Latest news with #EmploymentEquityAct
IOL News
19-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Point of view: why the Fair Pay Bill could transform recruitment practices in South Africa
The Fair Pay Bill aims to revolutionise recruitment in South Africa by prohibiting employers from asking for salary history, promoting transparency and equity in pay practices. This article explores the implications of the Bill for job seekers and employers alike. 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 The recently tabled Fair Pay Bill aims to put an end to this outdated practice and usher in a more equitable era of recruitment.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
The South African
15-07-2025
- Business
- The South African
Stricter BEE quotas for South African businesses just 45 days away
New, stricter BEE quotas in South Africa dictate that all workforces must, 'reflect the racial, gender and disability makeup of the population.' This is as stipulated in the latest Employment Equity Amendment Act, which came into effect in 2025. As such, the Department of Employment and Labour has been hosting workshops all around the country to get employers up to speed. Moreover, the department has warned that any South African businesses that don't comply with the new BEE quotas will face censure. The IMF and World Bank has called Employment Equity 'well-meaning but flawed' in a South African context. Image: File The Labour Department's new BEE quotas come into effect in just 45 days' time, on Monday 1 September 2025. Amendments to the Employment Equity Act require percentage-based quotas on businesses across 18 different sectors. And employers have five years (2030) to meet said targets. Each businesses' workforce should be made up certain percentages of 'designated groups,' reports BusinessTech . These groups are made up of: Black African, coloured, Indian, women and the disabled. Amendments to the Employment Equity Act come into effect in 45 days' time. Image: File According to the Labour Department's 2030 BEE quotas, all businesses employing more than 50 people are considered 'designated employers' under the new laws. As such, these businesses must have Employment Equity Plans that outline their five-year strategy. Businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt from these stricter BEE quotas. However, several business groups are not happy and have banded together to challenge the stricter BEE quotas in court. They are unhappy with the following issues: Government failed to consult with public and private stakeholders. New sectoral targets differ greatly from previous versions. Quotas within the new BEE quotas are arbitrary and irrational No economic impact studies were conducted to determine the effect of these laws. The stricter BEE quotas laws are unconstitutional in that they go against the ideals of non-racialism, equality and justice. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
NEASA and Sakeliga file urgent court bid to halt employment equity quotas
The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court In a joint statement issued to the media late on Thursday, the two groups argued that the quotas were introduced without proper consultation and failed to comply with legal and constitutional requirements. IOL previously reported that the government plans to introduce new employment equity targets under the amended Employment Equity Act (EEAA). These targets apply to 18 key sectors and require certain employers, particularly in senior roles, to align their workforce with the country's racial and gender demographics. The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) and Sakeliga have filed an urgent application in the Gauteng High Court seeking to interdict the implementation of the Employment Equity sectoral quotas. "The Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. This renders her actions unlawful and invalid". Earlier this year IOL also reported Minister of Employment and Labour, Nkosazana Meth, defended the sectoral quotas and criticised opposition to the reforms. She also accused the Democratic Alliance (DA), which has also launched a court challenge against the quotas, of seeking to maintain the status quo. "The DA's challenge seeks to disrupt efforts aimed at achieving equitable representation and maintaining the inherently unfair status quo. By opposing these amendments, the DA is actively sabotaging the transformation goals that have been pursued since the end of the apartheid era". NEASA and Sakeliga further argued that the quotas were 'irrational and arbitrary,' failing to consider the diverse circumstances across sectors, including differences in skills availability and regional demographics. The two groups also pointed out that the final quotas 'differ drastically' from earlier drafts published in 2023 and 2024 but were never republished for renewed public comment as required by law. "The quotas disregard South Africa's constitutional stipulations on non-racialism, equality before the law, and administrative justice". IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
IOL News
10-07-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Neasa and Sakeliga mount legal challenge against employment regulations
The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas. The National Employers' Association of South Africa (Neasa) and Sakeliga have jointly filed an urgent application for an interdict against the implementation of the 2025 Employment Equity sectoral numerical quotas and accompanying administrative regulations, as well as calling for the judicial review and setting aside thereof. The Minister of Employment and Labour, Dr Nomakhosazana Meth published the employment equity regulations of April 15. These quotas require employers with 50 or more employees to restructure their entire workforce to reflect national gender and racial demographics of the country. The application challenges the legality and constitutionality of the newly introduced employment equity framework. The legal challenge firstly aims for a judicial review of the procedural acts of the Minister in setting the quotas, which the organisations alledge were fraught with irregularities and inadequacies in process. Secondly, the challenge also entails a constitutional challenge of the substance of relevant sections in the Employment Equity Act (EEA), which allow for and facilitate the setting and enforcement of these quotas. In the founding affidavit, Neasa and Sakeliga argue that the Minister did not act in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, as she failed to adhere to the prescriptions of Section 15A of the EEA prior to the setting and publishing of the 2025 sectoral numerical quotas. They claim this renders Meth's actions unlawful and invalid. The court papers, filed in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, also contend the Minister failed to properly identify, and gazette for public comment, the 18 national economic sectors for purposes of setting quotas, as required by Section 15A(4). Neasa and Sakeliga also argue that there was not proper consultation. Instead, they say stakeholders across numerous sectors were either not invited or not given adequate notice of virtual 'consultations', all of which were limited to only 1 000 attendees. "Some stakeholders were given the final quotas only hours before these so-called consultations, with most consultations allowing less than 15 minutes for feedback and discussions. The Minister completely neglected to consult with employees in the economic sectors who will be severely affected by the quotas. Consultation in this manner is woefully inadequate for the Minister to have come to a reasonable, non-arbitrary decision in respect of the quotas," they said. Neasa and Sakeliga also say the final 2025 quotas differ drastically from the earlier draft quotas published in 2023 and 2024 respectively. Despite this, they were never published for renewed public comment as required by section 15A(4) of the Act. This is a legal requirement and failure to adhere to it renders the quotas invalid. They also argue that the quotas are arbitary and do not take into account the nature, circumstances and challenges of each sector. "The Minister failed to obtain and consider a comprehensive socio-economic impact study on the consequences of introducing sectoral quotas... This cannot be rationally introduced as a legal requirement without a proper assessment of its socio-economic impacts," the legal challenge maintains. The second leg of the legal challenge questions the constitutionality and legality of the concept of forced ministerial quotas, which will be comprehensively argued at a later stage. "Unless the Court intervenes and grants the interim relief sought, every employer that employs 50 employees or more, in every sector of the economy, will be required by legislation to prepare and implement employment equity plans to make their workforce conform to the 2025 quotas," they said. "This filing marks the next important step in preventing these impossible, irrational, and harmful employment quotas for the benefit of employers, employees, and all communities across the country." Attempts to get comment from the Department of Employment and Labour by the time of going to print were unsuccessful. BUSINESS REPORT
