New inspectors appointed to enforce Employment Equity Amendment Act
The Department of Employment and Labour has this week announced its new strategy to enforce Employment Equity Amendment Act in private companies
Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers
THE Department of Employment and Labour has brought in 50 inspectors to force private companies to implement the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which came into effect early this year despite the opposition from the Institute for Race Relations (IRR).
The IRR, which was still preparing legal papers intending to approach the court to nullify the act, which it called 'the most counterproductive racial labour law.'
In a statement released on Friday, the department said the 50 inspectors were briefed on Thursday in a workshop held in Pretoria on how to go about enforcing the Act.
The Act, which promotes affirmative action in businesses that have 50 and above employees, would ensure that all racial groups and people with disabilities were represented according to their demographic population in all management positions.
Department's Employment Equity Directorate deputy director, Masilo Lefika, said in a statement released on Friday that the targeted employers must 'prepare and implement an Employment Equity (EE) Plan for the period from 1 September 2025 until 31 August 2030.'
'The designated employer must comply with the numerical targets set in terms of section 15A (3) for the economic sector in which they operate.
'If the employer operates in more than one sector, it must apply the numerical targets for the sector in which the majority of their employees are engaged,' said Lefika.
The companies that would be found in breach of the law, including not having an approved Employment Equity Plan or failing to submit annual reports, by 2030 would receive hefty fines of up to R1.5 million or 2% of annual turnover.
However, some targeted companies might escape penalties only if they could justify their non-compliance.
'The justifiable reasons/grounds to be considered for failure to comply are insufficient recruitment opportunities, insufficient promotion opportunities, insufficient target individuals from the designated groups with the relevant qualifications, skills and experience, CCMA/ Court Order, transfer of business, merger/acquisitions, and the impact of economic circumstances on the business,' said Lefika.
However, the IRR described the EEAA as racially discriminatory.
'IRR Legal will challenge the EEAA in court to block its harmful impact on already scarce jobs, and vindicate the Bill of Rights,' read the IRR statement.
IRR believed that the EEAA was not just discriminating against whites, but was cutting across racial and gender lines as it was preventing racial groups from being overrepresented in companies and management positions.
IRR Legal Executive Director Gabriel Crouse said the institute was against the EEAA because it was violating 'the rainbow republic's Constitution'.
'There are two sets of regulations that exhibit the unconstitutionality of the Act, both published on April 15 2025.
'Our estimate is that 85% of the formally employed workforce is employed in companies with over 50 people, a fact which should always be noted when the exemption is mentioned, but seldom is,' said Crouse.
He said the Act was placing a racial moratorium on white men, but it was opening people of all races and genders to the vulnerability of being sidelined from being promoted to senior positions.
'The regulations state that employers 'must avoid perpetuating the over-representation of any group if their representation exceeds the applicable [Economically Active Population] in a particular occupational level'.
'That means if a designated company has 60 black women at senior management, then the company must avoid perpetuating the over-representation of that group as it exceeds the applicable EAP (Economically Active Population),' said Crouse.
The IRR was concerned that the Act could bankrupt businesses through fines for failing to comply.
'The new EEAA is doomed to backfire in the private sector as it has already backfired in the public sector, where it was used explicitly to stop black and Indian women from being able to get jobs, as well as blocking every other existing race-gender pair in various instances,' read the statement.
IRR said polls were indicating that EEAA, like all forms of BEE, was unpopular among South Africans, including blacks who preferred 'a meritocratic alternative to BEE to be implemented.'
Crouse said the IRR was still busy with the process of drafting court papers against the EEAA.
Cosatu's parliament spokesperson, Matthew Parks, said the federation was fully behind the Act, which he said complied with the constitution.
'The Employment Equity Act is nearly as old as our hard-won democracy and has stood the test of time, including previous court reviews.
'If the IRR had retained its once respected research capacity, it would be familiar with the 2023 amendments to the Employment Equity Act,' said Parks.
He said the amendment to the Act was a result of extensive engagements between labour and business at the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) and parliament's public hearings.
'If the SAIRR was genuine in its desire to influence legislation, it would have exercised its constitutional rights to make representations to Parliament over the past thirty years.
'It may be that the IRR whose board and staff complement are over 75% white, feels uncomfortable with any requirement to embrace the non-racial ethos of the democratic South Africa,' said Parks.
Labour expert Michael Bagraim said while the EEA had been in existence for almost 30 years, it has been a complete failure as the regulations will worsen unemployment.
'The new regulations will not result in better demographics for the workforce, [as] the regulations in the past have benefited the very few who have become very rich.
