Latest news with #EmploymentEquityAct
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Twin disruptors at work — tariffs, AI and the future of employment
The global economy stands at a precipice, shaped by two interconnected forces: the resurgence of tariff-driven protectionism and the relentless advance of artificial intelligence (AI). Together, these 'twin disruptors' are changing the world of work, reshaping trade dynamics, recalibrating labour markets and challenging the social contract that underpins modern societies. This presents a profound double disruption, compelling workers, employers, legislators and policymakers to confront urgent legal questions concerning rights, protections and regulatory obligations. The new tariff terrain: a trade law perspective Tariffs have re-emerged as an instrument of statecraft. Yet, their deployment is far from unfettered. It is governed by a robust international legal architecture, primarily the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The increasing imposition of tariffs, particularly those justified under national security exemptions, is testing the limits of multilateral trade law. Disputes arising from such measures are before the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, underscoring the critical need for legal predictability in global commerce. Tariff policy must adhere to the principles of administrative law, demanding transparency, thorough consultation and the minimisation of arbitrary or disproportionate impacts on affected sectors. Crucially, workers displaced by tariff-induced shifts in global supply chains may have legitimate claims under existing labour statutes, advocating for 'just transition' support or retraining guarantees to mitigate job losses. AI and labour: legal gaps and governance challenges The rapid integration of AI into the workplace introduces unprecedented complexities for labour law. Traditional legal protections – encompassing the right to fair labour practices, non-discrimination and safe working conditions – are severely strained by algorithmic decision-making 's pervasive influence. For instance, automated hiring or performance management tools carry the inherent risk of inadvertently violating anti-discrimination laws, data protection legislation or even constitutional rights to dignity and equality. In South Africa, these vital protections are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and further elaborated through key statutes like the Labour Relations Act, Employment Equity Act and the Protection of Personal Information Act. Globally, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has proactively begun to address these emerging challenges, advocating for a 'human-centred' approach to the future of work and urging the adoption of new international standards that ensure algorithmic transparency and accountability in the workplace. South Africa's lacklustre economic growth: a deep dive into persistent challenges While South Africa holds significant potential as an emerging market with diversified industries and abundant natural resources, its economic growth has been persistently lacklustre, significantly hindering efforts to address challenges like high unemployment, poverty and inequality. For more than a decade the country's GDP growth has averaged a mere 0.7% annually, a rate lower than its population growth, leading to declining real per capita income. This sustained underperformance is not merely a cyclical downturn, but a symptom of deep-seated structural issues and governance weaknesses. One of the most critical impediments to South Africa's economic vitality is the energy crisis, primarily driven by the ailing state-owned power utility, Eskom. The result is load shedding – scheduled and unscheduled power outages that cripple businesses, disrupt daily life and deter investment. These power cuts have cost the economy billions of rands annually, forced small businesses to collapse and significantly reduced productivity across all sectors, from mining to manufacturing and retail. The impact extends to agriculture, where food processing delays lead to substantial losses, and even to the digital economy, with projected losses in the billions. While there have been recent improvements in electricity supply, the long-term shadow of energy insecurity continues to loom large over the economy. Beyond the energy woes, other structural rigidities contribute to the anaemic growth. The country's transport and logistics infrastructure, particularly rail and port operations, is in disrepair. This directly hinders export capacity and increases operational costs for businesses. Furthermore, a weak business environment, characterised by administrative burdens, stifles entrepreneurship and job creation, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which are vital for employment. Despite efforts to improve the ease of doing business, reform has been slow. The public sector wage bill significantly strains national finances, diverting funds that could otherwise be invested in critical infrastructure or economic stimulus programmes. The cumulative effect of these challenges is a staggering unemployment rate, consistently among the highest in the world. In the first quarter of 2025, the overall unemployment rate climbed to 32.9%, with youth unemployment reaching an alarming 62.4%. This highlights a fundamental disconnect between the available workforce and the economy's capacity to create jobs, often exacerbated by a mismatch between skills and industry demands. The labour costs and insufficient demand also influence businesses' reluctance to expand their workforce. Addressing South Africa's lacklustre economic growth requires a comprehensive and sustained effort. This includes accelerating structural reforms in the energy and logistics sectors, enhancing the business environment to foster private sector investment and SME growth, improving effective and efficient governance, and implementing labour market reforms promoting job creation and addressing skill mismatches. Without such action, South Africa risks remaining trapped in a cycle of low growth, high unemployment and persistent inequality. The dual pressures of shifting tariffs and accelerating AI adoption