I AM not entirely sure why the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have targeted the Working on Fire programme as a starting point for their campaign for a national minimum wage. In case you missed it, the EFF proposed a motion without notice in Parliament earlier this week to end the "exploitation" of firefighters and called for a national living wage across all sectors.
Their grounds for the motion were that the R86 a day or R1,800 a month earned by Working on Fire employees is significantly below the average full-time firefighter’s salary of R8,000 a month. Moreover, they argued that the temporary nature of this work and long hours were exploitative and only existed to serve "white monopoly capital".
They are correct on at least one point: the Working on Fire programme forms part of the government’s expanded public works programme, which pays a wage of R84 a day. This statutory minimum is set by the Department of Labour via a special ministerial determination, though some operators have been known to pay more. There is a standard nine-hour day, and depending on the nature of the project, people can be employed on a temporary or full-time basis.
What confuses me is that when the EFF decided to have a go at Working on Fire — and by extension other such expanded public works programmes (EPWP) such as Working on Water — it clearly did not consider why these low-wage, low-skill and often temporary jobs exist. If the EFF is committed to improving the lives of the poor, it should be lauding the programme as one of the better pieces of social policy in SA.
According to the blurb provided by the Department of Public Works, the EPWP is a "deliberate attempt by the public-sector bodies to use expenditure on goods and services to create work opportunities for the unemployed. EPWP Projects employ workers on a temporary or continuous basis either by government, by contractors, or by other nongovernmental organisations under the Ministerial Conditions of Employment for the EPWP or learnership employment conditions." This all sounds pretty above board.
Aside from the immediate job creation aspect, another purpose of these jobs is to equip unemployed people with the skills and experience enabling them to find employment in the future. This is where the comparison between the wages paid to temporary Working on Fire workers and full-time trained firefighters falls short.
Perhaps the most important role of the EPWP is that it forms part of an invaluable poverty alleviation strategy for individuals who have no other form of income. Programmes such as Working on Fire and Working on Water are aimed at providing temporary employment to individuals who are unemployed, unskilled and do not receive or qualify for a social grant. In other words, they would not have any other form of income if it weren’t for these jobs.
It is in this context as an alternative form of government-funded social support that we need to evaluate these jobs. A large part of this has to do with the South African social norm that people should work for their money. By "giving" people jobs rather than "handouts" the government has managed to avoid the conflict between the necessity of finding additional methods to support the poor, and attitudes that divide the poor into the deserving and undeserving.
Let me explain: research done at the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Social Science Research has shown that South Africans tend to adhere to a strict set of social norms in which only a select few are considered worthy of unconditional support from the government in the form of social grants. This group of so-called "deserving poor" is primarily characterised by their inability to work due to age or disability, and includes the elderly, children, and those who are sick or disabled. Those who are not in this group and are willing and able to work but cannot find employment are considered "undeserving".
In a country where the official unemployment rate hovers at around 25% and the "real" rate is closer to 40%, attitudes like these seem completely daft, but they are very, very real. One of the most common phrases to emerge from the study was that "people should not get something for nothing".
In other words, unless someone has a "legitimate" reason for not being able to work, they need to make some sort of effort to earn their keep, whether this is by helping the person who supports them or by trying to start a small business or any other enterprise.
This idea that anyone who is able to work should work is matched with a strong expectation that it is the government’s responsibility to provide some of the work. It is this gap that the EPWP hoped to fill. A phrase mentioned several times during interviews characterises this attitude particularly well as: "Ucuntsu akafani noshici" or "half a loaf is better than no bread." In an environment where jobs are scarce and poverty is rife, people should be grateful for the work they do have, even if it is low-paid. Such attitudes make me a little uncomfortable since they blur the line between exploitation and opportunity, yet they are pervasive among conservative working-class South Africans of all races.
That said, it is worth noting that the same view — perhaps slightly more nuanced — is held by many in the governing party. Several years ago when debating the feasibility of a basic income grant in SA, African National Congress national executive committee member Joel Netshitenzhe argued it was best for South Africans to "enjoy the opportunity, the dignity and the rewards of work".
This tendency for South Africans to reject "handouts" as a legitimate source of poverty alleviation is an important consideration when evaluating the justice of poorly paid jobs such as those created via the EPWP. Though on the face of it Netshitenzhe’s comment is offensive in the context of the country’s mass unemployment, the idea that the best way to create sustainable jobs is through the upskilling of currently unemployed people is hugely valuable.
I am not suggesting that the wages paid to workers participating in the programme qualify as "decent"; I can’t imagine how anyone feeds, houses and clothes their family on such a meagre wage, but in an environment where the government is faced with fiscal and normative constraints, it is a clever piece of social policy.
