Cosatu slams claim employment equity law will affect growth.
The assertion by the SA Institute of Race Relations (SAIRR) that the Employment Equity (EE) Amendment Bill was likely to trigger disinvestment and emigration has been slated.
The criticism comes from the country’s political left, with labour federation Cosatu describing the SAIRR stance as “bizarre”.
Women, young men faring worse in labour markets
Against the background of the EE – currently under discussion in parliament – seeking to redress decades of race and gender-based inequalities at the workplace, Statistics SA (Stats SA) numbers have pointed to women and young men faring worse in labour markets globally.
According to Stats SA, women’s labour force participation in the country remains lower than men’s, with about half of the female population participating in the workforce compared to almost two-thirds of men.
Cosatu national spokesperson Matthew Parks said the EE Act was “nearly as old as our hard-won democracy and has stood the test of time, including previous court reviews”.
“If SAIRR had retained its once respected research capacity, it would be familiar with the 2023 amendments to the Employment Equity Act,” said Parks.
ALSO READ: Five-year Employment Equity targets: What must each sector aim for?
The proposed amendments to the law followed extensive engagements between labour and business at the National Economic Development and Labour Council, with similar public hearings held in parliament.
“All this seeks to strike a fair balance between easing administrative burdens on SMMEs [small, medium and micro enterprises], reflecting South Africa’s demographic diversity and, equally, nudging employers to do better in ensuring all employees have a fair chance to fulfil their full potential.
“The focus is, in particular, on historically denied equal opportunity,” he said.
The changes, said Parks, included “adapting employment equity targets to take into account regional demographic diversity and to adopt more focused targets for sectors falling woefully behind employment equity”.
Cosatu says SAIRR’s arguments show ‘deficiency of understanding’
The regulations provided “ample time, five years and modest targets – well below population demographics, for employers to work towards”.
“While SAIRR are free to take any law to court for constitutional verification, we are confident their legal adventurism will be dismissed as legally devoid and recognised as the apartheid nostalgia we believe it is,” said Parks.
ALSO READ: Top management remains white and male-dominated – report
“SAIRR would be better placed to spend its money on a constitutional law 101 course, to help them become better acquainted with the constitution.
“Their arguments reveal a curious deficiency of understanding. The constitution is eloquently clear in its requirements for the state to seek measures to address the discriminatory legacies of the past and the inequalities of today.”
Employment Equity Act ‘will deter investment’
SAIRR head of policy research, Anthea Jeffery argued: “This will deter investment, limit growth, reduce employment and add to inequality – making recovery from the Covid lockdown harder to achieve.”
Jeffery said employment equity committee 2020 figures pointed to “an astonishingly fast pace of EE implementation in the public service”.
She said rigid racial quotas “rather than the more flexible numerical goals mandated by the EE Act” were implemented.
This, she said, led to “appointing black people without the necessary skills and experience, leaving important posts vacant, where suitable black candidates cannot be found”.
“Since 2015, all new legislation in South Africa has had to be subjected to a socioeconomic impact assessment before it is adopted.
“This must be done in terms of the guidelines for the socioeconomic impact assessment system, developed by the department of planning, monitoring and evaluation,” said Jeffery.
ALSO READ: White dominance in top jobs sparks union outcry
Business body Sakeliga chief executive Piet le Roux said the Bill had “shortcomings”.
Sakeliga, said Le Roux, was opposed to “racial considerations in matters of public policy – as a matter of moral principle, constitutional legality and commercial efficacy”.
