As we enter into the fourth term for school-leavers and the end of a university degree for those in tertiary education, we need to explore the difficult job market for 2023.
We are aware that 11 million unemployed people are actively looking for jobs, and that we have the second-worst productivity in the world. Coming out of a decade, if not more, of state capture and two years of Covid-19, we need to get back to thoughts of job creation.
Covid-19 has been a game-changer. First, many of us were dragged screaming into the use of technology including Zoom and Microsoft teams. The workplace has changed – for the better. Individuals started to think about their mortality and their lifestyle. The youth started openly questioning their work environment and the terms and conditions of their employment.
Many individuals resigned from their jobs, accessing their pension or provident schemes, with a vision of enhancing their lifestyle.
Covid-19 made all of us think. Those who won’t be able to find alternative employment weren’t able to make excessive demands and certainly won’t be able to move on. The fact that people had to remain in sometimes uncomfortable circumstances did not stop them from thinking about their future.
In my early years as a labour lawyer about 30 years ago, I recall trade unions putting pressure on employers, that is “working to rule”. The concept meant that their members would perform the bare minimum of tasks and would not work overtime.
In this way, the unions were able to send a warning message to the employers that they needed to be treated properly before productivity could be enhanced. Sometimes, this is preferable to strike action as the employees earn their salaries and get their message across.
As the trade unions became more sophisticated, they introduced a concept of a go-slow. Like work to rule, it meant productivity was almost brought to a standstill. Once again, the message came across loud and clear and it was difficult for management to take individual action against a particular member. The action was a combined effort of all the trade union members. It was seen as an insidious way of bringing the employer to “its knees”.
These days, strike action appears to be the more favourable response as it is more immediate but the downside is that the employees don’t earn during the strike.
Unlike the joint action taken by trade union members, “quiet quitting” is an individual reaction to negative working conditions. This means that the individual is on a personal go-slow and personally works to rule.
The problem with this is that it seldom produces the intended result. An action of a disciplinary nature is normally taken against the individual after management sees the drop in productivity. Even if the individual has skills, which is difficult to obtain, management wants productivity and has a large pool of others it can recruit.
On the other hand, many employers try their utmost to become the most desirable employer. They want to attract highly qualified people into their ranks and design boutique-type conditions to attract and retain qualified individuals.
Future employers are well advised to make the work environment attractive to effectively allow them to recruit the brightest and the best. Individuals are, likewise, well advised to produce far beyond the call of duty and avoid the concept of “quiet quitting”.
* Michael Bagraim is a labour lawyer.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
Do you have something on your mind; or want to comment on the big stories of the day? We would love to hear from you. Please send your letters to [email protected].
All letters to be considered for publication, must contain full names, addresses and contact details (not for publication).