DOS conversions

The conversion utilities for converting the DOS data to the Windows application have been completed for the following versions:
1.5 (Entry Level System)
4.5
4.6
4.7
Please note that these conversions only apply to versions without the Stock Control and Point of Sale modules. These modules will be included in the conversion utility once the Windows versions of the Stock and Point of Sale modules are released.

Extracting data into Microsoft Excel
Data from New Dimension can be exported to a spreadsheet such as Microsoft Excel for further analysis. The data in Excel can also be automatically updated as the data in New Dimension changes. 

For a full explanation of how to do this, consult the Help section "Importing Data" in Microsoft Excel Help or contact our support centre at 041 581 8305.

How New Dimension deals with transaction rounding

Ever wondered why you often get a small difference between a manually calculated invoice and one generated on a computer, especially when VAT is involved? What follows is a brief explanation of how this occurs and how this rather complex issue is dealt with in New Dimension.

Consider the following example:

33.75 x 0.14 = 4.725. The resultant (4.725) now needs to be rounded to two decimal places. The conventional method of rounding (as taught to us in our classrooms), is that the number 5 always get rounded up, so that we would then get 4.73. Unfortunately this gets a tad more complex.

33.75 x 1.14 (to calculate the amount including VAT) = 38.475 which when rounded gives 38.48. Therefore 33.75 + 4.73 = 38.48.....No problem? Computer software however uses a different method of rounding to standard calculators called Bankers Rounding (So called because it's a system standardised by banks).

Without delving into too much detail, with Bankers rounding, values below 0.5 go down and values above 0.5 go up. Values of exactly 0.5 go to the nearest even number. So 12.5 will be rounded down to 12 and a value of 13.5 will be rounded up to 14. Therefore, as per our example above;

33.75 x 0.14 = 4.725, and using Bankers Rounding we get 4.72 (as opposed to 4.73 above).
33.75 x 1.14 = 38.475 rounded to 38.48.
Now 33.75 + 4.72 = 38.47 (which differs to 38.48 by 1 cent.)

To combat this discrepancy, New Dimension will always do the calculations in two steps, i.e. by calculating the VAT amount and then adding it to the excluding VAT amount.

The Banker's Rounding algorithm produces better results because it does not bias half-quantities consistently down or consistently up. It assumes that on average, an equal number of half-quantities will be rounded up as down, and the errors will cancel out, thus resulting in a more accurate calculation.

Note that VAT was used purely as an example and that transactions that include discounts and various stock control transactions that involve multi decimals such as weights etc. will also be dealt with in the same manner.

HIV and the workplace
The impact of HIV/AIDS is a potential real threat to your company and workforce. It has now become necessary to manage the impact thereof on multiple levels. What follows below is an extract from the Payroll Weekly publication on the current legislative standpoint.

An HIV-positive employee poses serious implications for an employer, and carries moral and legal responsibilities – whether the employer is aware of his worker’s HIV status or not.

Employers who assume that they are exempt from dealing with the ravages of this pandemic are taking a head-in-the-sand approach. Since disclosure of HIV status is legally not obligatory, no company can assume it will never have to deal with increasing incapacity in the workplace if a sufferer falls ill.

Too many companies are simply ignoring the issue and hoping it will never impact on them. Given the current statistics in our country, there can be little doubt that it will – and very badly if they have failed to put structures in place to deal with it.

South African labour legislation stands firmly behind the HIV-positive employee, whether he is healthy or has become incapacitated by AIDS-related infections. Legally, no employer may require either a job applicant or an employee to submit to a test to determine HIV status. Furthermore, no employee is obliged to disclose his HIV status, even if he does voluntarily submit to a test at his employer’s request. Should the employer be aware that a worker is HIV-positive, he may not disclose this information, refuse employment or dismiss on this basis, or discriminate against the employee in any way. In all instances, the employer is obliged to go out of his way to safeguard confidentiality and make allowances for illness that may occur.

HIV/AIDS is a complex and sometimes inconsistent condition, and it cannot be assumed that an infected employee will automatically become ill. Technically, AIDS is not a disease, but the state of immune deficiency caused by the HIV virus that creates susceptibility to infections that a healthy body would easily fight. An HIV-positive individual may not experience illness or any symptoms for years, and some may be only carriers, passing on the virus to others through sexual contact or accidental blood transfer.

