"Well while you are down, why don't you just kick me in the head"
After averting a major shutdown due to the failure of the Seawall, the workforce is planning to strike at the mine, due to the fact that when Bogenfels plant closed, the mine tried to prevent those workers from being made redundant by transferring them to other sections of the mine further south. However, this would cost them losing their outside housing allowances as the mine would be providing accommodation for them in town now..... The workers were pissed, coz how would they now be able to continue to pay of their house loans on the outside without the allowances...
This is a difficult scenario, in my opinion, the mine should have made those workers redundant, retrenched them, paid them out and then allowed them to reapply for other positions on the mine in the south....
Now we sit with a potential strike....... which will harm everyone....
23_146_26
Win/win & loose/loose situation on both sides.
A small input from my side - seen it happen at Kumba/Anglo. - Retrenchment packages are used by most to spend on luxury items and holidays and is not invested into retirement structures (as was the original source of the funds), therefore you fend off a strike now, but in the long run you put strain on the pension/provident fund value of the individual and whose liability does this person become due to lack of ample retirement income ?? yours and mine, for our tax money has to support them on Government pension grattuity. Also, medical liability etc. stops with immediate effect at retrenchment, and most cannot afford to let that happen.
Just a small contribution towards this - yes, I know lots of other debatable point can be put on the table in this regard.