Angry ANC staff members have recently been demanding salary increases. Gwede Mantashe, secretary general of the ANC, reportedly responded by saying: “Staff want an 18% increase. Increases are a function of affordability.” He is also reported to have said to them: “Comrades, please bear with us … the ship is tight.”
Does this function of affordability, issued straight from the horse’s mouth, only apply to the ANC in hard economic times, or does it apply to the private sector as well?
With many contrasting beliefs regarding the minimum wage question and what constitutes inequality, who should the South African population believe?
In the 2001 national census, 79.77% of citizens said they adhered to Christianity, whereas the census 2011 form did not include any questions about religion.
The question is, if such a vast majority of South Africans claim to adhere to Christianity then why don’t they look at what Jesus himself said about equality and the minimum wage?
The parable of the workers in the vineyard is an appropriate place to start. Jesus tells the story of a farmer who went off early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard and agreed to pay them a denarius for a day’s labour.
Then at the third hour, sixth hour, ninth hour and 11th hour he hired more workers, agreeing to pay them “whatever is right” for their labour.
When evening came the farmer paid all the workers a denarius, but the workers who had started early in the morning “began to grumble against the farmer”.
The farmer replied, “I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money?”
The moral of the story is that the workers and the farmer agreed to a set wage.
A contract was made, and when the workers suddenly demanded more they were guilty of breaching the original contract.
Secondly, according to the parable, it is up to the farmer to hire whoever he chooses and up to him to do what he wants with his money (without interference from a third party such as a union or the government).
Thirdly, workers should be content with what they initially agreed to accept and not grumble and become envious of what others earn. If the farmer doesn’t want to renegotiate the original contract the workers are always free to take their pay and go to seek a better contract with another employer.
Lastly, the farmer was a kind man and paid some of the workers more than he should have done – but that was his decision and prerogative.
The parable views labour as a commodity, and as such, an article of trade. Therefore labour must be subject to all the laws and principles of trade, and not to regulations foreign to them.
So when any commodity is carried to market, it is not the necessity of the vendor, but the necessity of the purchaser that raises or lowers the price.
What did Jesus say about material equality? In the parable of the talents, a man went on a journey and entrusted his property to his servants. To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents and to another one talent, each according to his ability. The men who received five talents and two talents worked hard and made another five and two respectively, whereas the man with one talent hid it in the ground.
When the master returned he was happy with the two servants who had used their skills and intellect and he “put them in charge of many things”.
He was disappointed with the idle servant and said he should have at least given his one talent to the bankers so it could have earned interest. The master then ordered the single talent be taken from the idle servant and given to the one with ten talents.
The present day use of “talent” to indicate an ability or gift is derived from this parable. A very similar parable in Luke ends with the master saying to those standing by: “Take his mina away from him. Give it to the one who has ten minas,” and the workers complained and said: “But sir, he already has ten!”
These parables indicate it is natural for people to start off on an unequal footing with different abilities and differing amounts of wealth.
They are entrusted with certain affairs, according to their abilities, and those who start off with less (like the man with two talents) and work hard will become richer in whatever realm they put effort into – mental, spiritual or economic; whereas those who neglect or squander what is given to them become impoverished, even losing what they have.
In a maths class there will always be the student who gets 90% and the student who gets 40%; the sporty student and the un-sporty one, and the person who naturally knows how to make money and the one who doesn’t.
The parables indicate people have to use their brains when they approach the problem of inequality, and true compassion is not mere pity or sentimentality but is rather oriented towards relationships.
Bringing material equality via the redistribution of resources is the very opposite of what the parables teach.
The master understood giving more to people who are accustomed to “burying” their talents will decrease the world’s economy and produce a net sum of more poverty and injustice.
So he was, in fact, being kind to humanity when he gave the man who had ten talents an extra one – knowing more wealth and job opportunities within the system would thus be created.
Focusing on income inequality causes envy and dissatisfaction, and directs the public’s attention to irrelevant issues that cannot be solved by government policy. Patience, labour, sobriety and frugality should be recommended to employees, and compassion should be shown in action via these means.
Telling workers anything else actually defrauds them by preventing them from concentrating on using whatever talents and abilities they have.
It is unfortunate South Africans pay so much heed to utterances from workers’ unions and reports like Oxfam’s Even It Up: Time to End Extreme Inequality, issued from politically correct do-gooders sitting in comfortable offices.
Oxfam shouts for more social grants, free basic services, a stronger social state and less income inequality in South Africa. What they don’t realise is South Africa is not yet ready to adopt moderate forms of socialism seen in countries such as Britain and Sweden.
Socialism can only work in societies where a core value system of “Do unto others…” is well established and where errant behaviour and the causes of social decay are minimised to a large extent.
lA note on political correctness and true liberalism: Jesus was the most politically incorrect person who ever lived, and various groups of people disliked his teachings because they were hard to swallow and contrary to their own ideas of equality and justice.
Similarly the politically correct ultra-left-wing liberals of today, who are not actually liberal at all because they don’t tolerate true freedom of speech, condemn various Christian and classical liberal views by calling them “hate speech”.
Their anger and intolerance towards others’ beliefs in fact constitutes a decidedly illiberal attitude. Voltaire (1694 – 1778), who wrote more than 20000 letters and more than 2000 books and pamphlets, was an example of a true liberal and advocated freedom of religion, freedom of expression and the separation of church and state, all of which is in fact biblical.
The saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is attributed to him.
Geoff Embling was a DA researcher in the Western Cape. He now lives in Grahamstown