[Punishing the wrong player]

How many times we get it wrong is just but puzzling. I shake my head looking at the signages of small businesses every sight I throw my eyes at. Job creation at its very ground roots level, but then, why do we keep standing in their way of growth? 

Legislation a heartbreaker

I say this based on the way in which our own governments are killing hopes, dreams and aspirations of those trying to do something about high unemployment gaping at the global population. I still see none in my corner nodding in support. Okay, then, devil is in the detail as they say and maybe you’ll say ‘amen’ to my sermon ending. 

The ministries of labour the world over are busy year after year trying to make their employment legislation work but unfortunately they arrive always at the opposite end of their desired result. Amendment after the other and yet no employer seem to be happy. This is because our governments fail at consulting the employer properly before sealing their drafts which are at most in favour of the employee. Not that it’s wrong, but bad if look at it from the employer’s perspective. However you define it, it still is demoralising to say the least.

How about this scenario?

Think of a law abiding citizen who starts a small establishment to survive. He starts off by hiring an unqualified assistant to help out and hold the fort for him when he goes out to stock or run some errants just as others similar in his position will do. He sits his assistant down and arrives at an agreement that he can afford to pay him so and so much, of which the assistant gladly accepts. Then as days go by someone with good though bad to the employer intentions, advise the assistant that the employer should up his offer on wages as that is by law not on par with regard to the minimum wage scales. The assistant goes to the relevant officials to report that and is told the offer is below scale and should be paid accordingly. The employer due to reasons cited from the beginning, can’t afford the revised offer and lets the assistant go with the little he could afford with a bronze handshake seeing that it doesn’t measure up to the golden handshake witnessed in many a high-profile incumbent’s case.

At home the family of the assistant won’t be able to receive the little he could be collecting monthly anymore, and starts blaming the employer for failing to meet the basic income set out in the legislation and for having terminated their arrangement. The employer is still starting out and however small the amount may be is but still steep for him to can offer the assistant. As things stand, who do we point the finger at for failing the family of the assistant? Whatever your answer, ask yourself why.

Statutory regulations a sift trick

Some in the know may pose sad questions atop the already sad reality of the small time self-employed person. Did he register the business first before hiring the assistant? Does the business have a tax clearance, a bank account and any employment benefit if be? But the truth is that not everyone will afford satisfying those requirements before trying their luck first at whatever they want to start. Then again, how will you advise a person in that state? Further again, how right are you going to be in advising him that way? Why can’t something as simple as an affidavit be valid as a business relationship instrument beats me. A round table unfortunately a must for all relevant stakeholders to come up with creative yet accommodative alternate entry solutions to enable even the hand-to-mouth operator a chance at going formal. Let’s shake the ground; break the mould and all may reap the compromise fruits.                               

In conclusion: to some I may sound a bit pushing the good brought by legislation aside, but rather pleading for a balance. Getting penalized for one’s efforts at alleviating the other’s poverty is painful. To some degree it is right but then on other hand to some extent I believe they should check first into one’s coffers to verify if whether they can afford to comply or not, and also how best to allow the beginners a chance at employing others for a certain period before complying. Or best, break threshold compliance into tiers and maybe full compliance will be a small step from eventuality.

If only our lawmakers could hold their horses and collaborate with all affected parties maybe they’ll adopt the models used in neighbouring states by their counterparts on how to empower small businesses. We should not shy away from praising them on how they demystify the red tape small business operators are so used to in many teritorries. The easier it is to run a business the rapid growth the economy will see. High unemployment rate is a result of unwilling leaders to work with willing solutions providers to reduce the numbers. What they ought to remember is that it is employers who take chances at creating jobs and not the other way round, lest they opt to flying out to those economies that will welcome them with open arms and be doing what they should be doing in their home economies elsewhere.

All things start with by-laws. In developing sound regulatory laws at municipality level, there'll be a conducive space that enables startups to thrive, a breathing space for small players. We need to lament this vacuum for lack of support towards local economy stimulation. What I say is in simpler terms that our governments should allow for startups a grace period in order to find their feet first before they come hard on them with regulatory requirements that sees them being treated like criminals and low life self-centred scums. Entrepreneurs should be seen as our now day heroes and not be labelled otherwise for their efforts, especially in these trying times. Let's stop punishing the wrong player for the effort put in...dp