Ann Eveleth: IN THE ACT
T hree pieces of labour legislation working their way through the halls of Parliament promise dramatic changes in the workplace.
But tight human and financial resources, coupled with the growth, employment and redistribution programme’s (Gear) industrial growth bias, raise questions about how effective these changes will be.
The Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the controversial Employment Equity Bill are poised to be complemented by the Skills Development Bill, now nearing the end of its journey through Parliament.
Highlights of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act are a 45-hour work week, with a progressive reduction to 40 hours; four months of maternity leave; family responsibility leave; and an end to child labour.
The main objective of the Employment Equity Bill to have survived fraught negotiations with business and political opponents is an end to discrimination against employees and job-seekers on the grounds of race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religious conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language or birth.
Next on the deck is the Skills Development Bill, punted by labour to give effect to the National Qualifications Framework – the government’s new education and training framework – in the workplace.
It is also aimed at making employment equity possible by advancing the skills base of disadvantaged workers.
Together these laws promise workers shorter working hours, reduced health risks, better quality of life, and an opportunity to overcome historical obstacles to their advancement and to climb the economic ladder with the help of employer-sponsored training programmes.
That is the dream. As Congress of South African Trade Unions collective bargaining co-ordinator Bogoshi Tshehla puts it: “These three laws are interwined. They talk to each other and they mark an important step towards transforming the labour market.”
But every dream has a wake-up call. High levels of unemployment, unresolved funding issues, exclusions and a series of back-out clauses for employers could render labour’s dreams of blanket protections impotent for the vulnerable workers who need them most.
According to South African Labour Bulletin editor Deanne Collins, the legislation will be “virtually meaningless” without an effective job- creation programme. “These are complementary laws designed to fit into a progressive industrial policy, but unless you tie the legislation to job creation, you may as well not bother.
“Gear’s record on job creation is dismal, and we are losing tens of thousands of jobs.”
A series of recent Labour Bulletin debates laid bare the pitfalls of the labour reform project contained in these laws.
Recent studies suggest a 45-hour work week will not necessarily translate into more jobs, as companies seek to increase workloads, multi-tasking, mechanisation and the use of shift and casual labour to meet their production requirements.
The use of shift, contract and casual labour is an international phenomenon, but it has particular implications for women. They are most affected by it as it exposes them to economic insecurity and dangerous night travel, and aggravates the burden of domestic responsibilities.
The gender victory on maternity leave might also ring hollow, as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act is silent on the issue of payment for maternity leave. Ongoing investigations into maternity pay proposes using the Unemployment Insurance Fund for the purpose, but Collins argues that this “lets business completely off the hook”.
Business responded critically when the legislation was first introduced and, through its participation in the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac), secured some hefty concessions.
The Skills Development Levy Bill is still awaited, but this mechanism to fund the Skills Development Bill’s objectives has shrunk from labour’s asking price of a compulsory levy on employers of 4% of the wage bill to a mere 1%.
Said Collins: “There is a major contradiction in the business position on these issues. In terms of Gear and privatisation, business is demanding less government and more free market, but when it comes to business putting their hands in their pockets, they say government must pay,” she adds.
Other concessions included the voluntary basis of the Employment Equity Bill provisions, which essentially seek to encourage employers to transform their workplaces by requiring them to draft employment equity plans, instead of imposing legislated quotas.
While non-compliant businesses can be fined or lose access to government tenders, Collins warns that this would be difficult for overstretched Department of Labour inspectors to police.
The Bill also excludes smaller businesses, determined by annual turnover thresholds, from its affirmative action requirements. These are often the very places where workers are most vulnerable.
Similarly, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act provides mechanisms for employers and employees to form agreements outside the basic conditions set down by the law. It is unlikely that desperate work-seekers will demand compliance in the face of an opt-out offer of employment, even if the employer demands a 60-hour work week.
“The Act assumes a balance of power between employers and employees, when job-seekers are desperate and that balance doesn’t exist,” argued Collins.
Critics of the Skills Development Bill warn that similar imbalances are likely to affect its outcomes. Tagging skills development to Gear’s macro- economic objectives could end up doing more to provide employers with a skilled labour force than to secure employment for trained workers. In short, the programme could simply train workers for unemployment, said Collins.
In the Act is a new column in Monitor, aimed at keeping track of important new legislation
ENDS