PSG claims they’ll sue me. Here are extracts from PSG Wealth documents showing they trap youth in an indentured labour model.
PSG Wealth made an unlawful financial claim on a learnership candidate.
Learnerships were designed to improve pro-poor occupational interventions and market led skills development (scarce skills).
PSG Learnership Interpretation
The victim was billed for all expenses related to a fake learnership, never designed to give him an industry recognised qualification.
PSG Wealth falsely claimed on Facebook that they have never had illegal employment contracts. Yet I have one.
Former employees and learnership candidates who were subjected to this unlawful practice should make contact. Financial claims to return money earned while selling PSG products creates an impression of indentured labour.
Unemployed, qualified youth were recruited to sell products for a commission, an allowance and a recognized occupational qualification. If learners resigned from contracts, all allowances paid to them had to be returned.
The Department of Labour equates the term ‘allowance’ with stipends. Stipends are the equivalent of ‘wages’ for learnership candidates.
PSG appears to define an allowance as a loan received in exchange for unpaid labour.
Contact us if your employer threatens you in the same way or if you paid back your pay.
January 31 2017
Recruiting Youth Limiting Their Freedom
PSG was recruiting unemployed candidates on the expectation that they repay all costs, including administration, if they decided to break from their 18 month contract. Is this allowed?
The Bill Issued to Victim A
Is it legal to make people work for free, in exchange for a qualification they never received?
INSETA ensured debt claims were dropped against the victim. However that could have been achieved without them.
The purpose of lodging an official complaint was to ensure justice prevailed for ALL victims throughout PSG or that a thorough investigation determined that there were none.
How do we know there aren’t more victims?
- the victim was part of a group – we can logically assume all learners were on the same contract at least up until the INSETA investigation.
- What settlement are these youngsters entitled to given that they had been contracted for a ‘learnership’ that wasn’t a learnership?
- What about Victim A? Is he not entitled to restitution too?
INSETA made promises but failed in integrity
See CEO, Sandra Dunn’s comment on Linkedin (yellow highlight)
- Does PSG pay all employees allowances or only naive youngsters?
- Were any former employees required to pay back ‘allowances?’
- What happens when these youth apply at other companies claiming they completed a learnership? Who can they go to when their learnership qualification doesn’t check out?