'We need to go back to the drawing board to try and bring in a different type of dispensation to ensure that the workforce is reflective of the demographics,' said Bagraim.
bongani.hans@inl.co.za
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
18 hours ago
- IOL News
Employer groups seek urgent interdict against Employment Equity regulations
The Department of Employment and Labour is forging ahead with the implementation of the Employment Equity Amendment Act. Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have officially notified the Minister of Employment and Labour, Dr Nomakhosazana Meth, of their intent to seek an urgent interdict against the contentious Employment Equity (EE) regulations. This comes after the department published two sets of EE Regulations on 15 April - the General Administrative Regulations, and Regulations on Sector Numerical EE Targets - following the commencement of the Employment Equity Amendment Act, No. 4 of 2022, on 1 January 2025. The proposed regulations mandate employers to adhere to strict hiring quotas based on race, sex, and disability, with penalties for non-compliance reaching up to 10% of a company's turnover. Section 15(A) of the Equity Employment Amendment Act empowers the minister to set numerical targets. According to the Act, the Minister may, after consulting the relevant sectors and with the advice of the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE), for the purpose of ensuring the equitable representation of suitably qualified people from the designated groups at all occupational levels in the workforce, by notice in the Government Gazette set numerical targets for any national economic sector identified in terms of subsection (1). Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ Neasa on Wednesday said the urgency of this interdict stemmed from concerns voiced by the associations about the potential for these regulations to inflict irreparable harm on both public and private sectors. Neasa and Sakeliga argue that the minister's plan risks the allocation of resources ineffectively in a futile attempt to meet what they describe as 'impossible' compliance requirements. Under the proposed framework, companies would be required to categorise themselves into one of 18 economic sectors and adjust their workforce composition according to a series of demographic quotas. These quotas, referred to as 'numerical sectoral targets,' highlight a drastic shift in hiring practices, where businesses are instructed to limit appointments or promotions of employees from so-called over-represented groups, which includes many white male staff members. The end goal of these targets is to ensure that every single designated business (50 or more employees) in South Africa, regardless of industry, has a workforce that is representative of the racial and gender demographic composition of the country. The 2025 CEE Annual Report shows that at Top Management, the White population representation at 61.1% is approximately eight times their Economically Active Population (EAP), and the Indian population representation at 11.9% is more than four times their EAP at the Top Management level. In contrast, said the report, the African population representation is at 18.0%, which is approximately four times below their EAP, and the Coloured population representation at 6.2% is below their EAP at this occupational level. The CEE Report concludes that the lack of equitable representation at the Top Management level does not bode well for the future sustainable economic growth of the country and the representation of the demographic population distribution in the workplace in terms of population groups, gender, and disability. The Report said that at the Senior Management level, the picture remains appalling for the Africans, with the White and Indian Population representation remaining significantly higher than their EAP. However, critics of the regulations, including Neasa and Sakeliga, maintain that the measures contravene established constitutional rights and impose unachievable demands on employers. The economic repercussions, they argue, could be dire, potentially leading to significant job losses and overwhelming legal uncertainties that would disrupt business operations across the board. "The regulations and the Employment Equity Act (as amended in 2023) establish unlawful, unconstitutional, and impossible demands. Their consequence would be severe financial harm to businesses and extensive social harm through economic disruption, increased unemployment, and legal uncertanty," Neasa said. "We informed the minister that, in addition to our urgent application against the 2025 administrative regulations and sectoral targets, we also intend to challenge the Employment Equity Act on additional grounds."
Daily Maverick
19 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The DA's employment equity case attempts to reverse transformation and entrench white minority privilege
The Democratic Alliance's (DA's) legal challenge to the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA) is a thinly veiled attempt to reverse economic transformation and thereby entrench white minority privilege. The party's claim that its court action is in opposition to 'grand social engineering' rings hollow given the enduring legacy of apartheid's social and economic architecture. In truth, the DA's stance on EEAA is an ideological inheritance, a continuation of their historical resistance to redress; part of its raison d'être to fossilise colonial and apartheid racial and gender hierarchies. To appreciate this, let us briefly consider the Department of Employment and Labour's 24th Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) Annual Report (2023/24). It exposes the fiction that the private sector is a transformed happy terrain which the DA seeks to shield from the supposed 'interference' of the government. The report illustrates a country still struggling to shrug off the shadow of economic apartheid. For example, while the white population group constitutes 7.7% of the nation's economically active population (EAP), it nevertheless held 62.1% of top management level positions in 2023. Representing 2.6% of the EAP, South Africans of Indian descent held 11.6% of these posts. At 80.7% of EAP, black Africans hold 17.2% of top management roles, while coloureds, at 9% of the EAP, account for a paltry 6.1%. These disparities are neither natural nor God ordained; they are an outcome of Verwoerdian economic violence against Africans, coloureds and Indians. The CEE report also damningly notes that the majority of recruitment, promotion and skills-development opportunities at this highest echelon continue to flow to the white population group. This is not merit, it is the perpetuation of a boardroom order where white privilege remains the default. Conveyor belt of privilege The disparity reflected at top management cascades downwards to the senior management level where whites at 7.7% of EAP occupy 48.5% of positions, Indians who constitute 2.6% of EAP hold 12.4%, while black Africans hold 27.6% of positions despite being 80.7% of the population. The lion's share of