Agresivo

4.3.1.1. Employment

The tourism sector is renowned as a labour-intensive industry. This is one of the main reasons the sector holds promise as a tool for sustainable poverty reduction. Spier as a tourism enterprise is a source of livelihood especially to its workers from the previously disadvantaged background. Income earned by these workers is assisting workers to smoothe over the consumption demands of their livelihoods. Figure 5 below shows the employment situation of workers prior to being employed at Spier.        

Figure 4: Employment Status of respondents prior to being employed at Spier

Source: Survey data 2010

Figure 4 above, shows that 30% of the respondents had never worked prior to being employed at Spier. Spier was thus their first employer. Some of the respondents had worked for the government, industries, some of them were self employed. The analysis above shows that Spier has succeeded in providing employment for almost 30% of previously unemployed individuals, a small but significant number. Spier also promotes employment creation through the different projects that it is supporting and funding, and through the establishment of local enterprise development initiatives.

Respondents were then asked about their employment status at Spier, i.e. whether full time/permanent or casual/temporary. A high percentage, i.e. 87% were working full time, while three (13%) were working on a casual basis. Figure 5 below shows the employment status of respondent.

Source: Survey data 2010

The fact that the majority of the respondents were working full time is encouraging because with permanent employment some fringe benefits are usually associated with a pension scheme, medical aid, a housing allowances and paid leave. Permanent employment also brings a substantial measure of security and livelihood sustainability to both the worker and his or her dependents.

In a follow-up question, respondents had to indicate the specific section or department they were employed in. These differed substantially as they were employed in the hotel, restaurants, conference centre, housekeeping and banqueting departments. Figure 6 below reflects the different departments and frequency (number of respondents) and percentage within each.

Figure 6: Department of respondents

Source: Survey data 2010

Figure 6 above shows that majority of the respondents were employed in the restaurant, housekeeping and banqueting departments. This is to be expected given the nature of the business. This does suggest though that wages will be relatively modest given the low level of skills required by these types of work. This issue is discussed in the following section.

4.3.1.2 Income

The respondents had to indicate the size of the monthly household income they earned from Spier, and the degree of sufficiency of their incomes to meet basic needs. In another question, respondents had to state the number of household members depending on their incomes for a living. Figure 7 below shows the monthly income distribution of respondents.

Source: Survey data 2010. Figure 7: Distribution of monthly income of respondents

From the income distribution figure above, 4 (17%) of the respondents earn less than R 2000, 5 (22%) earn between R2001 and R3000), 7 (30%) earn between R3001 and R4000), 2 (9%), earn between R4001 and R5000), 2 (9%) earn between R5001 and R6000), 1 (4%) earns between R6001 and R7000), 2 (9%) earn R 7000+). The analysis shows that majority of the respondents (30%) earn between R 3001 to R 4000. Compared to what other tourism companies pay to their employees, the amount earned by Spier workers is reasonably high to meet their basic income needs.

In a follow-up question, respondents were asked if their incomes were sufficient to meet their basic needs (food security, housing, clothes and others). A total of almost 30% of the respondents stated their incomes were sufficient to meet their basic needs, while 4% described it as very sufficient. Slightly more than a third expressed satisfaction with their income. However, the, majority 52% indicated their incomes were hardly sufficient, while 13% declared their incomes were never sufficient, although it is encouraging that only a small percentage expressed strong dissatisfaction.

Income insufficiency does not, however necessary imply that respondents were not satisfied with their quality of life. When respondents were asked if they were satisfied with their living standards, the majority (91%, figure 13 below) affirmed that they were satisfied with their living standards. Below is the figure showing the degree of sufficiency of respondents’ incomes. This seemingly contradictory finding is not easy to explain. It is possible that some respondents are now in an infinitely better material position than they were previously due to a sustainable and regular income, but they still found their income insufficient to meet their needs.,. It is also well known that very few employed people, irrespective of the position and level of remuneration, express satisfaction with their current income.

Figure 8: Income sufficiency of respondents

Source: Survey data 2010

It was argued that one possible additional explanation for the high percentage of dissatisfaction with the monthly remuneration could relate to the high number of dependents on, although it is encouraging that only a small percentage expressed strong dissatisfaction. Respondents were asked about the number of people (household members) depending on them financially. One respondent (4%) indicated supporting only one household member, two respondents (22%) stated they were supporting two family members, six (25%) had four household members dependent on them, while another three respondents (13%) had to support as many as five household members. Nearly 20% indicated they were responsible for an additional seven

household members. This shows that nearly a third of the respondents had five or more dependents. This shows the critical role that a sustainable salary plays in maintaining entire livelihoods in previously disadvantaged communities. This has a positive ripple-down impact on poverty reduction as these household members rely on the wages of the workers for food, clothing, shelter and even education. The analysis suggests that a Spier worker supports on average three other family members. The highest prevalence of dependants is in the fourth category, followed by two and seventh as seen in the figure below. In order to ascertain accurately if there existed a significant correlation between satisfaction with income and number of dependents, more statistical analysis will be required though.

Figure 9 below shows the number of dependants relying on Spier employees for their livelihood.

Figure 9: Number of people depending on employee’s income for their livelihood.

Source: Survey data 2010

A question was asked relating to the number of people receiving education and who were directly dependent on the respondents. Figure 10 below, shows that four respondents (20%), supported one person at school, eleven (47%) indicated supporting two people at school, two (8%) stated they were supporting three household members at school. Another three (13%) were supporting four family members at school and one respondent (4%) indicated supporting as many as five household members at school. The majority of respondents, i.e. 67% had between 1and 2 household members at school. Although expensive sometimes, particularly for working

class households, education is an important poverty reduction tool because it helps in empowering people with the required skills needed in the job market.

Source: Survey data 2010: Figure 10: Dependants attending school