"Stay out of my room!"

Have you watched Guess Who – the remake of the classic Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? There is one huge flaw in that movie. The daughter not only calls her father by his first name, but she even tells him to keep quiet at some point. Now, I’m black, and I now that most of my peoples will agree that there is no way I would ever dream of calling my father by his first name – hell, I did not even know my father’s first name until I was in high school! Telling my father to keep quiet? I start to choke at the mere thought of what the repercussions of that would be!

The other day, my friend’s 4-yr old daughter came home from pre-school and told her mother that her teacher said that her mother is not allowed to hit her.

I understand there is legislation on the way that will make it illegal for parents to beat up their children. How this legislation made it this far, in a country as diverse as ours, should really be a mystery – but it is not. If you consider that the body that votes on laws is made up of people who can not comprehend the complicated language in which these laws are written, then it is no surprise that we will end up with a law that says I can not give my child a much needed hiding.

Going back to children…There is an age where a hiding is what a child needs to give him/her a point of reference. A child throwing a tantrum in a shopping centre needs to get a good hiding to remind him/her that this is totally unacceptable. Trying to ‘reason’ or ‘negotiate’ with a child in this case would be a pointless exercise. So, there is a place for a hiding in the raising of children. Just so we are clear, there is ‘a hiding’ and then there is abuse. A good point of work from is that no hiding should result in any bleeding or fractured bones, or any bruises that will take longer than a day to heal.

I watch little white kids in the mall throwing tantrums because they want something and their parents say no. I think of how I grew up. I knew then that any misbehaviour on my part while shopping with my parents would result in ‘the look’ from my mother. This ‘look’ meant one thing: I would get a hiding when I got home – guaranteed! When my mother was talking to her friends, I kept quiet. When we visited relatives or my mother’s friends, we sat down and kept quiet.
This is not the case with today’s children. They run around at the mall and have their parents chase after them. They run around inside people’s homes when they visit. Children yell back at their parents.
My child would be best advised to understand what he/she sees on television or at the movies as what it really is – fiction! I will not hesitate to unleash a good spanking if I feel it is warranted. In my opinion, not doing so would be irresponsible of me!

“Stay out of my room!” Say whaaat?!!!

Staff as shareholders...huh?

Yesterday I came across an article about an empowerment deal by Massmart Holdings (the folks who own Makro, Dion, Game, Builders Warehouse, Jumbo, etc), which will give their black employees a 10% shareholding in Massmart. Many of you will be aware of a number of other such deals that have happened in other companies – deals that give staff a shareholding in the company.

On the face of it, it sounds very noble and inspired. But is it really?

How many of you have ever walked into a restaurant and got such bad service that you never went back? How many of you have sworn off some chain store or other because of bad service? How many of you have ever gone to a bank and have been at the receiving end of some amazing rudeness from the bank staff? How many of you have called your bank to query something and they really try and make you feel like an idiot for not having figured out something they did not tell you?
Now, for whatever reason, the bank teller, or the waiter, or the sales person does not understand the impact of their job on the company’s bottom line. A customer who keeps coming back is good for business, while a lost customer is a loss for the company. But the majority of our front-line staff doesn’t seem capable of making that link. For them, I am just one unhappy customer and I can leave if I want to. Hell, they will still get paid at the end of the month. The store is full, what difference does one unhappy client make? To them, none. To the business, it is a big deal.

We can agree that this behaviour by these staff members results in profit erosion for the companies that employ them. This is not good for the companies. So, why do we give staff members shareholdings in companies before they fully understand and appreciate the importance of their jobs to the performance of the business. Why do we make these people shareholders – these people who destroy the profits of their companies? Shouldn’t companies educate their staff about this first?

Something else that has me wondering: I am no labour matters guru, so bear with me: Shareholders are the ultimate employer, right? So, these black staff members who now own 10% of Massmart Holdings are now employers, right? This means that they can never go on strike. As shareholders, they are theoretically better off if they pay the workers (in this case, themselves) the least amount they can get away with (you know, minimise the costs of production). So, if there was to be a strike, it would not benefit this 10% if they were to join in the strike, or to give in to whatever demands were being made. If they were to join in the strike, they would lose money as they would not be paid for the duration that they are on strike. They would also lose money because the company would lose money.

