Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Affirmative Action was introduced to counter the effects of apartheid. However, the first democratic elections took place 14 years ago and yet affirmative action policies have strengthened. The policies, although implemented for an admirable purpose, have done the economy and moral of the country’s citizens more harm than good.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It resulted in the South African economy starting on its back foot.

Change was implemented too quickly and the policies were too broad. As a result the less qualified took priority in employment over those more qualified. This resulted in a number of young South Africans emigrating to look for other opportunities (popularly known as ‘the brain drain’). The economy therefore started on a back foot.

The less qualified does not mean the same as unqualified. The hired individuals had the necessary skills. Positive discrimination is an accepted concept throughout the world and this is just another matter of justice.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It has decreased moral throughout the country.

Many black people may wonder whether they are successful for their skills or for their colour, whilst white people are frustrated by a narrow window of opportunity. Moral is thus low.

Although this may be true in some cases, it is not the same for everyone. Many black people will know that they are skilled enough for their positions, whilst many whites have made their own opportunities. Those who work hard will reap rewards, regardless of their colour.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It has unnecessarily extended into sports which affects the success of our national teams.

Affirmative action has unnecessarily spread to sports where politics should not be relevant. Racial quotas are unnecessary, they are detrimental to the standard of sport and it decreases moral amongst players and the country as a whole. The Olympic hockey team requires 8 players of colour, and Jake White who was behind the Springboks world cup win was forced to reapply for his position.

Sports facilities were also denied to blacks during apartheid. Racial quotas ensure that they have the opportunity to obtain excellent coaching and facilities necessary for future successful performance.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Skilled individuals carry the underskilled individuals who have been appointed due to their colour

I am working longer and longer hours and part of the reason is because there are fewer skilled poeple in my industry which needs skilled people. A large portion of the workforce have been appointed in postions which require certain skills and knowledge. MOst of those who have been affirmatively appointed are not able to meet thew requirements of the job without constant supervision and assistance in even the most basic areas. This means that I end up doing not only my work which is demanding and time-consuming but a large part of their work. The most frustrating part of this is that high salaries are paid to these "previously disadvantaged" but incompetent individuals and we are creating a false sense of their worth which simply will not be sustainable. Our economy is being carried by the minority and yet there are thousands who are getting a free lunch out of this. It never ceases to amaze me the number of luxury cars on the road driven by individuals who were apparently kept suppressed when it came to education.

Empowerment is the focal point of this debate. The issue is not about you working long hours or people driving luxury cars. We need to explore a number of avenues such training and supplementing the so-called "affirmed". Advancement is not just about putting them is the positions but includes ensuring that they are empowered to continue in the work market.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Time to remove Affirmative Action from the EE Act

It is now 15 years since the new government and new labour legislation. This equates to a full 12-year schooling and 3-year degree time period, where everyone has had equal opportunity. It is now time to remove AA from a legal aspect of our legislation.
Let us rather appoint the best person for the job - in terms of qualifications, skills, attitude and ability. It is easy to provide working experience when the above set of competencies exist. A person with the right attitude will always be successful in their chosen career path.
In terms of section 15 - AA was implemented to redress the inequalities of the past, with specific reference to workplace demographics. How long will the past be allowed to determine current and future employment and career practices ?
What is the long term goal of the country in terms of skill upliftment and development opportunities - race or abilities ?
The generally accepted principle that AA is a temporary measure is questioned as after the 15 years, this should have been already attained. Available skills and qualifications should already be in place and no longer a point of focus when employing new talent into the workplace.

Also, the gravy train applies as much to the defined blacks in terms of this act,
as it did to the whites in the apartheid era. How many of our black qualified graduates have left the country for better opportunities overseas? Think CA and nursing staff, as two examples.

All women, in terms of the EE Act, are classified as PDI. Yet when it comes to BBEEE and DTI Codes, there is no accounting for white women in any definition. DTI codes and their measurables (scorecard) are reviewed on an annual basis, which in itself is difficult to maintain. But the focus moves more and more towards Black females - so there is further discrimination in terms of all women and other people of colour. (another example of AA discriminatory practices).

