# Regulatory Compliance Category > BEE and Employment Equity Forum >  OLD or NEW South Africa

## JanChris

Is it still applicable for personnel agencies and companies, to advertise for "AA" or "previously disadvantaged", when seeking candidates for a vacancy. When you advertise for a "white" candidate you are not allowed and your add wont be placed in the printed media. Are the "previously disadvantaged" youngsters still "disadvantaged" or are they now going to use it to their "advantage".

----------


## HR Solutions

Yes it is applicable

----------


## JanChris

> Yes it is applicable


Can you explain why and how long will it take to correct and is "AA" going to be used as an excuse, as most "other"  things in the country?

----------


## HR Solutions

We have discussed this previously on another thread if you recall whereby you didn't like my answer then. Why don't you search back.

----------


## JanChris

> We have discussed this previously on another thread if you recall whereby you didn't like my answer then. Why don't you search back.


I do not think it is the same question. Why reluctant to answer or please refer me to your "previous" comment.

----------


## HR Solutions

Not reluctant - just not into the same "backlash" - do a search

----------


## JanChris

> Not reluctant - just not into the same "backlash" - do a search


I have but do not seem to find your "response" to be relevant to my question.

----------


## HR Solutions

Jan - Companies do state whether they want AA, EE etc etc .....
Its a fact and nothing wrong with it.  People fit in where they qualify to fit in.
Its not up to us to decide whether it is right or wrong - its the law and if companies want to hire according to equity etc its their choice, and their choice if they want to comply with certain tender requirements etc etc, therefore it is not the agency that is right or wrong.

----------


## Justloadit

Maybe the thread being referred to is BBBEE wrong

----------


## Justloadit

There are a number of threads in the 'BEE and Employment Equity Forum'

----------


## AndyD

> Is it still applicable for personnel agencies and companies, to advertise for "AA".........


I think if you change the question around a little it does make interesting discussion. Given that AA was legally implimented to redress the balance, at what point must the line be drawn and the policy must fall away? It can't go on indefinately because if it's working the balance will at some point have been redressed and if it's not working it needs to be stopped and a new method found. Either way surely there's got to be a time limit.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> Given that AA was legally implimented to redress the balance, at what point must the line be drawn and the policy must fall away? It can't go on indefinately because if it's working the balance will at some point have been redressed and if it's not working it needs to be stopped and a new method found. Either way surely there's got to be a time limit.


Should the same logic apply to other laws and policies? At a certain point, should the prohibition of violent crime or consumer exploitation - for example - be withdrawn and/or substituted? If not, why not?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but thoughtful responses are welcome)

----------


## Justloadit

> Should the same logic apply to other laws and policies? At a certain point, should the prohibition of violent crime or consumer exploitation - for example - be withdrawn and/or substituted? If not, why not?
> 
> (I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but thoughtful responses are welcome)


You can not place crime in the same plane as AA/BEE.
BEE is a legalized form of "Apartheid/Racism", at what point is the world going to continue to tolerate this?
It is the same as placing a placard on a bench in the park - "Only non whites allowed to sit here, we are trying to redress the past"

----------


## Greig Whitton

> You can not place crime in the same plane as AA/BEE.


I respectfully disagree. The purpose of any legislation is to shape social behaviour. We don't want people to commit crimes, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise crime. Similarly, we don't want people to discriminate against others on the basis of race or perpetuate historical prejudices, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise those behaviours.

The _behaviours_ may differ, but the_ purpose of the legislation_ is identical.

Any argument for the failure of AA/B-BBEE on the basis that those policies and laws still exist, can be extended to any other legislation or law that still exists. Ergo, when will we abolish the laws prohibiting violent crime? The answer is obvious: when people stop committing violent crime. Until that day arrives, less obvious questions arise:

Are our laws prohibiting violent crime effective? (i.e. the problem lies with the legislation)
Is the implementation of our laws effective? (i.e. the problem lies with our legal system)
Is violent crime inevitable and unavoidable? (i.e. the problem lies with human nature)

All of these questions can (and should) be directed to the AA and B-BBEE legislation as well.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> BEE is a legalized form of "Apartheid/Racism", at what point is the world going to continue to tolerate this?