I can’t help feeling that something is amiss with this whole business…

Menace to society?

Despite my less than average enthusiasm with the Zuma rape trial, I could not ignore my interest in the verdict. So, I listed to SAfm via my cellphone (the marvels of technology) the whole day as the judge read out his ruling.
Not many of us were surprised that Zuma was found ‘not guilty’…I think it was pretty clear from the point started tearing apart the accuser’s testimony. In the end, the judge agreed with the defence witnesses who said that ‘she was sick’ and needed to get help. Zuma walked, and the accuser went into exile (out of Africa, I hear) for her own safety – on the recommendation of security authorities.
Assuming that the judgement reflected the truth of the matter (and I am not saying it did), which is that no rape actually took place, then one fact is really worrying: If she indeed is ill and could do with some help, then perhaps this should have been ordered by the judge. Rather, she was sent off to some far off country. Perhaps it could be that the decision to relocate her to some overseas country was so that she would be far away from us? You know…to rid us of her…let the other country deal with her! Imagine if she went to the U.S where they have that interesting jury system. At the rate she is going, it is likely that she will secure a ‘guilty’ verdict some day….assuming of course, that she actually is in the habit of falsely accusing her partners of rape…a fact we do not know.

Something else about the lady having to leave for an overseas country for her safety…can you imagine being told by the police that you have to leave AFRICA for your own safety – because you dared to go up against Fikile Mbalula – who, for the uninitiated, is the President of the ANC Youth League? Let’s assume for a moment that among Zuma’s supporters, you do have those who would be determined enough, and have the resources, to hunt her down and harm her. Now, with the reliance on IT systems overseas (and a large concentration of hackers), wouldn’t be easier to find her overseas than in a country like Sudan or Nigeria? Just wondering…

A parting point...much has been said of Zuma's past positions as head of the National AIDS Council and the leader of the Moral Regeneration Programme. He has apologised for the slip up in relation to not using a condom, and he has clarified his taking a shower (I hear he said something along the lines of "If you have been peeling onions, you wash your hands afterwards")...but what about the fact that he, at 63 and married (though I do not know to how many women), slept with a woman half his age? A morality issue in there somewhere? Yes? No? Maybe?

Not guilty…but still can’t be president…

So it is that Msholozi was found ‘not guilty’…for most of us, we knew that this would happen. So, no surprise there. Although many of us will not be thrilled with the verdict, I am sure that we are all relieved that for a while longer, we will not have to deal with the wrath of his unwaivering supporters – them of the Zulu tribe. And we actually should take heart in the revelation that our justice system is fair. A white judge found a man that many among us loath, not guilty.

The impact on the JSE? None. The impact on the rand? None. The impact on the price of oil? None. Just thought I'd share that...

However, a friend of mine mentioned that the whole idea of a conspiracy to ‘get rid’ of Zuma might be true, and that this was all part of the plan. Those who dismissed Zuma’s claims of a conspiracy against him, cited that whoever would have planned such a conspiracy could have found a more credible victim. Perhaps. My friend, however, contends that if Zuma had been found guilty, his supporters would have slammed the justice system and, by all probability, would have gone on a massive rampage. By him being found ‘not guilty’, it has reinforced the faith of his supporters in the justice system. So, when he is found guilty of corruption, they will not be able to blame anyone - or hopefully go on any rampage.

After all is said, the following must be clear: As one guy put it, Zuma can not be president of this country – or any other country anywhere!

Having said that, I get a chill when I think that Bush was voted into power – twice! Perhaps I will do my health some good by resigning myself to the fact that Zuma will be the next president of the Republic of South Africa…or I could very secretly hope that my friend’s conspiracy idea is actually true…eish!

What is more sad is the passing on of our Minister of Public Works, Stella Sigcau. Condolences to her family...

On local strikes and protests...

I have often wondered about the wisdom of the reasons behind some strikes and the way they are carried out. I have come to the belief that there is something I am missing…

When Cosatu goes on strike, they march in the Jo’burg CBD, and they create such havoc…destroying vendor stands, and tipping over the full rubbish bins onto the streets. And then they have to clean it up afterwards.

