Point of view: why the Fair Pay Bill could transform recruitment practices in South Africa
Have you ever been asked to submit your payslip by a prospective employer, before you've even sat down for the interview? For many South Africans, it's a routine (and often frustrating) part of the job search. But that could soon change.
The recently tabled Fair Pay Bill aims to put an end to this outdated practice and usher in a more equitable era of recruitment. If passed, it would prohibit employers from requesting your current or previous salary history and instead require them to be upfront about what they're willing to pay. In short, transparency becomes the rule, not the exception.
According to Norma Mazibuko, partner, and Amandla Makhongwana, senior associate at Bowmans South Africa: 'This is a game-changer for both employers and job seekers and, if passed, is set to reshape recruitment, pay practices, and workplace culture across the country.' That statement isn't just hopeful, it's a challenge to long-standing hiring norms.
Mazibuko and Makhongwana say South Africa isn't alone in rethinking how pay is structured. The European Union's Pay Transparency Directive is set for roll-out by June 2026, while several US states have already banned questions about salary history. The trend is clear: the world is moving towards fairer pay, and we'd be wise not to be left behind.
What's powerful about the Fair Pay Bill is its emphasis on the root causes of inequality. Historically, linking new salaries to previous ones has trapped many, especially women, the youth, and people from marginalised communities, in a cycle of underpayment. Start low, stay low. If each new offer is based on an already disadvantaged benchmark, how do you ever break the cycle?
And yet, in many HR departments across the country, this remains standard practice.
Some would argue that knowing a candidate's pay history helps assess market value or avoid overspending. Yet this line of thinking contradicts the spirit of the Employment Equity Act, 1998 (EEA), and does little to close pay gaps. As Mazibuko and Makhongwana point out, the Bill 'is in line with this growing movement towards increased pay transparency.'
It also reframes the conversation entirely: instead of asking what you used to earn, employers are being nudged to ask, what is this role worth, and what can this person bring to it?
And merit-based pay? It thrives under this model because decisions are no longer anchored to arbitrary past figures but built around skills, potential, and responsibility.
Key Highlights of the Bill:
No more salary history questions: Employers may only consider past pay if a formal offer has already been made and the candidate initiates the disclosure.
Pay ranges must be advertised: Vague terms like 'market-related' will no longer cut it. Candidates will know upfront what the job is worth.
Transparent communication: Employees will be able to discuss pay openly, breaking down taboos and secrecy.
Documented pay structures: Employers will need clear records of salary bands and justifications for pay decisions.
It's not just about compliance. It's about modernising how we talk about pay and fairness. As employment law experts at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) notes, the EEA 'aims to eliminate unfair discrimination and implement policies that correct historical disadvantages experienced by black people, women, and people with disabilities.'
Yes, some employers may face new challenges: assessing value in specialised sectors without historic anchors, or losing the upper hand in salary negotiations. But perhaps it's time we stopped treating equity as a burden and started seeing it as an investment.
Another promising ripple effect of the Bill is how it subtly intersects with broader conversations about the difference between minimum wage and a living wage. Is a legally defined minimum enough to cover housing, food, transport, and school fees? Or should we reframe wage structures entirely to reflect dignity and sustainability?
The Fair Pay Bill invites employers and policymakers to ask these deeper questions.
If enacted, this Bill will be more than legislative housekeeping. It will challenge the status quo, level the playing field, and build stronger trust between employers and the workforce. And in a country still working toward economic justice, that shift is not only overdue, it's necessary.
* Maleke is the editor of Personal Finance.
PERSONAL FINANCE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
26 minutes ago
- The Citizen
The tenant who won't leave
Another tale of a victim of rental fraud and the legal system that allowed the occupant to stay. The owner of a Parkwood home estimates that her direct loss already exceeds R500 000, excluding legal fees and unpaid municipal charges. Picture: AdobeStock South Africans are no strangers to bureaucratic indifference. But sometimes a single story reveals just how deeply systemic failure has set in. A Moneyweb reader – at her wits' end – shared her sad tale of losing more than R500 000 after a tenant moved into her house under false pretences, then refused to pay rent and won't leave. The email describes the owner's serious dilemma and highlights the risks of investing in rental property. She says the elaborate scam involves fake documents, visa violations, falsified payslips and a brazen abuse of legal processes. The reader owns a R4.5 million property in Parkwood and she says almost every institution charged with protecting honest citizens – including the Rental Housing Tribunal, the police, SA Revenue Services (Sars), the Department of Home Affairs, banks and the courts – has failed to act. 'This isn't just about me,' she says. 'This is happening to people all over the country. Just because we are ordinary South Africans, we are expected to absorb the loss and move on. 'Must we accept that this is just the way things are? I have the evidence to show how to thrive illegally in this country and get away with it,' she says. The facts are straightforward. The owner leased her property to a man who arrived in a Land Rover, claiming to run multiple businesses. He promised to pay six months' rent upfront into a trust account. Needless to say, that never happened. ALSO READ: How to evict tenants 'He paid rent for the first three months. Then nothing. After a protracted battle, I managed to extract another three months' payment. Since then, for more than seven months, not a cent. 