What next? At the heart of opposition to Walmart is the knowledge that the shoe could someday be on the other foot: that we may someday be shouted down by people who insist that it is acceptable to take advantage of us and other members of our class or profession as long as the greater good is served.
We must stamp on exploitation whenever it raises its head, speaking out against the miser and his cut-throat approach to dealing with competitors.
The end does not justify the means. We are not animals. We should be careful of the company we keep.
Terence Grant
Woodstock
Labour law will keep Massmart in check
Your article on Friday May 20, 2011 refers: – “Walmart a classic example of success in capitalist world”
Terry Bell Inside Labour makes the allegation that Walmart will swallow any conditions because after five years it is free to do as it pleases. This doesn’t give any credence to our labour legislation and our trade union movement. If we have faith in our system and believe that our labour laws are effective, to make allegations of this nature does not make sense.
The reality of the situation is that our labour laws are very effective and probably the most advanced in the world. Furthermore, the implementation of our labour laws is strictly controlled and is effective.
As a practitioner in the labour legal system I have first-hand knowledge as to how effective the country’s labour legislation is and how difficult it is to circumvent. No company, even Walmart, will be able to flout these laws.
Michael Bagraim
Cape Town
Reason must overcome wild emotion, agendas
Pearl Maphoshe (Business Report, May 11) makes valid points about the issues in the Walmart-Massmart merger dialogue at the Competition Tribunal hearings, which seeks to get the best dispensation for the country.
The country should not pawn its freedom for economic enslavement.
There should be concern about potential destruction of jobs during the year of job creation.
What, however, is the factual basis for the fear that Walmart will change the business model in a way that grows the firm and simultaneously destroys jobs in a way Massmart alone would not? Why would its presence not lead to growth in the whole supply network?
Another emotive issue is the closing of mom-and-pop stores. We already know how the large chain stores like Shoprite have been freed by the advent of democracy to take over the market in black areas.
Is it mom-and-pop stores that are afraid or the other large retail stores? Would energies not be better spent focusing on the niche for the small operator within the new environment? Is this not what is quietly happening in the markets already dominated by Walmart while the lobbyists are shouting at the sides?
Walmart is big. So is the ANC. Big is not bad because it is big. The debate at the tribunal gives effect to the laws of the democratic regime. Rationality should be the overriding concern to ensure the growth of the economy is not prevented by wild emotions and sectional agendas.
Vuso Shabalala
Arcadia
Leaving issues to the ‘experts’ is dangerous
I read a report on economist Brian Kantor’s comments on fracking in the Karoo in response to environmentalist Lewis Pugh’s arguments at a recent public meeting.
I also had the misfortune to hear him holding forth on John Fraser’s investment programme on Classic FM recently.
Both exposures have strengthened my belief that the economy and fracking, just two of the many issues plaguing our lives, are activities far too important to be left to the “experts” to control.
This applies especially to Kantor, firstly with regard to his comments on interest rates on Fraser’s programme.
They were clearly biased towards the special interests of the financial institutions and big business, with whom he is, unsurprisingly, closely associated and where he did nothing to address a fundamental problem we are facing, where capital is being inexorably concentrated in the hands of these institutions to the detriment of economic activity and savings by the population as a whole.
Secondly, he comes out with a pious call for open debate on the subject of fracking. As a researcher he should already be very aware of all the evidence surfacing in North America regarding the dangers and risks of fracking. He should also be aware of the secrecy with which the process is carried out by the producers and the fact that nobody has any realistic clue in advance as to how big any reserves are. In fact most developments thus far have had very short economic lifespans and, once exhausted, leave behind a virtual wasteland of barren soil and contaminated water.
The risks also are not quantifiable in advance and once the process has started, it is too late to rectify any damage. The risk profile is totally unacceptable and all the evidence available thus far, elsewhere in the world, is already “sufficiently full and proper debate”.
In the words of an old adage – “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is pretty certain it is a duck.” No further research or debate will prove otherwise.
We have a plethora of intellectual fools in our midst nowadays, who are tinkering with the ecology, the economy, social engineering, genetic engineering and heaven knows what else, all so-called experts, who are doing nothing more than creating imbalances that will, in the not too distant future, be disastrous.
JF Payne
Bedfordview
Minimising waste is key, not free removal
An important effective tool in waste management is minimising of waste. People should be encouraged not to collect unnecessary packaging and to reuse bags. To this end, the use of flimsy plastic packaging, most of which is not reusable, ought to be stopped altogether.
Carrying organic waste in plastic is counterproductive as it works against the possibility of composting the waste.
Most shops discard the cardboard boxes. These should be made available for containing groceries and later for containing organic waste that can then be taken to composting sites. The main problem with littering has to do with the numerous black bags that municipalities issue for household wastes.
The report in Business Report of Thursday, May 12, “ANC promises free refuse removal for poor people”, worries me. In my opinion, free collection of waste, which people have themselves collected into their homes, will only encourage them to collect more such waste instead of minimising it and taking responsibility to help themselves.
Are we running the risk of turning people into expecting everything to be done for them and even losing the work ethic that we grew up with? It is a pity if we always expect that the government will do everything for us even when we can think and do things for ourselves. Even poor people have a sense of pride and the ability to think and plan. Let us not rob them of this important human characteristic.
Rose Tuelo Leteane
MAFIKENG
Cape hotels are doing too well, stats show
I write in reference to the article entitled “Five-star hotels in Cape feel no pain” dated May 19.
When faced with the choice it is clear that Joop Demes, the chief executive of Pam Golding Hospitality, prefers to see the glass as very much half full. But half full of what is perhaps the pertinent question.
Demes contends that the overtraded hotel market in Cape Town, particularly that of the five-star variety, is in fact enjoying a bumper season of rising occupancies. It has the ring of what Twain referred to as lies, damned lies and statistics.
Not that one should dismiss statistics, only that to view them selectively is false economy. On average hotels are forking out an extra 25 percent for electricity thanks to Eskom increases. The labour market continues to remain under pressure. Consumer inflation stands at 4.1 percent but unions are pushing for wage increases ranging from 10 percent all the way through to 20 percent to compensate for higher electricity, petrol and food costs.
Against this background we have those bumper occupancies Demes refers to. The increase in occupancy for high-end hotels is a direct result of five-star discounting in an overtraded market. Simply put, consumers on a three- or four-star budget are trading up without an increase in spend.
Global hospitality research firm Smith Travel Research shows that while occupancy in the Cape Town five-star segment increased by 9 percent for the first three months of trading this year, the average daily rate achieved decreased by 11 percent, resulting in a net deficit of 2 percent in revenue per available room. Additionally revenue per available room is down industry wide. So far this year the figure stands at R491 compared with the R496 achieved in 2009.
So costs and competition are up and revenue is down across the board.
Mr Demes, may I suggest your pain threshold is much higher than that of Cape hotel owners?
Rachel Irvine
VIA E-MAIL