Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 April 2021 | Story Dr Chantell Witten | Photo Supplied
Dr Chantell Witten is from the Division of Health Professions Education.

A decade ago, Rob Nixon, a professor in the humanities and environment studies at Princeton University in the US, introduced the concept of slow violence in the context of climate change and environmentalism, explaining slow violence as violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence, at all. While profound, Professor Nixon’s concept of ”out-of-sight violence” and ”violence of delayed destruction” was challenged by Professor Thom Davies from the University of Nottingham in the UK who urged scholars to instead ask the question: ”out of sight to whom?” He argued that structural inequality mutated into noxious instances of immediate slow but pervasive violence by those who have endured toxic landscapes and unhealthy physical environments.

Reflecting on the impact of COVID-19 in the context of persistent hunger in South Africa’s cities, Dr Gareth Haysom from the University of Cape Town, challenged us as society to recognise the ”slow violence“ of hunger and food insecurity that are also often “experienced in private, incremental and accretive ways that are often invisible”. But as urged by Professor Davies, the question of child hunger and malnutrition in South Africa is really, to whom is this hunger and malnutrition invisible?

Malnutrition and its debilitating consequences have been studied and known about as far back as the 1950s. In 1976, Stoch and Smyth from the then Child Psychiatric Unit and Department of Paediatrics and Child Health at the University of Cape Town reported on a 15-year developmental study conducted from 1955 to 1970 on the effects of severe undernutrition during infancy on subsequent physical growth and intellectual functioning on coloured children from the Cape Flats concluded that the effects of severe undernutrition during infancy on subsequent brain growth and intellectual development confirmed gross retardation of intellect in the undernourished group when compared to the controls. Furthermore, the study concluded that given the abnormal performance of the control group that there was much evidence to suggest that the controls were also suboptimal in terms of nutritional status and intellectual functioning. This means that in general the nutritional status of coloured children on the Cape Flats was poor. Fast forward to 2021, and child nutrition in South Africa is still sub-optimal.

South Africa’s nutrition indicators have worsened

The most recent data from 2016 National Demographic Health Survey showed that 27% of children under the age of five years are stunted or too short for their age. This equates to more than 1.5 million children whose health and development is compromised and who have a lower chance of reaching their full potential even into their adult years. While many countries of the same economic development status have improved their nutrition indicators, South Africa’s nutrition indicators have worsened. South Africa has been identified as one of the countries with high levels of multiple forms of malnutrition manifested in high levels of stunting, childhood obesity and multiple micronutrient deficiencies, the most notable being vitamin A deficiency. These multiple forms of malnutrition cast a long shadow of ill-health and delayed development. of children, robbing them of quality of life and years of life in their childhood and their adult years. Malnutrition has a double cost on quality of life and additional health costs consuming resources that could have been spent on better food.

The right to have access to sufficient food is embedded in Section 26 and 27 of our Constitution and the right to adequate nutrition for children is stipulated in section 28. The Bill of Rights enshrined in the Constitution states that “every citizen has a right to have access to sufficient food, water and social security” and that “the State must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right”. Before the onslaught of COVID-19, we as health and social care professionals, have been acutely aware that a significant number of South Africans do not have access to sufficient food and go hungry on a daily basis. Malnutrition is well-documented in South Africa and unfortunately is progressively getting worse.

SA has not prioritised children or the realisation of their human rights to food and nutrition

Better nutrition can only be achieved when food and care are available to young children but in the context of rising food prices, limited maternal support and a difficult psychosocial environment, mothers are not able to provide their children with a health-enabling environment. Our high levels of stunting and obesity levels reflect the chronic situation of poor-quality and inadequate diets coupled with poor caring practices. While these poor dietary practices are often individualised and focused on mothers, there are many systemic and structural barriers for families to access affordable and nutritious diets. The food environment is shaped by a profit-centred food system that comes at the cost of people’s health and well-being. Children have always being the prime focus of the food industry, from the promotion of maternal supplements to improved maternal nutrition for the developing foetus, to the promotion of infant formula as a convenient and easy-to-use alternative to breastfeeding, to the manipulative marketing of foods for and to children.