The non-disclosure ruling, therefore, places the employer in a situation beyond his control, where an otherwise healthy HIV-positive worker may present an infection risk under certain working conditions. Should AIDS develop, he could be faced with one or more increasingly ill members of his workforce, for whom he is obliged to make “reasonable accommodation” before he can dismiss on the basis of incapacity.

However, if a worker is involved in an occupational accident which leads to the contraction of HIV, the law does allow an opportunity for compensation – something of which both employer and employee should be aware to facilitate the best possible outcome. To illustrate the legal implications for the employer, consider the following hypothetical situations.

In scenario one, Joe Worker becomes exposed to HIV through an accident at the manufacturing plant where he is employed. He fails to perceive any danger and does not have himself tested. He begins to suffer from frequent illnesses such as flu and bronchitis and his sick leave rapidly diminishes. His ability to perform to standard drops and his capacity to continue in his job is questioned.

In scenario two, Joe Worker has an accident, is exposed to the potential for HIV, and voluntarily goes for testing. Joe is found to be HIV-positive. He is faced with a dilemma: does he disclose his status or not, and is he obliged to do so? He fears that if he does, the information will leak out, and he will have to deal with prejudice and ostracism.

In the first instance, without Joe being aware of the cause of his increasing incapacity, his employer can only treat him as he would any other staff member who, through illness, is becoming incapable of performing his duties. This means managing Joe’s performance in terms of the procedures laid down in Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act, which deal with incapacity and subsequent dismissal. This is a lengthy and sometimes expensive process, fraught with moral and legal complexities and strict procedures.

In the second scenario, Joe’s knowledge of his medical diagnosis offers him two options: he can exercise his right to withhold his HIV status, or he can declare it. Should he fail to declare, he denies himself access to compensation under the Compensation Act (previously the Workmen’s Compensation Act), which could be awarded.

Should Joe declare his status and later become ill due to AIDS, however, he has an excellent chance of receiving compensation, provided he can prove that HIV is at the root of his performance problems, and that it was contracted in the workplace in the course of his employment duties.

In order to facilitate any compensation it is essential that the employer immediately report any occupational injury or accident to the Department of Labour, together with a doctor’s report. Failure to do so could nullify an employee’s claim, and result in a case against the employer.

The Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (Compensation Act) specifies differing levels of severity of injury: temporary, total or partial disability; permanent disability; and death. The Act also classifies HIV, as contracted within the workplace as a result of one’s employment, as an occupational accident (not an occupational disease).

The amount of compensation to which an affected employee is entitled, is dependent on the extent of disablement resulting from the accident.
 

If the employee is unable to work and is receiving active treatment aimed at reducing his disablement, he will be entitled to compensation in respect of temporary total disablement for the period of his disablement. The Compensation Commissioner decides the limit on this time period. Section 47 of the Act states that the employer shall be liable for the payment of compensation equalling 75% of the employee’s monthly earnings, to a maximum of R8 784,75 per month, for a period of three months. Thereafter, the Commissioner, who carries the cost of any remaining compensation, will refund any compensation paid by the employer.
 

The degree of permanent disablement is assessed by the Compensation Commissioner once treatment is completed and the condition has stabilised. Compensation is then paid according to the relevant items in the Act.
 

In fatal cases, compensation to the dependants of the employee is considered, should his death be the result of a condition for which the Commissioner has accepted liability.

The situation has yet to be tested. To the best of my knowledge, no employee has as yet made a compensation claim for the contraction of HIV in the workplace, so the finer details may be altered by future cases.

In all probability, the dearth of claims may have a lot to do with the complexities involved in proving when the infection occurred. An occupational accident involving blood and/or bodily fluids does not automatically imply an HIV risk. The testing may also occur long after the accident, making it difficult to pinpoint the source of infection.

It’s a complicated issue, exacerbated by the incredible ignorance and stigma that still surround HIV/AIDS. Subtle victimisation and an acceptance of this treatment by sufferers ashamed of their HIV status, are common. This helps neither the worker nor his employer, who could find himself on the receiving end of a civil suit if prejudice can be proved.

The Code encourages the employer to put in place sound policies and procedures, and to embark on education programmes to assist staff. It is clearly in his best interests to do so, in order to facilitate prevention measures and create a working environment conducive to dealing effectively with the almost inevitable consequences of HIV infection.

For more information and the practical issues surrounding this topic, visit www.lifesense.co.za