The Sunday News
THIS year started with so much promise that the economic challenges of the past few years were going to be a thing of the past. However, recent developments have meant that the average worker has to wait a little bit longer to celebrate the rewards of hard work as public officials have thus far taken turns to further add to the employees’ economic misery judging from the recent media pronouncements.
Announcing the 2015 National Budget Statement last year, Finance and Economic Development Minister Patrick Chinamasa said the Government was increasing the salary tax-free threshold from $250 to $300 per month and widened income tax bands.
This to some extent brought relief to taxpayers. While these reforms were made at the backdrop of declining consumer demand due to low disposable incomes spawned by tight liquidity and a relatively bearish economic climate, such policy reforms were meant to enhance the economic standing of the worker and should be always applauded at all times.
Hard on the heels of such commendable reforms have been disturbing voices coming from the National Social Security Authority who have once again seen an opportunity to try and fleece from the workers the little that they have gained so far by mooting the idea of an employee funded maternity and health insurance scheme.
While the latter may seem a sensible introduction but with whom some analysts have claimed tantamount to usurping the functions of health insurance companies, it is, however, the proposition of the former that has sent tongues wagging.
The introduction of an employee funded maternity levy is in my view a very retrogressive suggestion that is not meant to benefit any worker or employer but NSSA only.
Maternity levy is a shallow proposition coming from such an esteemed institution which should know better that unlike the Aids levy which was introduced to help fight the Aids pandemic which was declared by the Government as a disaster, maternity is nowhere near disaster status.
Maternity is a matter of choice and thus should be analysed differently. If the issue has been about birth control NSSA should look into the policy initiatives of other countries like China who have had to deal with much more serious issues.
The cosmetic jargon used to justify the proposition of the levy is quite phenomenal. Why would NSSA want to penalise an entire national workforce for decisions that are purely matrimonial? The cost of maternity leave have been thus far been borne by the employer because logically it is the respective employers who derive the economic benefits of the concerned employees.
This leaves so many questions unanswered like what then happens to those who have wives employed in the informal sectors or who are not employed because of the present economic challenges? This scheme is bound to benefit only the formally employed women implying that some unfortunate employees may pay for the spousal upkeep of their colleagues’ wives in the formal sector.
NSSA should try to focus on their principal business of social security and finding lasting solutions to affording pensioners dignified returns upon retirement.
NSSA as of late seem to have been rather losing the plot when it comes to policy and the executive management seems to be lost as to the basis of the entity’s very establishment.
By trying to recoup losses from yesteryear misinformed investment decisions in the futile Renaissance Bank venture through further imposition of taxes on the general populace, NSSA will not earn any sympathy from the policymakers and the taxpayers alike.
At the heart of NSSA establishment has been the provision of material needs for both individuals and families and also for the protection of the ill, aged and disabled.
With such a mandate that has some serious socio-economic inclinations, it is quite disheartening to note that the very entity that has been tasked by Government to solve worker plight issues has turned and is slowly becoming the source of workers’ misery.
The executives of this institution should desist from this capitalist mantra of wanting to make a profit at the expense of workers.
Acknowledging the challenges facing Zimbabwe and the vast successes that have been achieved thus far, it is worth noting that other Government institutions like Zimra have at least tried to be part of the solution to the country’s fiscal problems by introducing innovative reforms like tax amnesty.
While NSSA has been bent on imposing additional taxes on the already overburdened workforce the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe has come out guns blazing stating that there should be no further wage increases in the year 2015. RBZ Governor Dr John Mangudya’s views seem prudent for an already overpaid spoilt executive who seem to have little or no knowledge of the challenges facing the majority of the workers in the country.
We do acknowledge that the Government is in a financial fix of its own with regards to salaries, however, such a careless approach to remuneration is bound not to yield the desired results as there are other sectors that have been making a killing since the advent of the multi-currency regime but whose workers are at the peripherals of abject poverty.
This is an over simplistic approach of trying to address the great questions of the day. To many an analyst, a wage freeze is not the panacea for the country’s fiscal challenges as this defies the motivational implications of remuneration on productivity. Professor Pfeffer aptly put that; “Incentives should be large enough to provide an occasion for celebrating success but not so large as to distort behaviour.” These views were further reinforced by Charles Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries, Inc, who opined that proper incentives motivate people to work harder, be more creative, and create more value for others and, hence, themselves.
Instituting a wage freeze does not only send a bad signal but also infringes upon the basic rights of workers to fair return on their labour. While Dr Mangudya touched on a number of important issues, his reservations on salaries and wages need to be further tested as the private and public sectors are fundamentally different both in ownership structure and their basis of existence.
In our strategy deliberations let us not erroneously assume that a majority of workers have the luxuries of people like Mr Cuthbert Dube and the like whose handsome perks will make even Bill Gates grin with envy. To this effect there is some need of striking a balance between national priorities and workers needs as selective reasoning on these issues is bound to achieve more bad than good if not properly instituted.
The writer is an accountant with a firm in Bulawayo. He writes in his own capacity. For feedback get in touch at [email protected]