Economic Freedom Fighters. Picture: BALESENG MOSOTHO
I AM not entirely sure why the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have targeted the Working on Fire programme as a starting point for their campaign for a national minimum wage. In case you missed it, the EFF proposed a motion without notice in Parliament earlier this week to end the "exploitation" of firefighters and called for a national living wage across all sectors.
Their grounds for the motion were that the R86 a day or R1,800 a month earned by Working on Fire employees is significantly below the average full-time firefighter’s salary of R8,000 a month. Moreover, they argued that the temporary nature of this work and long hours were exploitative and only existed to serve "white monopoly capital".
They are correct on at least one point: the Working on Fire programme forms part of the government’s expanded public works programme, which pays a wage of R84 a day. This statutory minimum is set by the Department of Labour via a special ministerial determination, though some operators have been known to pay more. There is a standard nine-hour day, and depending on the nature of the project, people can be employed on a temporary or full-time basis.
What confuses me is that when the EFF decided to have a go at Working on Fire — and by extension other such expanded public works programmes (EPWP) such as Working on Water — it clearly did not consider why these low-wage, low-skill and often temporary jobs exist. If the EFF is committed to improving the lives of the poor, it should be lauding the programme as one of the better pieces of social policy in SA.
According to the blurb provided by the Department of Public Works, the EPWP is a "deliberate attempt by the public-sector bodies to use expenditure on goods and services to create work opportunities for the unemployed. EPWP Projects employ workers on a temporary or continuous basis either by government, by contractors, or by other nongovernmental organisations under the Ministerial Conditions of Employment for the EPWP or learnership employment conditions." This all sounds pretty above board.
Aside from the immediate job creation aspect, another purpose of these jobs is to equip unemployed people with the skills and experience enabling them to find employment in the future. This is where the comparison between the wages paid to temporary Working on Fire workers and full-time trained firefighters falls short.
Perhaps the most important role of the EPWP is that it forms part of an invaluable poverty alleviation strategy for individuals who have no other form of income. Programmes such as Working on Fire and Working on Water are aimed at providing temporary employment to individuals who are unemployed, unskilled and do not receive or qualify for a social grant. In other words, they would not have any other form of income if it weren’t for these jobs.
It is in this context as an alternative form of government-funded social support that we need to evaluate these jobs. A large part of this has to do with the South African social norm that people should work for their money. By "giving" people jobs rather than "handouts" the government has managed to avoid the conflict between the necessity of finding additional methods to support the poor, and attitudes that divide the poor into the deserving and undeserving.
Let me explain: research done at the University of Cape Town’s Centre for Social Science Research has shown that South Africans tend to adhere to a strict set of social norms in which only a select few are considered worthy of unconditional support from the government in the form of social grants. This group of so-called "deserving poor" is primarily characterised by their inability to work due to age or disability, and includes the elderly, children, and those who are sick or disabled. Those who are not in this group and are willing and able to work but cannot find employment are considered "undeserving".
In a country where the official unemployment rate hovers at around 25% and the "real" rate is closer to 40%, attitudes like these seem completely daft, but they are very, very real. One of the most common phrases to emerge from the study was that "people should not get something for nothing".
In other words, unless someone has a "legitimate" reason for not being able to work, they need to make some sort of effort to earn their keep, whether this is by helping the person who supports them or by trying to start a small business or any other enterprise.
This idea that anyone who is able to work should work is matched with a strong expectation that it is the government’s responsibility to provide some of the work. It is this gap that the EPWP hoped to fill. A phrase mentioned several times during interviews characterises this attitude particularly well as: "Ucuntsu akafani noshici" or "half a loaf is better than no bread." In an environment where jobs are scarce and poverty is rife, people should be grateful for the work they do have, even if it is low-paid. Such attitudes make me a little uncomfortable since they blur the line between exploitation and opportunity, yet they are pervasive among conservative working-class South Africans of all races.
That said, it is worth noting that the same view — perhaps slightly more nuanced — is held by many in the governing party. Several years ago when debating the feasibility of a basic income grant in SA, African National Congress national executive committee member Joel Netshitenzhe argued it was best for South Africans to "enjoy the opportunity, the dignity and the rewards of work".
This tendency for South Africans to reject "handouts" as a legitimate source of poverty alleviation is an important consideration when evaluating the justice of poorly paid jobs such as those created via the EPWP. Though on the face of it Netshitenzhe’s comment is offensive in the context of the country’s mass unemployment, the idea that the best way to create sustainable jobs is through the upskilling of currently unemployed people is hugely valuable.
I am not suggesting that the wages paid to workers participating in the programme qualify as "decent"; I can’t imagine how anyone feeds, houses and clothes their family on such a meagre wage, but in an environment where the government is faced with fiscal and normative constraints, it is a clever piece of social policy.
Post a comment