Considering that affirmative action is used (to varying degrees) by China, India, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the United States, I suspect that "the world" is not too concerned about our own affirmative action.

----------


## HR Solutions

I would like to repeat what I answered Chris on the other thread to a similar question.  BEE is a fact of life.  If SA was not forced to hire across the board or select across the board for rugby teams etc we would not have done it out of our own.  One major little fact that has come about is  that over the last 20 years while some people have sat back, a LOT of black people have gone out there and studied and got the degree or the diploma or the qualification and are now very marketable.  SO many companies when asking us to find candidates for a job want a black person especially between the ages of 20-30 because they know this.  SO many companies / people (including myself) stay clear of the white boy in that same age bracket.  Now before Chris jumps down my throat again - it is not all the white boys - My son is 22 and is studying and does also not fall into that bracket.  But 9 out of 10 white boys think the world owes them something, and Im not sure if this perhaps comes from their fathers.  I repeat I am not generalising - I am purely stating from my experience dealing with companies and candidates.
A further little titbit - when we call them in to a interview, who do you think does either not pitch up, or is late, has their cell phone off when you try to contact them etc etc etc ........ On the other side of the coin we have some black young guys who will walk 10km to an interview.  I personally drove 15 Km a while back to go and find a guy, because in my mind he had the balls, he wanted the job and was prepared to put himself out to get the job.  He got himself lost and was very stressed because he was going to be late to one of our clients.  I went and found him, took him to the client - he got the job.

Therefore what I am also trying to say is that a lot of the time when companies advertise AA or EE for example, its not because they have to, its because they want to !

----------

Greig Whitton (20-Jan-15), IanF (20-Jan-15)

----------


## Justloadit

> Considering that affirmative action is used (to varying degrees) by China, India, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the United States, I suspect that "the world" is not too concerned about our own affirmative action.


I accept what you are saying however in those countries they do not state that you must only hire locals. Yes in other countries they require the nationals to own a certain percentage, however the national is not stated to be from a specific race group as is the case here. There are differences. In Portugal, as a foreigner that opens a business must have a minimum 40% of the business owned by a local person, irrespective of their race, and many many Portuguese citizens were originally from Africa. The same goes for other European countries. I think that there is a major difference to what we are experiencing here.

Lets take Mozambique and Angola, they hire anyone who is capable of doing the job, they also went through a dramatic change in the middle 70s.

It is very easy to comment this way when you are safeguarded by employment, whether it be as an employee or as a business owner with a secure form of income, but if you happen to be retrenched or unemployed for what ever reason, believe me, it is not easy to get employment again. I have seen this with family members, by the way who do not feel the world owes them! who were retrenched. I have other family members who have completed tertiary studies, and where the so called PDI learners were their classmates have already been employed because of the BEE policies.

Do not tell me a handfull of whites are going to take all the jobs away from the other 50million RSA citizens. In my book this is similar to apartheid, no mater how much honey you want to stick on it.

----------


## Justloadit

> I respectfully disagree. The purpose of any legislation is to shape social behaviour. We don't want people to commit crimes, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise crime. Similarly, we don't want people to discriminate against others on the basis of race or perpetuate historical prejudices, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise those behaviours.
> 
> The _behaviours_ may differ, but the_ purpose of the legislation_ is identical.
> 
> Any argument for the failure of AA/B-BBEE on the basis that those policies and laws still exist, can be extended to any other legislation or law that still exists. Ergo, when will we abolish the laws prohibiting violent crime? The answer is obvious: when people stop committing violent crime. Until that day arrives, less obvious questions arise:
> 
> Are our laws prohibiting violent crime effective? (i.e. the problem lies with the legislation)
> Is the implementation of our laws effective? (i.e. the problem lies with our legal system)
> Is violent crime inevitable and unavoidable? (i.e. the problem lies with human nature)
> ...


I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Then any citizen who is convicted of contravening the law should go to prison for life then.