intersect with entrenched structural inequalities in South Africa. South Africa bears a constitutional obligation to progressively realise socioeconomic rights, which, it is argued, impose positive duties on the state to proactively create enabling conditions for employment and skills development, particularly as traditional job pathways face obsolescence. If unchecked, the unmitigated displacement of mid-skilled jobs due to automation and evolving trade flows could seriously violate the state's duty to achieve these fundamental rights progressively. To comply with these constitutional mandates, legal strategies such as those aimed at developing sectoral master plans, inclusive procurement policies and robust public-private retraining partnerships are imperative. Furthermore, South Africa's international obligations under instruments such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals reinforce the critical need for labour market policies that actively promote equity, sustainability and decent work for all. AI and tariffs are intrinsically transnational phenomena, demanding regulatory responses that transcend national borders. There is an urgent and pressing need for new global frameworks to address emerging digital labour rights, facilitate cross-border data governance, and ensure corporate accountability across complex global supply chains. Legal fragmentation will exacerbate inequalities between jurisdictions. Multinational firms may exploit regulatory arbitrage without coordinated frameworks to circumvent vital labour protections. Multilateral cooperation, channelled through institutions such as the WTO, ILO, UN and regional bodies like the African Union, is essential to ensure that legal protections keep pace with and actively guide technological and economic transformation towards equitable outcomes. Towards a legally grounded future of work The future of work in a world shaped by tariffs and AI will not be passively determined by technology or market forces alone. Crucially, it will be shaped by the legal frameworks we construct, our institutional choices and the political will we summon. If legal systems remain passive, they risk complicating inequality and eroding fundamental rights. Conversely, if boldly and strategically mobilised, law can be a powerful tool to steer disruption towards shared prosperity and a more just future. The imperative is clear: we must urgently update labour, trade and constitutional laws for a world where borders and algorithms increasingly define the boundaries of opportunity and risk. Legal certainty, fundamental fairness and human dignity must serve as the unshakeable foundations upon which we construct the new world of work. DM
IOL News
21-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Labour Court rules in favour of pregnant employee in discrimination case against paint company
The Labour Court has determined that a paint company, which placed a pregnant worker on early pregnancy leave as she could no longer work among the paint chemicals, and it had no other work for her, discriminated against her. Image: File A paint company, which was found to have discriminated against a pregnant employee who worked for it by placing her on unpaid maternity leave months before she was due to go on leave, was ordered to pay her 11 months' back pay. Daisy Moleme turned to the Durban Labour Court, where she sued her now former employer under the Employment Equity Act and the non-compliance with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. Moleme was employed by Induradec Coatings as a chemist, and her duties included aspects of both research relating to, as well as the development of products for the employer, a chemical coating company. Having fallen pregnant some 12 weeks earlier, Moleme notified her employer of her pregnancy in March 2023. She was concerned about continuing to work in the laboratory, which would expose her to certain chemicals. 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 ✕ Ad Loading She requested to be moved out of that environment, and she was moved to another office, but for two months, she was assigned no duties. This was after her manager had agreed that she would be provided with a computer to enable her to carry out such limited functions as she was able to while she was away from the laboratory. The company, meanwhile, tried to obtain professional guidance as to how to handle Moleme's situation, as the paint company uses a variety of raw materials in the chemical makeup of its products, and it feared that this could affect the unborn baby. All safety data sheets were available, but the literature does not specify pregnant persons; it said. In May 2023, the company told Moleme that she was placed on early maternity leave without pay, as it was unable to use her. She was also told by her manager that the company was 'not getting value for money' at that stage, as she had fallen pregnant. The court acknowledged that the company did obtain expert opinions on how to handle Moleme's situation. It was advised to accommodate her elsewhere in the company, but it did not do so. It also accepted that by placing her on unpaid maternity leave, the decision was not made with deliberate intent to discriminate against her on account of her pregnancy. But, the court said, the failure to utilise her services outside of the laboratory evinced complete indifference not only to its legal obligations but also to the negative consequences which would inevitably and foreseeably befall the applicant by being deprived of the ability to earn her salary. 'It can further not be doubted that whilst on maternity leave, whether paid or not, pregnant employees by virtue of their absence from the workplace in certain instances invariably lose out on advantages of being at the workplace, such as bonuses, promotions, and career development in the form of training and development offered to other employees,' the court stated. It concluded that pregnant women continue to worry about the prospects of their continued employment once they disclose their pregnancy or even after childbirth. In the case of the applicant, the invariable consequences of pregnancy were exacerbated by how the company treated her, the court stated.
