They're not ours

SITA is progressing remarkably. Apparently.

Public service and administration minister Richard Baloyi says the State IT Agency (SITA) is moving well in terms of implementing its turnaround strategy.

The concern here is that if government cannot even regulate labour brokers used by its own agency, then how will it regulate an entire industry?

Farzana Rasool, journalist, ITWeb

Its remarkable progress is also caused by the strengthening of the governance mechanism through the deployment of men and women of substance at the top management of the agency. One of these men of substance is no doubt the fairly new CEO Blake Mosley-Lefatola.

He clearly understands that to progress in a remarkable manner, one has to admit their weaknesses and address their shortcomings. The CEO admitted the agency needs to do more work in supporting SMMEs and in revising its prices that have been deemed too high in the past.

The agency is also attempting to build partnerships with industry players to assist it in achieving its mandate, and is upscaling its rollout of the much-needed Integrated Finance Management System.

SITA is at about the halfway mark in implementing its strategy, according to Mosley-Lefatola, and one of the seven outcomes is to become an employer of choice.

Here comes the fail.

SITA wants to take minimal responsibility for contractors that carry out its work. The CEO says the agency's contract is with labour broking houses and it is the responsibility of those houses to ensure the contractors are satisfied and happy.

This has not been happening.

ITWeb received complaints from several SITA contractors around payment, lack of increases, non-existent communication between themselves and the agency, and a general feeling that their work is under-valued.

Mosley-Lefatola says it is the labour brokers that must address these issues since the contractors are not SITA employees.

Basically, do our work but don't associate yourself with us. We're not the boss of you, but just listen to what we say and carry out our work.

SITA disowning the contractors is the kind of situation which probably raised the idea of banning labour broking in the first place. Contractors cannot force SITA to address its issues, because they have no direct contractual engagement with it, and the labour brokers cannot address complaints that involve SITA management and processes.

So the contractor is stuck with no more than a redundant whisper.

The proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act and specifically the proposed repeal of section 198, which deals with labour brokers, has been the subject of much controversy in SA of late.

Trade unions have called strongly for a ban on the industry and refuse to accept an alternative. They say labour broking houses allow companies to shirk responsibility to their employees by saying they have no contractual obligation to them.

Trade unions, if you need an example, SITA seems to have played the exact card you need.

However, business and the industry have said labour broking contributes too much to the economy to just be shut down and government has gone with this outlook. It speaks now of regulation of the industry as opposed to the ban that was initially proposed.

The concern here is that if government cannot even regulate labour brokers used by its own agency, then how will it regulate an entire industry?

SITA contractors working under labour brokers are severely dissatisfied and are getting no resolution. I'm starting to think the trade unions were on to something when calling for a ban.

When a child is naughty, it is a common occurrence for the mother to say in that moment that it is the father's child, and to avoid taking responsibility for it. SITA followed this model. When the contractors complain and throw tantrums, they are tossed to the other “parent”.

The contradiction between this situation and SITA's key objective to become an employer of choice is clearly evident. It's like saying: “I want to be a wonderful parent, but not with these children.”