'Meanwhile, rates and taxes have gone unpaid, my bond with Investec is under pressure and my overdraft facility has been threatened,' she says. The reader says she had to sell her car, take on extra consulting work, and drained her savings to keep the house from being repossessed. Despite the clear breach of contract, her efforts to get rid of the defaulting tenant were unsuccessful. She alleges that the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal has refused to enforce the lease's termination clause or allow eviction proceedings. 'Instead, they insist on inspecting the house to determine whether the tenant's 'comfort' has been adequately prioritised. 'The tenant has refused entry to me as the owner and landlord as well as the rental agents – and even the inspectors that were appointed by the tribunal. Nonetheless, the tribunal has imposed maintenance obligations on me, but I cannot access my own property to do the work. 'They told me that my notice of termination means nothing. They say we must wait for another inspector. Or another tribunal officer. Or another counterclaim. Each one delays the case for months,' she says. ALSO READ: More South Africans rent, but arrears and tenant risk rise False documents According to the homeowner, the tenant submitted false payslips with tax deductions that do not match standard Sars tax tables. His visa documents appear fraudulent – a claim the owner says has been (verbally) confirmed by Home Affairs officials. Despite this, officers at the Rosebank Police Station refused to open a case of fraud. When she tried to remove her furniture from the property, the police were called and stopped her. She says the tenant's personal bank account, held at RMB Private Bank, has seen more than R2 million in activity over just two months, based on the copy of the bank statements she insisted on when considering the lease. 'He lives on the premises with his girlfriend and at least two other men who are not SA citizens. He claims to run several businesses, but I could not find any confirmation that any of the businesses exist. None are registered with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC). 'He writes his own legal letters, which a real law firm then forwards on their official letterhead. He knows the system better than anyone,' the homeowner claims. 'He knows that all you need is a delay. Just say 'I submitted a counterclaim', and the tribunal will postpone again. No one checks anything.' She believes the bank statements the tenant offered are fake. 'But RMB has ignored my repeated emails asking for verification.' ALSO READ: Your rights when you rent a place to stay Institutions in silos What's striking in this case is how every institution involved seems either unwilling or unable to act. There appears to be no coordination between Home Affairs, Sars, CIPC, the banks or the tribunal. The homeowner has done a lot of research about the errant tenant. She says he has a student and a working visa, a contradiction in itself. 'He apparently operates businesses in clear violation of his immigration status. He is not Vat registered, has no visible employees, and does not file tax returns. His companies' addresses cannot be verified. 'And yet, the banks have not flagged his transactions under anti-money laundering or Fica (Financial Intelligence Centre Act) rules. Home Affairs will not intervene unless he is found on a public street or place of business. The tribunal demands that the landlord comply with obligations, even while being denied access to the property. 'I've contacted every institution I can think of,' she says. This is not just a personal nightmare. It points to a national governance failure that affects thousands of property owners, particularly middle-income landlords who cannot afford long legal battles. South African law appears to offer tenants near-absolute protection, while offering landlords almost no practical recourse when contracts are ignored or fraud is involved. This imbalance is often justified as protecting vulnerable tenants, but the unintended result is that unscrupulous operators, including illegal immigrants and con artists, can exploit the system with impunity. 'What is the point of the law if someone with fraudulent documents can move into a house, refuse to pay rent, violate immigration law and still be protected?' the aggrieved landlord asks. ALSO READ: Here's a list of what your landlord is responsible for in your rented flat Legal delays The economic cost is real. The property owner estimates that her direct loss already exceeds R500 000, excluding legal fees and unpaid municipal charges. Multiply that across similar cases nationwide, and the scale becomes obvious. 'This tenant lives rent free in a R4.5 million home with a permanent 'guard' who's not South African. Meanwhile, I've had to sell my car to pay rates.' The homeowner adds that the system fails to protect landlords and actively penalises them for trying to enforce legal agreements. She argues that her problem highlights significant gaps in the legal system: Rental Tribunal: There must be clearer legal boundaries regarding the tribunal's powers. Leases must matter; otherwise, why have contracts at all? There is no coordination between institutions. Visa status, tax compliance, business registration and tenant behaviour must be cross-checked in cases of alleged fraud. Bank oversight: Financial institutions must be held accountable for monitoring and flagging suspicious activity. 'It cannot fall on private citizens to investigate a bank's clients,' the homeowner says. She also asks that landlords get some support. 'Middle-income landlords need legal mechanisms and government-backed structures to address tenant abuse without being forced into expensive court battles.' The landlord says her crooked tenant 'is smart, charming, eloquent, and knows the law better than most lawyers. He is completely without accountability. The system seems to reward his behaviour'. However, she's not giving up, even if she knows she's unlikely to recover her losses. 'This isn't just my story. It's a SA story. It is playing out, house by house, lease by lease.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Malema takes aim at DA's WC governance during anniversary celebrations