I still think that AA/BEE is van not be categorized the same as capital crime.

----------


## AndyD

> Considering that affirmative action is used (to varying degrees) by China, India, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the United States, I suspect that "the world" is not too concerned about our own affirmative action.


I think the question might be not how long it would be tolerable to the world or other countries, rather how long it would be tolerable or justifiable under our constitution.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> I accept what you are saying however in those countries they do not state that you must only hire locals. Yes in other countries they require the nationals to own a certain percentage, however the national is not stated to be from a specific race group as is the case here.


Please reference the local legislation that COMPELS all South African private enterprises to allocate a specific portion of ownership to particular race groups.




> In Portugal, as a foreigner that opens a business must have a minimum 40% of the business owned by a local person, irrespective of their race, and many many Portuguese citizens were originally from Africa. The same goes for other European countries. I think that there is a major difference to what we are experiencing here.


The application of affirmative action around the world is a lot more complex than how you are presenting it and is not limited to race or ethnicity. Bottom line: many countries, South Africa included, implement affirmative action policies that favour some demographic groups over others because there are social imbalances.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> I respectfully disagree with you on this one. Then any citizen who is convicted of contravening the law should go to prison for life then.
> 
> I still think that AA/BEE is van not be categorized the same as capital crime.


You're missing my point. This is not about whether AA / B-BBEE and capital crime should be categorised together. It's about subjecting ANY legislation to the same scrutiny and analysis when its intended purpose has not been achieved instead of assuming that any failure must be inherent to the legislation itself and, therefore, that the legislation must be scrapped.

----------


## Justloadit

> Please reference the local legislation that COMPELS all South African private enterprises to allocate a specific portion of ownership to particular race groups.


With respect to the new amended codes, If you want to get business from corporates so that you can earn a living, one will have to follow the new amended codes, copied from "EconoBEE
011 483 1190".
The majority of companies will reach a maximum of 4 points if not fully black owned owned with full senior black managers.
So business will get more and more difficult if you are not with in the new amended BEE codes. In fact most business who had high scores before the new codes will be very surprised to note that they will have dropped down by a number of points under the new amended codes.

Code 100 -Ownership:Points available: 25
Awards points for black participants in the ownership of the enterprise.
Takes into account:
Voting Rights
Economic Interest
More points for:
Black women, ESOPS, broad-based schemes
Is a priority element drop one level if insufficient ownership

Do you need Black Ownership?
Are your customers asking you if you have black ownership?
Do you supply the mining sector?
Will Black Ownership result in more business?
Do you need additional finance to grow your business?
Do you need additional management capabilities?
Do you need access to government business?

How much Ownership?
10% reaches the subminimum on the priority element status
25+1 vote is the Amended Codes target
30% black female will assist your customers through the procurement element
51% black people will assist your customers through the procurement element

----------


## Justloadit

> You're missing my point. This is not about whether AA / B-BBEE and capital crime should be categorised together. It's about subjecting ANY legislation to the same scrutiny and analysis when its intended purpose has not been achieved instead of assuming that any failure must be inherent to the legislation itself and, therefore, that the legislation must be scrapped.


Then the law with respect to murder should not have been used as an example. We all know that murder will continue, it is simply a product of human nature, especially when greed and hate are emotions in humans.

Maybe, because of the emotion involved with AA/BEE, it may mean that it will be here for eternity. 
It still does not detract that it it is favouring certain races of the local population from with in the country's population, as opposed to other countries who are favouring their own citizens against foreigners opening business with in those countries. There in to me lies the difference.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> With respect to the new amended codes, If you want to get business from corporates so that you can earn a living, one will have to follow the new amended codes


Nope. Compliance with Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is entirely voluntary. I have many clients that supply corporates even though they aren't compliant or have a low B-BBEE score.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> We all know that murder will continue, it is simply a product of human nature, especially when greed and hate are emotions in humans.


So if discrimination is also an inevitable product of human nature, does that mean AA can never be abolished?




> It still does not detract that it it is favouring certain races of the local population from with in the country's population, as opposed to other countries who are favouring their own citizens against foreigners opening business with in those countries. There in to me lies the difference.