The Citizen
21-05-2025
- Business
- The Citizen
What is Ramaphosa's Trump card?
Tactically, it would be ill-advised for Ramaphosa to keep saying Trump is misinformed. Fawning and flattery probably wouldn't be too smart, either. Black Economic Empowerment Act and all related legislation benefit black people, while limiting opportunities for whites and other minorities. And there's more race-based legislation on the way. Andrew Kenny, a registered professional engineer with degrees in maths and physics, wrote this week about how the latest amendments to the Employment Equity Act will inevitably result in qualified white people leaving in droves. Trump may be criticised for his interpretation of words such as genocide and refugees, but he and his team are well-informed on factual details of SA's race-based laws. Tactically, it would be ill-advised for Ramaphosa to keep saying Trump is misinformed. Fawning and flattery, as some are suggesting, probably wouldn't be too smart, either. Insincerity would be obvious. Far better to agree, within reason, with the other side's opening remarks in order to help create a receptive environment. Then what? Trump is 'transactional'. He likes to treat engagements as deal-making opportunities. And he wants to emerge with the best deal. ALSO READ: Cyril is damned –no matter what If Ramaphosa's entourage are well prepared, they should have some proposals that he might find attractive. Some cards to play. What does South Africa have to offer? Will race-based legislation be toned down, or the Expropriation Act amended? Will Ramaphosa take a stand against Julius Malema-style hate speech? Will SA withdraw its International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel, or stop supporting Iran? Top choice should be phasing out race-based legislation. This would boost the economy and create jobs. That's the best redress. Jobs and growth, without which redress is worthless. Will Ramaphosa play this Trump card? Tactically, it would be ill-advised for Ramaphosa to keep saying Trump is misinformed. Fawning and flattery probably wouldn't be too smart, either. NOW READ: Ramaphosa faces an impossible task in meeting with Trump
Daily Maverick
16-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Enforcing employment equity race quotas sabotages SA's economic growth
The ANC-led government has made it official: companies with more than 50 employees must now align their hiring practices to strict racial and gender targets, quotas in all but name. These requirements are set out in the amended Employment Equity Act and its new job-killing regulations. They cover every major sector of the economy, detailing what percentage of employees must fall into each demographic category at four employment levels, based on national or regional population profiles. Failure to comply may cost businesses access to government contracts – or worse, as the state has empowered itself to impose penalties sufficient to drive companies into bankruptcy. The rationale behind this policy is familiar. The state wants to speed up transformation in the workplace at any cost and sees quotas as the quickest route. But this approach is not just flawed; it is dangerous. First, these regulations will make unemployment worse. By forcing businesses to meet staffing targets unrelated to their actual needs, the state is discouraging them from hiring, investing or expanding. Firms will be rendered less competitive because they will have to reject otherwise desirable candidates to achieve the government's race and gender targets. Some firms will baulk at the compliance burden. Others may decide that the risk isn't worth it and look to offshore, automate or scale back to below 50 employees. With more than 40% of South Africans unemployed (broadly defined) and the economy growing at a paltry 0.6%, the country cannot afford policies that strangle job creation. Second, the regulations harden racial divisions in society. When government treats people first and foremost as members of racial groups, it encourages everyone else to do the same. That kind of thinking is corrosive. It promotes resentment, fuels identity politics and keeps South Africa trapped in the past. Instead of building a society where individuals are judged on their contributions, we are doubling down on race as the central organising principle of public life. Third, this policy carries real diplomatic and trade risks. The United States – one of South Africa's top trading partners – has made it clear that it is moving away from race-based policy at home. It is also increasingly critical of countries that promote such frameworks abroad. As South Africa seeks to remain part of preferential trade deals like Agoa, it cannot afford to alienate its partners. Domestic policies that clash with shared democratic values come at a cost. Finally, these measures won't deliver what the ANC hopes for: an electoral boost. The policy is not popular. Worse, it will not grow the economy. It will not create jobs. It will not improve service delivery. In fact, it is likely to do the opposite. Voters are already frustrated with rising costs, poor governance and high unemployment. More bureaucracy and fewer jobs will only increase the disillusionment. In survey after survey, voters are clear on what they want. In recent Institute of Race Relations (IRR) polling, 10 times as many respondents identified jobs as a top priority for government (29.4%) than Black Economic Empowerment (3.1%). When asked on what basis people should be appointed to jobs, 84% said this should be done based on merit. Just 6.1% agreed with the statement 'Only black