in a reference and if it is bad, it is going to be extremely difficult to get a job at any decent company. It may however not be a problem at those companies where the staff members are not paid for 2 or 3 months!
Posted by Michael de Broglio on Monday 14-May-12
Post a Comment
Comments
Estelita Scott said:
on Thursday 24-May-12 02:46 PM
I wouldn't use your firm, because your arguments are out of line, and the examples you use have no relation to the topic. What does that racist woman have to do with ccma? How can you compare employees who stand up for their rights to a racist woman?
You employers just want cheap labour and desperate people to abuse. It's 2012, apartheid and it's treatment of its employees should be over.
Prefer not to Say said:
on Thursday 24-May-12 04:02 AM
Michael; I have to say that your remarks are prejudiced and very biased, ever from an employer perspective. I'm wondering if anyone ever told you that the reason your company survives is because of your employees and instead of just casting away the people who have taken you or other companies to the CCMA, look at the reason why. Is that circumstance repeated in your company? Have you started to taken this generation of workers in South Africa into consideration and, what is even more important, have you adjusted your rules to fit into this new generation? From your blog entry it appears that you have also had to deal with the CCMA, if you had done everything according to the rules, then you should not have been in a position where you landed at the CCMA.
You might want to start on this road by saying: "What can I do to help this discomfort in my company, before you just start to blame a process which is help a huge amount of people to stand up for themselves.
This certainly makes me think twice about using your firm. I am glad I went through your blog first before just contacting you.
Daniela said:
on Friday 18-May-12 01:32 PM
Agreed.
Brumilde said:
on Tuesday 15-May-12 09:52 AM
People have different views and this one i agree with
Lorette said:
on Monday 14-May-12 05:47 PM
I have to also agree and as Henrietta said - they way you put it makes you really see the situation in another way.
henrietta said:
on Monday 14-May-12 12:44 PM
Putting in that light I also have to agree.
Cherise said:
on Monday 14-May-12 10:11 AM
I have to agree with you as welll.
Robyn said:
on Monday 14-May-12 09:23 AM
I fully agree with you. If I were an employer, I would also not hire someone who went to the CCMA before, not because of anything but being cautious. Who wants that in their company? Whether it was a fair case or not. Sounds harsh though but it's the truth.
Johannesburg based attorney specializing in personal injury matters including Road Accident Fund claims and medical negligence matters. My interests include golf, reading and the internet and the way it is constantly developing. I have a passion for life and a desire for less stress!