Nope. Many of the countries that I referenced earlier employ affirmative action policies that favour certain demographic groups within their own populations, instead of simply favouring their own populations over foreigners.

----------


## Justloadit

> So if discrimination is also an inevitable product of human nature, does that mean AA can never be abolished?


That's what my conclusion was with the following statement "Maybe, because of the emotion involved with AA/BEE, it may mean that it will be here for eternity."



> I have many clients that supply corporates even though they aren't compliant or have a low B-BBEE score.


Can you show some evidence of this.

----------


## Justloadit

> Nope. Compliance with Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment is entirely voluntary. I have many clients that supply corporates even though they aren't compliant or have a low B-BBEE score.


If you wish to deal with corporates, it may be more difficult to be a supplier with out having a score, and provided you are less than the lower turn over threshold - depending on your industry, unless you are a strategic component supplier that you can continue unabated. If you are over the T/O threshold, law states that you must abide by the BEE codes.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> If you are over the T/O threshold, law states that you must abide by the BEE codes.


Would you mind referencing the legal provision stating that companies over a certain turnover MUST comply with B-BBEE?

----------


## Justloadit

Here goes, it is intertwined with in all the paragraphs, copied from Profin HR Practitioners

It is a bit of a long read, but is relevant to all who have a business in RSA.
Reading carefully, you will note that even a family owned business, does not have the right to even employ a Son/Daughter directly into to management position, they will have to apply for the job, using the criteria listed here below. Doing this will trigger the unfair discrimination. So this means that there is no guaranteed position for your family members in your family business. What is concerning is that selection is not even done on qualifications, but rather on the premise that the BEE applicant may be able to do the job.

The information here is not in it's entirety, but is sections of the act to highlight the request made by Grieg.

*The main Act requires employers to -*

promote the constitutional right of equality and the exercise of true democracy;
eliminate unfair discrimination in employment;
ensure the implementation of employment equity to redress the effects 	of discrimination;
achieve a diverse workforce broadly representative of our people;
promote economic development and efficiency in the workforce; and
give effect to the obligations of the Republic as a member of the 	International Labour Organisation.

*THE EMPLOYMENT EQUITY AMENDMENT ACT*
Amends the Employment Equity Act, 1998, as follows:

to substitute or amend certain definitions; 

to further regulate the prohibition of unfair discrimination against employees; 
to make further provision regarding the evidential burden of proof in allegations of unfair discrimination;
to further regulate the preparation and implementation of employment equity plans and the submission of reports by designated employers to the Director-General;
to further regulate undertakings by designated employers to comply with requests by labour inspectors;
to further regulate the issuing of compliance orders;
to provide afresh for the assessment of compliance by designated employers with employment equity and the failure of those employers to comply with requests and recommendations made by the Director-General;

*The following amendments have been made to the principal Act*
Section 1: Definitions
Black People is a generic term which means Africans, Coloureds and Indians (Chinese considered to be African);

Designated Employer means

an employer who employs 50 or more employees;
an employer who employs fewer than 50 employees, but has a total annual turnover that is equal to or above the applicable annual turnover of a small business in terms of Schedule 4 to this Act;
an employer bound by a collective agreement in terms of section 23 or 31 of the Labour Relations Act.

Designated Groups means black people, women and people with disabilities who-

a. are citizens of the Republic of South Africa by birth or descent; or
b. became citizens of the Republic of South Africa by naturalization- 
	i. Before 27 April 1994; or
	ii. After 26 April 1994 and who have been entitled to acquire citizenship by naturalization prior to that date but who were precluded by apartheid policies;

Employment Policy or practice includes, but is not limited to
Recruitment procedures, advertising and selection criteria;
Appointments and the appointment process;
Job classification and grading
Remuneration, employment benefits and terms and conditions of employment;
Job assignments;
The working environment and facilities;
Training and development;
Performance evaluation systems;
Promotion; 
Transfer;
Demotion;
Disciplinary measures other than dismissal; 
Dismissal;
Reasonable Accommodation means any modification or adjustment to a job or to the working environment that will enable a person from a designated group to have access to or participate or advance in employment;

