Affirmative Action in South Africa does more harm than good

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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 ?).

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

It divides people according to racial group like under apartheid.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.