opportunities still flows to those already at the top, which means that transformation is perpetually decked against a conveyor belt of privilege. The private sector emerges as the stronghold of this resistance. While the government has made commendable strides, achieving 74.7% black African representation at top management, the private sector languishes with a pitiful 14% black African representation at this level, effectively maintaining the apartheid-era status quo, where 65.1% of top posts are held by white individuals. Alongside racial disparities is gender inequality. Across all sectors, men dominate top management by more than two-and-a-half times females (roughly 73% male). While the government shows marginally better female representation at 35.4% in top leadership, the private sector registers 10% less, at 25.8%. This glass ceiling, often a result of old boys' clubs dressing up exclusion as 'culture fit', is an outcome of a patriarchal culture which compounds racial exclusion and puts paid to the mythology of a self-correcting market. Nowhere is this private-sector exceptionalism and entrenched bias more grotesque than in the DA-run Western Cape, their self-proclaimed bastion of good governance. There, white males alone occupy a staggering 57.2% of top management positions and 34.4% at senior management level. This is in a province where white people constitute only 17% of the population, compared with 42% coloured and 38% black African – who together form 80% of the residents. This is not a reflection of a 'dearth of qualified candidates'; it is a damning testament to a systemic racial and gender bias thriving under a political administration that pays lip service to equality while actively fighting the tools designed to achieve it. Coloured and black African professionals are corralled into the lower tiers by an exclusionary 'culture fit' that walks and quacks like 'job reservation' in post-apartheid South Africa. These are the gatekeepers making crucial investment and employment decisions and shaping institutional cultures that too often exclude black African, coloured and Indian talent. In its affidavit to the North Gauteng High Court, the DA wilfully misrepresents the amended Section 15A of the EEAA, which empowers the minister to set 'numerical targets', as a draconian imposition of immutable 'quotas'. Yet, the original Employment Equity Act (EEA), in Section 15(3), explicitly clarifies that affirmative action measures 'include preferential treatment and numerical goals, but exclude quotas'. The Constitution itself was drafted to smash apartheid's economic architecture, not to immortalise it, and the Employment Equity Act is one of our key demolition hammers. Transformation failure The current amendments provide a desperately needed impetus precisely because the 'context-sensitive employer-led plans' so cherished by the DA have demonstrably failed to achieve substantive transformation, as the CEE statistics brutally confirm. Furthermore, the Act is far from being the rigid cudgel the DA portrays. Section 15A (3) explicitly provides for nuanced, differentiated targets responsive to occupational levels, sub-sectors or regions. Critically, Section 42(4) explicitly permits any employer to 'raise any reasonable ground to justify its failure to comply'. The Act has consistently emphasised the appointment of 'suitably qualified' individuals. Nothing in the Act prohibits the appointment of a candidate from a non-designated group if a diligent, exhaustive search does not find a suitably qualified candidate from a designated group. In practice, the Act operates much like our critical-skills visa process – nuanced, consultative and always mindful of maintaining standards. This inherent flexibility exposes the DA's opposition as ideological warfare rather than a practical critique. Their true grievance is with the erosion of racial privilege. Qualified franchise, swart gevaar This position is not new for the DA. As recently as 1978, 47 years ago, the DA, then called the Progressive Party, championed a qualified franchise for black people over universal adult suffrage or 'one person, one vote'. Revealing – more than it concealed – its contempt for black people, this party, which claims liberal credentials, argued that black people needed to have attained a certain level of education and own property in order to vote. No doubt a strategy to manage the savages. After rebranding as the Democratic Party, it opposed the Labour Relations Act of 1995 and the original Employment Equity Act of 1998 on grounds that these laws offend against 'meritocracy'. You can accuse the DA as you will, but inconsistency in protecting white minority privilege cannot be one of its faults. The DA's dire prophecy that the Act will cripple investment or decimate employment is an old swart gevaar red herring pure and simple. After the original EEA took effect, between 2001 and 2007, South Africa's economy grew between 4.5%-5.5%, while unemployment dropped by 11%, proving that equity policies can coexist with economic expansion. The real drags on investment are challenges such as energy and logistics bottlenecks and crime, not the presence of black African women and men in the C-suite. By selectively championing Section 9(1) of the Constitution (equality) while ignoring the clear mandate of Section 9(2) – the solemn duty to enact measures that advance those historically disadvantaged by unfair discrimination – the DA reveals its true colours. It aligns itself with every white-supremacist argument ever used to defy meaningful change. This constitutional mandate demands decisive, active intervention, not passive hope or transformation on its terms – optional, non-binding and perpetually negotiable. No Bantustan boardrooms The EEAA, fortified by the undeniable truth of the CEE's findings, stands as an indispensable instrument in our protracted struggle to dismantle structural racism, unlock the full spectrum of South African talent and forge an inclusive economy – a boardroom that is not a Bantustan reflecting a 7% minority. We cannot allow the boardrooms of corporate South Africa to remain gated enclaves. The consequences for doing so would be more than symbolic. These are the individuals who shape investment decisions, workplace cultures and corporate governance. If they do not reflect our nation, neither will our economy. Besides, we can forget about social and political stability – something to which the DA either pays lip service or does not appreciate, or both. The DA has no history of genuinely advancing the interests of black people in general, Africans, coloureds and Indians in particular, in our country. Its historic positions are consistent with this latest offensive and an affront to the eradication of the legacy of colonialism and apartheid. South Africans must ask – whose freedom is advanced if the DA wins? Certainly not the coloured engineer passed over because she 'won't fit the culture'. Not the black African professional locked out of a training programme because the boardroom is 'already diverse enough'. The only winners would be those who mistake yesterday's privilege for today's right.
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Global growth set for slowest pace since 2008 as trade tensions rise
Heightened trade tensions and policy uncertainty are expected to drive global growth down this year to its slowest pace since 2008 outside of outright global recessions, according to the World Bank's latest Global Economic Prospects report. Image: Leon Lestrade/ Independent Newspapers The World Bank has warned of economic slowdown as heightened trade tensions and a cloud of policy uncertainty loom over the global economy. The World Bank's latest Global Economic Prospects report released on Tuesday projected growth to reach its slowest pace since 2008, excluding outright global recessions. The report highlights a striking trend: growth forecasts have been downgraded in nearly 70% of economies worldwide, spanning all regions and income categories. The World Bank estimated global growth will decelerate to 2.3% in 2025, a figure that falls short of expectations set just at the beginning of the year. While a global recession is not on the horizon, the World Bank said if current forecasts materialised, the average global growth throughout the first seven years of the 2020s will be the most sluggish of any decade since the 1960s. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Indermit Gill, the World Bank Group's chief economist and senior vice president for development economics, underscored the seriousness of the situation. "Outside of Asia, the developing world is becoming a development-free zone. It has been advertising itself for more than a decade," Gill said. "Growth in developing economies has ratcheted down for three decades—from 6% annually in the 2000s to 5% in the 2010s—to less than 4% in the 2020s. That tracks the trajectory of growth in global trade, which has fallen from an average of 5% in the 2000s to about 4.5% in the 2010s—to less than 3% in the 2020s. Investment growth has also slowed, but debt has climbed to record levels." The forecast is particularly grim for developing economies in 2025, with growth anticipated to slow to an average of 3.8%, significantly less than the 2010s average. Low-income countries are also feeling the pinch, expected to grow by only 5.3% this year—a downgrade from previous forecasts. Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa is projected to strengthen to 3.7% in 2025 and average 4.2% in 2026-27, assuming the external environment does not deteriorate further, inflation declines as expected, and regional conflicts subside. However, the bank said risks to the outlook were tilted to the downside as global growth could underperform projections due to heightened uncertainty and potential adverse trade policy changes. One key concern echoed in the report is the impact of tariff increases and tight labour markets. Both factors are contributing to upward pressure on global inflation, which is projected to average 2.9% in 2025, remaining firmly above pre-pandemic levels. This sluggish growth trajectory poses serious challenges for developing countries striving to generate job opportunities, reduce extreme poverty, and narrow the income gap with advanced economies. Per capita income growth in developing regions is projected at 2.9% in 2025, equivalent to 1.1 percentage points lower than the 2000–2019 average. Assuming a tempered projection of 4% annual GDP growth for developing economies, exclusive of China, it will take approximately two decades for these nations to return to their pre-pandemic economic output levels. However, the outlook may not be entirely bleak. The report suggested that global growth could see an uptick if major economies are able to diffuse trade tensions, thereby reducing overall policy uncertainty and financial instability. It noted that resolving current trade disputes could lead to an average 0.2 percentage point stronger global growth throughout 2025 and 2026. M. Ayhan Kose, the World Bank's deputy chief economist and director of the Prospects Group, stressed the need for emerging-market and developing economies to pursue new partnerships and focus on pro-growth reforms. "Emerging-market and developing economies reaped the rewards of trade integration but now find themselves on the frontlines of a global trade conflict," Kose said. "The smartest way to respond is to redouble efforts on integration with new partners, advance pro-growth reforms, and shore up fiscal resilience to weather the storm. With trade barriers rising and uncertainty mounting, renewed global dialogue and cooperation can chart a more stable and prosperous path forward.'