people should be appointed until those in employment are demographically representative of the entire population', a formulation that reflects the intention of the Employment Equity Act, while 9% went further and agreed that 'Only black people should be appointed to jobs for a very long time ahead'. Surveys like this show that the government's racial obsessions enjoy little public support. South Africans need to see more investment, more jobs and more opportunity – not less. Race-based hiring targets may serve a short-term ideological goal, but the long-term damage is real and measurable. The country is already battling economic stagnation, weakening institutions and political fragmentation. Forcing race quotas in the labour market is not a solution. It is another step in the wrong direction. Voters will have a chance to respond to this in 2026. Those local government elections won't just be about who governs; they will be about what kind of country South Africa wants to become. More division, more red tape and fewer jobs is a path to decline. There is still time to choose differently: to focus on growth, competence and equal opportunity, as the IRR advocates with its #WhatSACanBe and #NoMoreRaceLaws campaigns as well as its Blueprint for Growth policy proposals. Making South Africa free and prosperous will require rejecting approaches that impose a policy risk premium and holding to account those who keep pushing them. DM
IOL News
16-05-2025
- Business
- IOL News
Deputy Minister defends Employment Equity Act
Deputy Minister of Employment and Labour, Judith Nemadzinga-Tshabalala. Image: GCIS THE Employment Equity Act (EEA) was not introduced to create racial divides or quotas as alleged, and these narratives, which have been mainly driven by the DA, cannot go unchallenged, says Employment and Labour Deputy Minister Judith Nemadzinga-Tshabalala. Among the reasons government had to intervene was because of the slow pace of transformation, particularly in the private sector, which may be attributed to self-regulation by employers. 'It is acknowledged that the slow pace of transformation is attributed to self-regulation of EE targets by the designated employers. As a result of self-regulation, the employers had all the powers in the 27 years of the EEA to set low meaningless EE targets, which they were able to recycle from one year to another or change at their discretion with no will and commitment to transform their workplaces,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala. The deputy minister this week led a delegation from the department to brief the Portfolio Committee on the advancement of Employment Equity in South Africa. The department explained the amendments of the EEA, draw their genesis in 2019, when the Department and Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) initiated sector engagements with the intention of the setting of sector EE targets to give impetus to workplace transformation. The Employment Equity Amendment Act No. 4 of 2022, came into effect on 1 January 2025. The department said employers should be reviewing their reports for submissions and must therefore use the Amended EEA legislation to comply with the reporting requirements. Last week, the DA argued before the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that amendments to the EEA were replacing a context-sensitive approach where employers set their numerical targets for employment equity, with a rigid, one-size-fits-all system of minister-determined targets. The DA said this violates Section 9 of the Constitution, which governs equality and affirmative action. While Section 9(2) permits affirmative action, it must be approached cautiously and not unduly infringe on dignity or establish absolute barriers, the party said. The deputy minister outlined the importance of understanding that the EEA was not introduced to create racial divides or quotas as alleged - the purpose of the EEA is to achieve equality and equity in the workplace by promoting equal opportunities and fair treatment in employment through the elimination of unfair discrimination. In addition, the EEA aims to implement affirmative action measures to redress the disadvantages in employment experienced by designated groups (black people; women; and persons with disabilities) to ensure equitable representation in all occupational levels in the workforce. 'The false narrative that the Government wants to take away jobs from the coloured and Indian population is a falsehood that must not go unchallenged. This is deliberately designed to create division within the country,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala. Committee chairperson, Boyce Maneli emphasised the importance of redress to address the imbalances of the past, which were legislated and continue to linger, despite Government's efforts aimed at transformation. 'If you do not use the tools available at the disposal of the state to implement transformation, you will have a situation where people take matters into their own hands. Discrimination was legislated; therefore, you cannot leave the laws without redressing them,' said Maneli. Nemadzinga-Tshabalala emphasised the need of the government to work with great speed to monitor the implementation of the various legislation. 'In light of all these challenges, Government cannot be expected to fold hands and allow the situation to be 'business as usual' when majority of our people are still being unfairly discriminated against and denied access to equal opportunities of employment due to their race, gender or their disability,' said Nemadzinga-Tshabalala. Cape Times