Economic Freedom Fighters founder and president Julius Malema gives his speech at the party's 12th anniversary celebrations in Khayelitsha. Image: Mandilakhe Tshwete Twelve years ago, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) burst onto South Africa's political landscape with a promise to transform the country's economic and social order. Founded by Julius Malema and his comrades on July 26, 2013, the party emerged from a deep frustration with the slow pace of change since democracy and the persistence of poverty, inequality, and racial divisions. Their rallying cry was clear: radical economic transformation, land expropriation without compensation, nationalisation of mines and banks, and the eradication of poverty. Speaking at the EFF's 12th anniversary celebrations, Malema painted a vivid picture of how those founding principles remain as urgent today as ever. He reminded the crowd of Khayelitsha's history, founded in 1983 under apartheid as a relocation site for Black people forcibly removed from Cape Town. Despite decades of democracy, Khayelitsha still bears the scars of spatial apartheid: poor infrastructure, inadequate housing, unreliable water, and limited public transport. Thousands of supporters filled the dome, which holds 10,000 people, demonstrating the massive turnout for the EFF's 12th anniversary celebrations. Image: Mandilakhe Tshwete For many residents, these conditions have become normalised. Malema did not hold back in his criticism of the DA, the party governing the Western Cape. He accused the DA of protecting white privilege and sustaining inequality by neglecting townships like Khayelitsha. While affluent suburbs such as Constantia and Clifton enjoy well-maintained roads and services, places like Gugulethu and Nyanga continue to suffer from neglect, overcrowded clinics, and dangerous streets plagued by gang violence. He added that the DA's failure to extend services such as the MyCiTi bus into these areas was deliberate exclusion. 'Spatial apartheid continues under their watch,' Malema said. The party, he claimed, has no genuine interest in addressing poverty or unemployment, problems that affect over 43% of South Africans and hit the youth hardest. Malema also spoke about the broader economic challenges facing the country, saying that while other nations on the continent experience growth, South Africa's economy is stagnating. He criticised the control that white-owned banks and financial institutions hold over the economy, dictating who can access loans and property, and keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. "At the same time, key state-owned enterprises are being weakened by defunding and attempts to privatise through outsourcing or fragmenting services." He pointed to the gradual dismantling of institutions like Eskom and Transnet, warning that the consequences are dire for the country's development and job creation. The looming debt crisis, with government spending over R420 billion this year just on interest payments, was described as a ticking time bomb that threatens social services such as education, health, and policing. To counter this, the EFF plans to push for laws requiring parliamentary approval of loans from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. The party rejects neoliberal economic policies imposed by these institutions, arguing instead for a state-led developmental model focused on industrialisation and wealth redistribution. Malema stressed that the party has remained true to its revolutionary principles, refusing to become co-opted by establishment politics or elite interests. The EFF's activism spans beyond Parliament, engaging directly with communities through land occupations, supporting workers' rights, and fighting gender-based violence. However, the party's growing influence has unsettled the political establishment. Malema recounted how even international figures have taken notice, including a visit to the White House where former US President Donald Trump played EFF songs 'Kill the boer' as a warning, which he repeatedly sang after concluding his speech. He criticised both the ANC and DA for forming uneasy coalitions motivated by fear of the EFF's growing power. In a pointed attack, Malema said the ANC has become riddled with corruption and tenderpreneurship, while the DA serves to protect white monopoly capital. Yet, both parties are united in their efforts to block the EFF from gaining control in any government. On crime and policing, the EFF expressed support for Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, who raised allegations of corruption and criminal syndicates operating within law enforcement. The party insisted on a parliamentary committee to investigate these claims, emphasising the need to clean up police and justice institutions. Looking to the future, the EFF is preparing for the 2026 local government elections with ambitions to govern outright in many municipalities. Malema urged party structures to strengthen grassroots organisation, win wards decisively, and deliver services that the DA has failed to provide. Ending poverty, combatting crime, and ensuring dignity for all remain the movement's key objectives. Cape Times
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
US diplomats asked if non-whites qualify for Trump refugee programme for South Africans
Earlier this month the top official at the US embassy in South Africa reached out to Washington asking for clarification on a contentious US policy: could non-whites apply for a refugee programme geared towards white South Africans if they met other requirements? President Donald Trump's February executive order establishing the programme specified it was for 'Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination', referring to an ethnic group descended mostly from Dutch settlers. In a diplomatic cable sent on July 8, embassy charge d'affairs David Greene asked whether the embassy could process claims from other minority groups claiming race-based discrimination such as coloured South Africans who speak Afrikaans. The answer came back days later in an email from Spencer Chretien, the highest-ranking official in the state department's refugee and migration bureau, saying the programme is intended for white people. Reuters was unable to independently verify the precise language in the email described to the news agency by three sources familiar with its contents. The state department, responding to a request for comment on July 18, did not specifically comment on the email and the cable, but described the scope of the policy as wider than the guidance in Chretien's email. The department said US policy is to consider Afrikaners and other racial minorities for resettlement, echoing guidance posted on its website in May saying applicants 'must be of Afrikaner ethnicity or be a member of a racial minority in South Africa'. Chretien declined to comment through a state department spokesperson. Greene did not respond to Reuters requests for comment.