Child nutrition has become a global tracking indicator for both human and economic development. Sadly, our lack of progress over the past 20 years clearly illustrates that we, as a country, have not prioritised children or the realisation of their human rights to food and nutrition. The findings of the 2020 Child Gauge gives us, as a country, the opportunity to stop the violations of children’s rights and to end the slow violence of child malnutrition.

News Archive

UFS agreement on staff salary adjustment of 7.5%
2011-11-10

 
At this year's salary negotiations were from the left, front: Mr Lourens Geyer, Director: Human Resources; Ms Ronel van der Walt, Manager: Labour Relations; Ms Tobeka Mehlomakulu, Vice Chairperson: NEHAWU; Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, convener of the salary negotiations; back: Mr Ruben Gouws, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Ms Esta Knoetze, Vice Chairperson of UVPERSU, Mr David Mocwana, fultime shopsteward for NEHAWU; Mr Daniel Sepeame, Chairperson of NEHAWU, Prof. Nicky Morgan, Vice-Rector: Operations; Prof. Jonathan Jansen, Vice-Chancellor and Rector of the UFS; Ms Mamokete Ratsoane, Deputy Director: Human Resources and Ms Anita Lombard, Chief Executive Officer: UVPERSU.
Photo: Leonie Bolleurs


Salary adjustment of 7,5%

The University of the Free State’s (UFS) management and trade unions have agreed on a general salary adjustment of 7,5% for 2012.
 
The negotiating parties agreed that adjustments could vary proportionally from a minimum of 7,3% to a maximum of 8,5%, depending on the government subsidy and the model forecasts.
 
The service benefits of staff will be adjusted to 9,82% for 2012. This is according to the estimated government subsidy that will be received in 2012.
 

UVPERSU and NEHAWU sign
 
The agreement was signed (today) Tuesday 8 November 2011 by representatives of the university’s senior leadership and the trade unions UVPERSU and NEHAWU.
 

R2 500 bonus
 
An additional once-off, non-pensionable bonus of R2 500 will also be paid to staff with their December 2011 salary payment. The bonus will be paid to all staff members who were in the employment of the university on UFS conditions of service on 31 December 2011 and who assumed duties before 1 October 2011. The bonus is payable in recognition of the role played by staff during the year to promote the UFS as a university of excellence and as confirmation of the role and effectiveness of the remuneration model.
 
It is the intention to pass the maximum benefit possible on to staff without exceeding the limits of financial sustainability of the institution. For this reason, the negotiating parties reaffirmed their commitment to the Multiple-year, Income-related Remuneration Improvement Model used as a framework for negotiations. The model and its applications are unique and have as a point of departure that the UFS must be and remains financially sustainable. 
 
 
Capacity building and structural adjustments
 
Agreement was reached that 1,54% will be allocated for growth in capacity building to ensure that provision is made for the growth of the UFS over the last few years. A further 0,78% will be allocated to structural adjustments.
 
Agreement about additional matters such as funeral loans was also reached.
 
“The Mutual Forum is particularly pleased that a general salary adjustment of 7,5 % could be negotiated for 2012. Taken into account the world financial downturn, marked cuts in university subsidies and the growth of the university, this is a remarkable achievement,” says Prof. Johan Grobbelaar, Chairperson of the Mutual Negotiation Forum. 
 

Increase for Professors, Deputy and Assistant Directors
 
According to Prof. Grobbelaar the Mutual Forum is also pleased that Professors and Deputy and Assistant Directors will benefit from the structural adjustments. These increases will align the positions with the median of the higher education market. The 1,54% allocated for growth will ensure that appointments can be made where the needs are the highest. The special year-end bonus of R2 500 is an early Christmas gift and implies that the employees in lower salary categories receive an effective increase of almost 9,5 %.
 
“The UFS is in a unique position when it comes to salary negotiations, because the funding model developed more than a decade ago, has stood the test of time and ensured that the staff receive the maximum possible benefits. Of particular note is the fact that the two majority unions (UVPERSU and NEHAWU) work together. The mutual trust between the unions and management is an example of how large organisations can function to reach specific goals and staff harmony,” says Prof. Grobbelaar. 

The implementation date for the salary adjustment is 1 January 2012. The adjustment will be calculated on the total remuneration package.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept