EDITOR – Questioning the credibility of the Employment Equity Act is an issue that warrants further debate.
If we embrace the simple math that job seekers during 1994 would be over 40-years and older today, it makes good sense that those born after South Africa’s year of freedom and democracy should not pay the penalty for the sins of their fathers.
The current definition of ‘previously disadvantaged’ only using skin colour as the yardstick raises the eyebrows of minorities. Concern is usually presented that the beneficiaries of this act may not be previously disadvantaged per se, due to their birthdates being post-democracy. Is this not the whole idea?
Must employment equity correct the wrongs of disadvantaged groups or disadvantaged individuals? Section 2 of chapter 1 of the said act calls for the disadvantages in employment to be redressed with regards to designated groups and not individuals. Should we redress employment only in terms of pre-1994 job seekers, we would turn a blind eye to the present status quo.
We should ask whether it would be fair to shape the Employment Equity Act to compensate persons instead of correcting a current imbalance of the demographics of the workforce, especially so in small and medium business.
Would it be feasible to, for example, declare the year 2018 as the end of affirmative action while there are still employers not complying with the act? The obvious answer would be no. The quota system differentiates between black, corloured, Indians and whites, yet there are companies that believe they meet their equity goals by employing any previous disadvantaged workers without considering the race quotas. Those opposed to race quotas only do so to satisfy and entertain right wing elements.
Once all companies show good intention in meeting these equity goals, I am sure the authorities will be prepared to gradually relax the stringent measures.