When determining whether a person is suitably qualified for a job, an employer must 

e. Revue all the factors listed above; and
f. Determine whether that person has the ability to do the job in terms of any one of, or any combination of those factors.
In making a determination in terms of e & f above, an employer may not unfairly discriminate against a person solely on the grounds of that persons lack of relevant experience.
*
Purpose of the Act*

The purpose of this Act is to achieve equity in the workplace by 

(a) promoting equal opportunity and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair discrimination; and
(b) implementing affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment experienced by designated groups, in order to ensure their equitable representation in all occupational 	levels in the workforce.

*Elimination of Unfair Discrimination*

Every employer must take steps to promote equal opportunity in the workplace by eliminating unfair discrimination in any employment policy or practice.

*Prohibition of Unfair Discrimination*
No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, 	against an employee, in any employment policy or practice, on 	one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, 	marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, 	colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, 	conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, birth or 	on any other arbitrary ground.; and

(2) It is not unfair discrimination to 
*
(a) Take affirmative action measures consistent with the purpose 	of this Act; or
(b) Distinguish, exclude or prefer any person on the basis of an inherent requirement of a job.

A difference in terms and conditions of employment between employees of the same employer performing the same or substantially the same work or work of equal value that is directly or indirectly based on any one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (1), is unfair discrimination.

*Burden of Proof*
If unfair discrimination is alleged on a ground listed in section 6(1), the *employer* against whom the allegation is made must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that such discrimination 	

(a) did not take place as alleged; or
(b) is rational and not unfair, or is otherwise justifiable.

If unfair discrimination is alleged on an arbitrary ground, the complainant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that 

(a) the conduct complained of is not rational;
(b) the conduct complained of amounts to discrimination; and
(c) the discrimination is unfair.

*Affirmative Action Measures*
(1)	Affirmative action measures are measures designed to ensure that suitably qualified people from designated groups have equal employment opportunities and are equitably represented in all occupational levels in the workforce of a designated employer; and

(2) Affirmative action measures implemented by a designated employer must include 
(a) Measures to identify and eliminate employment barriers, including unfair discrimination, which adversely affect people from designated groups;
(b) Measures designed to further diversity in the workplace based on equal dignity and respect of all people;
(c) Making reasonable accommodation for people from designated groups in order to ensure that they enjoy equal opportunities and are equitably represented in the workforce of a designated employer;

*Analysis*
(1) A designated employer must collect information and conduct an analysis, as prescribed, of its employment policies, practices, procedures and the working environment, in order to identify employment barriers, which adversely affect people from designated groups.
(2) An analysis conducted in terms of subsection (1) must include a profile, as prescribed, of the designated employers workforce within each occupational level in order to determine the degree of underrepresentation of people from 	designated groups in various occupational levels in that employers workforce.

*Employment Equity Act Plan*
(1) A designated employer must prepare and implement an employment equity plan, which will achieve reasonable progress towards employment equity in that employers workforce.
(2) An employment equity plan prepared in terms of subsection (1) must state 
 (a) the objectives to be achieved for each year of the plan;
 (b) the affirmative action measures to be implemented as required by section 15 (2);
 (c) where under representation of people from designated groups has been identified by the analysis, the numerical goals to achieve the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from  designated groups within each occupational level in the workforce, the timetable within which this is to be achieved, and the strategies intended to achieve those goals; and
 (d) the timetable for each year of the plan for the achievement of goals and objectives other than numerical goals;
 (e) the duration of the plan, which may not be shorter than one year or longer than five years;
 (f) the procedures that will be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan and whether reasonable 	progress is being made towards implementing employment equity;

(3) For purposes of this Act, a person may be suitably qualified for a job as a result of any one of, or any combination of that persons 
 (a) formal qualifications;
 (b) prior learning;
 (c) relevant experience; or
 (d) capacity to acquire, within a reasonable time, the ability to do the job.

(5) In making a determination, an employer may not unfairly discriminate against a person solely on the grounds of that persons lack of relevant experience.

*Turnover threshold Applicable to Designated Employers*

Sector or sub-sectors in accordance with the               Total Annual Turnover
Standard Industrial Classification
Agriculture	                                                           R6.00 m
Mining & Quarrying	                                           R22.50 m
Manufacturing	                                                   R30.00 m
Electricity, Gas & Water	                                           R30.00 m
Construction	                                                   R15.00 m
Retail & Motor Trade & Repair Services	                   R45.00 m
Wholesale Trade, Commercial Agents & Allied Services	   R75.00 m
Catering, Accommodation & other Trade	                   R15.00 m
Transport, Storage & Communications	                   R30.00 m
Finance & Business Services	                                   R30.00 m
Community, Special & Personal Services	                   R15.00 m

----------


## Greig Whitton

You're confusing Employment Equity and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. B-BBEE has nothing to do with the EE turnover thresholds. B-BBEE compliance is entirely voluntary, regardless of turnover.

----------


## Justloadit

If you say so, to me it is intertwined, when your T/O exceeds the threshold, you are classified as an employer, and it is no longer voluntary.

----------


## Greig Whitton

Hopefully this will help:

The *Employment Equity Act* is a labour law that prohibits discrimination at work. It is *mandatory* for all employers, regardless of turnover or workforce size. It includes affirmative action provisions that promote demographically representative employment, but these are only mandatory for some companies (e.g. those exceeding the annual turnover threshold for their particular industry).

*The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act* (and the accompanying Codes of Good Practice) is a completely separate and *entirely voluntary* law. In theory, it encourages all companies to implement a range of practices (including ownership, employment, training, and procurement practices) intended to broaden black economic participation. However, in practice, the relevance of the "incentives" for implementing these practices can vary dramatically from company to company. This is one of the reasons why it hasn't been particularly effective in achieving its purpose, since some companies take it seriously while others don't.

----------


## HR Solutions

Hope that answers your question Chris .....

----------


## Justloadit

> Hopefully this will help:
> 
> The *Employment Equity Act* is a labour law that prohibits discrimination at work. It is *mandatory* for all employers, regardless of turnover or workforce size. It includes affirmative action provisions that promote demographically representative employment, but these are only mandatory for some companies (e.g. those exceeding the annual turnover threshold for their particular industry).
> 
> *The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act* (and the accompanying Codes of Good Practice) is a completely separate and *entirely voluntary* law. In theory, it encourages all companies to implement a range of practices (including ownership, employment, training, and procurement practices) intended to broaden black economic participation. However, in practice, the relevance of the "incentives" for implementing these practices can vary dramatically from company to company. This is one of the reasons why it hasn't been particularly effective in achieving its purpose, since some companies take it seriously while others don't.


Nit-picking, so in the one instance you get fined for not following the employment equity act, and the other instance you do not get business from the corporates because of your score, especially for non niche small companies. It still follows the undertones of the manner in which selection is made, whether in law or implied. A white male is handicapped when looking for employment.

Having an all black organization or business is seen as a great achievement, however, having an all white organization or business is racist.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> so in the one instance you get fined for not following the employment equity act


Yes, and rightly so.




> and the other instance you do not get business from the corporates because of your score, especially for non niche small companies.


No, because the strategic importance of B-BBEE varies dramatically from one company to the next. Some corporates take it very seriously and will prefer suppliers that have high scores; others couldn't care less and procure on the basis of traditional criteria (cost, quality, etc.) There will always be a demand for suppliers that offer something exceptional, regardless of their B-BBEE status. Many small companies are actually at an advantage since they automatically qualify for level 4 B-BBEE and don't have to worry about the scorecards at all.




> A white male is handicapped when looking for employment.


As with exceptional suppliers, there will always be demand for exceptional employees - regardless of race.

----------


## JanChris

> Hope that answers your question Chris .....


HR, not really. The comment by justloadit makes much more sense. If you do not have a black partner you will NOT get government work (or very little). I have experienced this more than once.

