Efling declares its surprise and disappointment over misleading statements from the SA business association regarding the wage demands of the unions. They seem to be an attempt at deliberate deception with the intention of undermining trust between the negotiating parties. Such rhetoric raises serious questions about the credibility of SA in public discussions.
A news article on SA’s website published on February 22, 2019 bears the title “Efling’s demands on increased wages”. In that article, the minimum wage that the unions have demanded (425 thousand), is put into a new wage table and that table compared to the one that is currently in use. It seems to be done in order to argue that the demands of Efling include extravagant wage increases that are proportionately highest at the top of the wage table. This method is based on deceit.
The SA publishes a picture with the title “The wage table according to Efling’s demands”. This presentation is based on nothing at all. The demands of Efling do not include an elaborated proposal for a new wage table. It is correct that ideas on different proportions within the wage table were discussed earlier this winter in the negotiations between SA and SGS and a particular implementation of a new table with 10 categories was presented. That wage table is not a part of Efling’s demands and has never been mentioned in the negotiations since Efling withdrew its negotiation mandate from SGS. The SA knowingly and wrongfully muddles this presentation together with “the demands of Efling”, instead of admitting that it is based on ideas that are not a part of the demands and were put forth by the SGS.
Efling reiterates its demand that workers can live off the minimum wage. It is demanded that during the period of the new collective agreements the minimum wage will increase to 425 thousand per month. It is demanded that raising the lowest wages will be a priority and that wage increases in the form of fixed amounts across the wage table rather than percentages will be the general rule. These emphases are clearly reflected in the counter offer that Efling presented to SA, together with its associates, on the 15th of February.
SA is well informed about the demands of Efling in the ongoing collective negotiations which have been both publicly available and presented to the SA at negotiation meetings with complete clarity and in the presence of witnesses. Efling asks of SA that they don’t undermine their own credibility and thereby the whole process of negotiations of the collective agreements by misrepresenting the position of their contracting party. Efling furthermore demands that SA publicly corrects the wrongful presentation of “the demands of Efling”.