The on-going security guard’s strike baffles me as much as the Pick’n’Pay one last year did. The issue, as was with the Pick’n’Pay employees, is that they want salary increases equal to almost triple the inflation rate. Now, I would have second thoughts about attempting to explain the relationship between salaries and inflation to a security guard who does not understand basic economics, but I would suppose that union leaders are paid handsomely to do just that.

My opinion on the matter, for which I have been called insensitive, can be divided into two: An issue of contract; and an issue of demand and supply.
The first issue: When the staff of Pick’n’Pay and the security guards got their jobs, they agreed on the terms of employment. Should the terms cease to be favourable, they are free to leave and seek alternative employment elsewhere. To disrupt your employers business or terrorise the country is not going to win anyone any sympathy – certainly none from me!
The second issue: In an economy such as ours, what people are paid should be determined by demand and supply. The more scarce – and required – your skills are, the more you get paid. For packers and cashiers at Pick’n’Pay, they possess no special skill for which they should demand salary increases that far above inflation (especially no when all they have to do is scan purchases)! The same goes for security guards – anyone can learn to shoot (and not even all of them carry guns) and become a security guard.

The same goes for these Cosatu-led protests against poverty and unemployment. How does a day spent toy-toying in the streets aid the eradication of poverty and unemployment? I am really anxious to understand how they reason it. I think it actually worsens it. Consider this: A company is working on their first big project and need everyone to work flat out to complete it on time, so that they can be guaranteed being granted the tender for the next – even bigger – project, which would result in more people being employed. If half the staff heeded Vavi’s call to embark on a day or two of protest, the company would not finish on time, and would certainly not get the next contract, and people would be retrenched. So much for the protest against unemployment and poverty!

But all this happens almost every year….what am I missing?

On mini-skirts and other revealing clothing...

As it happens, I come from a country where society – whether rightly or wrongly – have put in place limits on how short a skirt can get, or how revealing a piece of clothing can be. In my second home, South Africa, society has not placed any such limits. True freedom? Perhaps.

When I first came to Johannesburg eight years ago, I did struggle a bit with the adjustment to the dress sense. From the school-going girls I saw on the bus to the varsity girls I attended lectures with, they all wore rather short skirts. I suppose that arriving in Egoli right in the middle of summer did not help matters much.

That said, I am not opposed to mini-skirts, and I certainly am not opposed to revealing clothing, per se. But everything has limits…and there is a place and time for everything. Assuming a perfect society, the best place to wear a mini-skirt or revealing clothing outside of one’s home would be at a night club. It would be inappropriate to wear such clothing at the shopping mall on a Saturday morning when I am out shopping with my parents who are about to reach 70.
Sadly though, we do not live in a perfect society. We live in a society where – and I hate to make reference to the esteemed Msholozi – wearing a knee-length skirt is seen as a sexual signal. Now, if a knee-length skirt is seen to portray this kind of message, can you imagine what message a mini-skirt is perceived to portray?!

On numerous occasions I have heard people saying “She deserved to be raped. How could she go around dressed like that? She was asking for it!”. These kinds of statements always make my blood boil. But when I hear young girls saying “I am going to wear whatever I want, wherever I want”, I start to wonder about the wisdom of our young women. I begin to wonder if this kind of attitude might constitute ‘asking for it’. This, as you can imagine, is also the point where many will differ with me.
To best illustrate my point, I will use a simple analogy: In a perfect society, one would not even need to lock up one’s house when one goes to work, or when one goes to bed at night. However, because of our reality, one lock is not enough. We put in steel security doors and alarm systems, and top that off with armed response subscriptions. Our reality is such that even when we are at home and just sitting around, all the doors are locked and the panic button is within quick reach. Anything less is certainly ‘asking for it’. In the same way, in a perfect society girls can wear what they want and go wherever they please. Our reality, however, dictates otherwise. Our women have to be mindful of what they wear, and where they go because there evidently are a lot of psychics around who will pick up the sexual signals they are sending with their short skirts and act on them! This is our sad reality.

It is crucial that women understand that it is not about oppression or control…it is not about freedom, or the lack of it…it simply is about self-preservation…