Maybe ALL business owners should take note. Watched a program on tv last week where they discussed the level of education for students that have entered the universities. The director of an electronics company said that the maths level for many students are equivalent to a Gr10 student. This was acknowledged by a government official that was on the panel. The director mentioned that "some" of his employees did not understand basic maths related to their education level. Makes you think, doesn't it HR.

----------


## HR Solutions

> Makes you think, doesn't it HR.



Yes and no - my son is 4th year engineering and believe me his maths level is of an extremely high level !  The dropout rate has been very high - so if you do not have the maths level for e.g. you will fall out.

With regards to 


> If you do not have a black partner you will NOT get government work (or very little).


  -  From a simple business owner's opinion - I understand this to the extent that if we were not forced someway to hire across the board, we would not have done and given a fair chance to everyone.  The statement that "you will NOT get government work" is not true at all.  I know quite a few people who does work for the government, so perhaps it is from your experience, perhaps that person's price was not right and they take up this attitude.

----------


## JanChris

HR, you must be very proud of your son and you should be. He still has to find work and I hope that he is successful as not being employed is not a pleasant situation to be in. But with all respect, you son has the ability to understand and will get his degree for which he has studied for, your son is a drop in the ocean when it comes to MANY students who DO NOT HAVE the means of applying what they have studied. I was a Production/Factory Manager for over 25 years and I have encountered engineers who do not know how to apply their knowledge. Do they study at varsity like parrots?

----------


## Greig Whitton

> If you do not have a black partner you will NOT get government work (or very little).


Government, understandably, favours black-owned suppliers and this is detailed in the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (which is distinct from the Employment Equity Act and Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act). However, much like the private sector, government doesn't make procurement decisions on the sole basis of social impact. Traditional transaction criteria (i.e. cost, quality, etc.) are still very much considered. In fact, if you go through the preferential procurement policy, you will see that a supplier's B-BBEE score actually has minority weighting. So suppliers that have something exceptional to offer can still win tenders regardless of their B-BBEE score (although it would be senseless for them to neglect their B-BBEE status altogether).

Of course, nepotism and corruption make a mockery out of all of this. However, just because a tender decision maker awards a contract to an undeserving supplier that happens to be black-owned does not mean that preferential procurement as a policy is to blame or that scrapping B-BBEE, etc. would make any difference.

----------


## Justloadit

> Of course, nepotism and corruption make a mockery out of all of this. However, just because a tender decision maker awards a contract to an undeserving supplier that happens to be black-owned does not mean that preferential procurement as a policy is to blame or that scrapping B-BBEE, etc. would make any difference.


The policies condone these actions, much to the detriment of the country, siting ESKOM as one of them.
On a number of occasions, in fact even Woolworths have blatantly stated that employment is only available for blacks. So much for a white person having a degree on procurement or warehouse management, or even for that matter finance or quality control, you simply not going to be employed by them.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> The policies condone these actions


No, they don't. The policies may be used as a smokescreen to mask corruption, but that is not synonymous with condonation. Either way, it's not a policy problem - it's a human problem. Abolishing B-BBEE, etc. won't stop the corruption.

----------


## JanChris

> No, they don't. The policies may be used as a smokescreen to mask corruption, but that is not synonymous with condonation. Either way, it's not a policy problem - it's a human problem. Abolishing B-BBEE, etc. won't stop the corruption.


Greig, if the policies are applied correctly and what they were intended to to, it will be "fine". But the person who makes the "call" can see if the company is white owned or not and then price will play no part. You can see this daily in the media. so where is the fairness.

----------


## Greig Whitton

> Greig, if the policies are applied correctly and what they were intended to to, it will be "fine". But the person who makes the "call" can see if the company is white owned or not and then price will play no part.


Price will always play a role. Regardless, corruption and incompetence is not a policy issue - it's a human issue. People confuse the two all the time and then argue that the policies should be abolished even though they don't fully understand them in the first place. Which is exactly how the last few pages in this forum thread originated.

To be clear: I'm not saying that B-BBEE, EE, AA, etc. are perfect policies. I'm just saying that they aren't responsible for many of the reasons cited for their withdrawal.

----------