Mere prospective race or gender neutrality does not provide adequate compensation for past inequalities, but only freezes the existing advantages that white males have over other groups. (Spann. The law of affirmative action). Look at the work market and tell me who is occupying the most powerful and decision-making positions:- it is white male. We have not attained equitable representation. There is nothing wrong with AA, the issue is how it is implemented. It should only be applied in line with the Constitution, 1996. Consider the rationale and purpose. This is how the duration of AA should be approached. In Taxman v Board of Education of Township of Piscataway , the Board’s policy, adopted in 1975, is an established fixture of unlimited duration, to be resurrected from time to time whenever the Board believes that the ratio between Blacks and whites in any Piscataway School is skewed. By the way, this is an American case.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

AA does more harm than good

According to Essential Labour Law PAK le Roux, et al., (2005: p 216) who argues that the main purpose of AA is to ensure equitable representation of the races represented in South Africa, in all occupational levels and categories in the workplace.
However, he argues that this is also of a temporary nature.
However, what is meant by temporary – and how will this be defined as having been achieved ?
Is the assumption that the demographics won’t change, and how will this be monitored ?
How accurate is our census when determining the SA racial demographics?
Do Scorecards take this into account, and what level of confidence are they setting on the scorecard ?
Does anyone know this ?
Bring in some key stats and then also lessons from other countries (America and UK – which is illegal ito AA ):

As of (2009: July) it is 15 years since the new government and new labour legislation. This equates to a full 12-year schooling and 3-year degree time period, where everyone (SA Citizens) has had equal opportunity. It is now time to remove AA from our current 2009 legislation.
Let us rather appoint the best person for the job – having proficiency in terms of international benchmarks in all the following areas : qualifications, skills, attitude and ability. It is easy to provide working experience when the above group of competencies exist. A person with the right attitude will always be successful in their chosen career path.
In terms of section 15 of EEA - AA was implemented to redress the inequalities of the past, with specific reference to workplace demographics.
How long will the past be allowed to determine current and future employment and career practices ?
What is the long term goal of the country in terms of skill upliftment and development opportunities - race or abilities ?
According to PAK le Roux: The generally acceptable principle that AA is a temporary measure is questioned as after the current (2009: July) 15 years, this should have been already attained. Available skills and qualifications should already be in place and no longer a point of focus when employing new talent into the workplace.

In terms of the current brain drain being experienced within South Africa, blacks (ito EEA definitions) as well as whites are leaving the country.
How many skilled SA graduates have left the country for better opportunities overseas?
Think CAs and nursing staff, as two examples.

As at (2009: July ) all women, in terms of the EE Act, are classified as PDI. Yet when it comes to BBEEE and DTI Codes, there is no accounting for white women in any definition. DTI codes and their measurables (scorecard) are reviewed on an annual basis, which in itself is difficult to maintain. But the focus moves more and more towards Black females – does this not lead to further discrimination in terms of all women and other people of colour?
Is this not just another example of AA discriminatory practices? (I am not sure – what do you think ?).

See my responses, supra. There is a purpose behind a requirement that designated employers have AA Plans. Plans are not made in vacuo but based on the workplace representation of race, gender, disability and other grounds of discrimination.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It creates racism

People that feel they can do the job are denied due to their skin colour. It creates hatred towards those that implement it.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Lower class of worker is employed

Example: In the past certain professions feel it their calling to become a nurse. During Affirmative Action people take the job to be nurse for no other reason than money. Health care goes down. Patients do not get treated the way they should, do not get respect and proper care. South African health services under AA is a disgrace!

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It becomes a weapon of revenge

SA moved past the point of helping the "previously disadvantaged" to AA just becoming a policy by those in power to use as revenge against the minority. Most whites saw the need to fix injustices but we moved past that point where it is obvious the ANC lost control of the policy. Similar to the old National Party. They created a monster and now don't know how to get rid of it.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It is a racist policy towards those it is trying to help

Because in fact what AA is saying is, your race are incompotent to help itself. We have to treat you special because you are of a lower intellect.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Affirmative Action is used to "create" jobs.

By taking jobs from other races by letting them go, and filling those jobs with AA applicants AA is not creating job, but in actual fact stealing it.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It is stereotyping those it is trying to help

It confirms stereotypes by saying the race that use AA is incompetent.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

It harms reconciliation

It divides people according to racial group like under apartheid.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

You lost the moral high ground

14. You cannot fight racism, with more racism. You lose the moral high ground. You can call it all sorts of fancy names like "positive" discrimination, but at the end of the day, it's still racism based on race discrimination.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Affirmative Action is necessary to combat racism.

It is arguable that racist managers have been removed, and that is what matters. If there are no longer any racist managers then equal access to employment and sport will be guaranteed.

Affirmative Action was necessary to combat racist individuals in positions of power, and their attitudes have not yet fully changed. It therefore remains necessary to ensure protection for those who were disadvantaged by apartheid.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Many still feel that white people deserve what they get.

Young South Africans should not be to blame for their parent’s mistakes. Everyone should have access to equal opportunities in education, thus allowing the workplace to become a level playing ground.

White people were responsible for implementing Apartheid and they therefore have to deal with its consequences. This is a moral booster for the majority of the population.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

The economy has strengthened.

It should be doing better. Load shedding is an example of this. Thabo Mbeki’s mild reaction to Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean elections and their land reform programme is a worrying factor to be considered.

The economy has moved from strength to strength: it is stable, it enjoys foreign investment and its natural resources guarantee the economy’s continued success.

---------------------------------------------------
There is what is called state sovereignty. The AU and UN must work on this matter. President Mbeki did what he had to do. Lastly, i find it difficult to comprehend how you merge the AA measure with humanitarian issues in Zim. Leave Mbeki alone.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

AA has not yet realised the visionary focus of the ANC government

For many years the non-white population in South Africa were suppressed, particularly in terms of education, training and job opportunities. While there has been excellent strides going forward in the addressing of this dispicable practice, not enough has been achieved.
The Department of Labour, on numerous occasions, have stated that less than 10% of listed companies in SA have achieved their BBEEE status - and not yet realised a level 4 rating.
Two areas that are easy to achieve the required ratings, are those of skills developoment and employment equity. (30%)
Why have the large predominantly white corporations not offered enough bursaries or created more schools in the townships.
Why have the SETAs not worked with DoL and created enough learnership opportunities for the PDIs ?

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

AA does more good than harm

Yes we are 14 yrs in democracy, but no significant change has been achieved in the implementation of the Act that seeks to redress the imbalances of the past, for example, the EE commission report of 2007/2008, it showed 26 listed companies still not complying or rather systematically sabotaging the process by creating excuses. In this report 70% at top management is still white and it's not representative of the demographics of the country. According to Carl Mischke, fourth edition, 2005, Essential Labour Law, page 215-216 - states that equitable representation is determined by a consideration of the demographic profile of the national and regionally economically active population.

The rationale is to address the imbalances of the past by taking both formal and substantive approaches in achieving equality, i.e. treatment & outcome. Obviously it's in support of the constitutional legislative framework and other measures designed to protect or advance persons or category of persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. As Carl Mischke quoted that there's a turning point in this only until equality in the workplace has been achieved by the previously disadvantage groups, i.e. black people, women and people with disabilities.

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

AA is more harmful than good

For many years (from approximately 1948 to 1994) the non-white population in South Africa were oppressed, particularly in terms of education, training and job opportunities. While there have been excellent strides going forward in the addressing of this despicable practice, not enough has been achieved.
The Department of Labour, on numerous occasions, have stated that less than 10% of listed companies in SA have achieved their BBEEE status - and not yet realised a level 4 rating.
Two areas that are easy to achieve the required ratings, are those of skills development and employment equity. (30%)
What contribution has the large predominantly white corporations offered in terms of bursaries to the representative demographic population in South Africa?
Or created more schools in the townships?
Why have the SETAs not worked with DoL and created enough learnership opportunities for the PDIs ?
According to the CEE report of 2008 (page 31 – section 2.7.6) which argues that AA will never be successful unless linked to diversity, and was temporary in nature – not to be a permanent fixture of the future of SA.
The rationale, the goal, the beneficiaries, the deliverables, intended to achieve (p 216)
In studies done in America, these appear to be the findings that have come out :
In an ideal world the only thing that we should be considering is an applicants ability to do the job. Affirmative action does not require a company to hire a less qualified applicant on the fact that they're white, black, male or female. If a white woman has better skills than a black male or a white male or a white female, for that matter, then I believe she is the one who should be employed. (Facts and Statistics on Affirmative Action in America – Kevin Thompson: 2006)

Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.

Yes because... No because...

Solution is to take it from others

South Africa is the only country where affirmative action is currently used to favour a majority which has complete political control.

That the majority requires legislation to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures.

Their only solution has been to use moral manipulation to take from others. In so doing the current government emulates the Nazis.

South Africa is the only country in the world where affirmative action is in the favor of the MAJORITY, who has complete political control.
The fact that the political majority requires affirmative action to protect them against a 9% minority group is testament to a complete failure on their part to build their own wealth making structures, such that their only solution is to take it from others.

Debates > Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good.
Category: