Saturday, August 27, 2016

The misconception of governments


After all these questions it seems that government remains above the law, the laws that they passed to control their employers.

Large so called democratic governments and political parties have the misconception that they are the masters and the electorate and taxpayers are their subjects, subjects that must endure and accept any decision from the elected and paid government, in exchange for their only democratic right, their vote. Ironically in the same country the labour laws define the employer, as the person who pay the salaries by employing employees to fulfill  certain functions, it also define the employee as the person receiving compensation for work done. According to this definition the elected democratic government become the employee and the voters and taxpayers the employer, the newly government should then have an employment contract from the citizen stating their duties and mandates to fulfill the labour requirements of the same country.

The first question that start peeping through the loopholes of governance and the same laws that the governments implemented, should then be, is the labour laws legal and if so why are so many excluded from these laws? Secondly, can the citizens then follow the labour law prescriptions by calling the contract to end, if the employee does not perform their duties, and does the government (employee) have the right to appeal it before an organization like the CCMA? Surely the employer have the right and the duty to ensure the survival of their companies in this case their countries, and surely the contract of employment give the employer then the right to break the contract with prescribed compensation.

The next question must then be about the mandate that voters give the political parties to represent them; does this mandate include the right to appoint any person in the party to lead us? Is it legal to ask voters to vote for promises instead of manifesto? Does a political party then have the right to ask voters to only vote for them to diminish another party, and if so, do I then have the right as an employer to employ someone for the sole purpose of pushing another employer out, without any repercussions of the labour law?

The question does government have the right to own property and taxable companies as an employee with a five year mandate? Taxable companies that pay their own salaries, tax that make them a partner in the employee employer relationship? These questions cannot be readily answered, it might contravene the very laws that government implemented to govern their employers.

The election campaign of any political party, competing to be employed can be seen as an interview, an interview to persuade the employers to vote for their employment, does this mean that any false information and or promises laid before the employer can be seen as fraudulent and lead to immediate dismissal as stipulated in the labour act?

Obviously a country cannot be run within the labour laws set out by the government if it applied to them, so how do they expect the companies who contribute to the micro and macro economy to run according to these laws? The very same companies who create employment and tax revenue to pay the salaries of the lawmakers, lawmakers that restrict the ability in the name of human rights, human rights that the same lawmakers do not recognise during the run for government.

The last questions that I need to ask need to be answered to the background of government stipulation of no work no pay, does this means that the taxpayer can withhold his taxes if government does not deliver? Can we withhold our taxes if the police do not serve the people?

After all these questions it seems that government remains above the law, the laws that they passed to control their employers.



Willie Beetge