Paul Janisch

FASSETs of society stand to benefit

This was forwarded onto me. It is so racist that it's almost unbelievable and it's bizarre that it hasn't gone viral. It will now.

I spoke to the FASSET SETA and the policy was confirmed. When questioned as to the legality of this policy I was told that the board has the mandate to promote transformation and that this was within the mandate. You can register learnerships for any other race group – but they won't give you your SDL back (this is a naïve assessment of the situation but it captures the essense).

From: Lauren Derman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 07 November 2012 09:23 PM
To: Subject: RE: Learnership Grant Application Concern

The Fasset Board decided again this year to extend the discretionary grants to only African people. The rationale for this decision, which was deliberated at length by the Board, was that the Fasset sector overall was over-represented in terms of Indian (and White) people and adequately represented in terms of Coloured people.

The employment and training of African people in the sector was under-represented as compared to the other population groups, which is why the Board decided to focus on this group in terms of discretionary funding such as the Learnership Cash Grant, Strategic Cash Grant and NSFAS Grant.

The Board took into account objections to this decision, however believed that in order to encourage the uptake of African people, a clear and bold incentive was needed.

Such learners will be available for you through the Setas development projects, which aim to train up African people to make them work-ready and able to enter jobs, internships or employment. In addition, the Seta's lifelong learning programme is continuing and is open to all employees working for firms registered with Fasset. All learners are still eligible for the tax deduction to be claimed from SARS.

I would encourage you to continue to submit your Mandatory Grant and comment on the Sector Skills Plan, where the strategy is outlined. Your comments are valid, however they have unfortunately been received too late for the 2013/2014 implementation period to make changes to the strategy.

All feedback provided is presented to the Board, and as I indicated there will be a re-assessment of this Fasset strategy at the Board meeting in August 2013.

Best wishes and thank you for taking the time to engage with the Seta on this issue,

Lauren Derman

Director of Skills Planning

Building 3, Ground Floor, 299 Pendoring Road, Blackheath

PO Box 6801, Cresta, 2118

Phone: (011) 476 8570

Fax: (011) 476 5756

Call Centre: 086 101 0001

Fasset Fraud Hotline: 0800 205 054

Website: www.fasset.org.za

Email: [email protected]

 

Should this not be – make the future for only Africans count?

Who advised Rob on the codes, I suspect horseplay – a plausible theory

The new codes could be the product of a small minority of well-heeled individuals who might just be a little pissed off with the current codes but not because of the lack of transformation.  Nay it is because their track record with corporate South Africa has been forever tarnished. Why would such a small group be concerned with things like broad based ownership schemes and ESOPs (those are but a fairy tale) which offered a single bonus point for 10%?  Their game is to change the principles and the scorecard to suit their nefarious needs. Read on if you have an appetite.

After a small minority had milked and abused the system, the private sector started kicking back against them.  Five years ago if you were black and could spin a line you'd get shares or huge amounts of ED money.  In the last three years the shares and ED money have dried up, with corporates taking a greater interest in where they toss money and after consulting consultants like myself they've realised that they can still earn points without handing out cash (or shares).  This connected minority went to the BEE council and alleged a variety of things which were interpreted as fronting.  They told Commie Rob that there needs to be a change to force corporates to transform and not front.  What they really meant was that they wanted an easier way in to get to those lucrative BEE deals that were now going broad-based.  So they did the following:

1. Made ownership compulsory – and then made a couple of elements compulsory just in case we saw through them
2. Set a 40% subminimum on net value points which makes a corporate do two things
   1. Do a 25% deal and ensure that the black owners get the shares either for free or they are removed from the responsibility to meet their commitments when it comes to paying for the shares.  Because if they don't pay then the corporate will not meet the 40% subminimum and will drop two levels.  This is now the corporate's responsibility.
   2. Get a minimum of 10% of the shares for free because if they owe any money on these shares then they won't meet the subminimum.
3. Up the new entrant rate from R20m to R50m and drop the percentage of new entrant ownership from 10% to 2%.  Now there are more people who can pick up 2% of a variety of companies and offer 2 whole points in exchange.  This could be regarded as a diversified portfolio.
4. Devote three pages to black venture capitalists that says nothing at all but allows black VCs to invest in companies. 

You'll notice that there isn't very much broad-based stuff involved in this programme. This is where the really clever stuff is – they've duped Rob, who doesn't understand that there no is broad-based stuff in the new codes but is now firmly convinced that these naughty white companies will never front under his watch. And I quote the Mail and Guardian, who got this from Rob.

Despite the very sophisticated rating regime and industry of verification agents established under the existing laws, broad-based BEE in its current form has been subject to myriad criticisms. The more prominent of these have been that broad-based BEE has benefited only a ­limited pool of beneficiaries and it has not achieved real transformation of corporate South Africa and, ultimately, the economy. 

The next clever move is to up the EME rate to R10m from R5m and provide those 100% black-owned businesses with a massive points' advantage so that they could encourage all the white businesses to use them as an intermediary (polite word for front).  It would have to be a complex front because if you outsource more than 25% of a tender bid to another service provider, they have to be an equal contributor level to yours.  Now you're not going to get a level 1 company that's white owned, so you hatch a code-endorsed fronting scheme.  Set up one black company that takes a kickback from a white company. This company then supplies that service or product to the bidding black company – both are level 1 contributors. There is nothing in the PPPFA that says you have to look at your immediate downstream supplier to make sure they aren't fronting.  Hell you could set up a whole chain of level 1s to get around this.  Now get this, if the bid amount is more than R10m then you get a bunch of black-owned companies to come in as level 1 JV partners.  White and multinational businesses will be so desperate for government business that they will bend over backwards to offer kickbacks and other incentives.  If the whole thing unravels then the white business is at fault because it's only white companies that front.

You'll also see that it's only 50% owned EME's or QSEs that can be ED beneficiaries.  All you need for a certificate is something that states that you turnover less than R50m and that your black ownership is more than R50m and you can make use of grants and all sorts of things under ED – which are risk and conscience free. Now throw in the fact the corporates need to buy 40% of their stuff from 50% black-owned businesses who don't need a scorecard and they'll get 9 points.  You can front like there's no tomorrow.

Ah but there is a catch – the person running the DTI (into the ground) is a commie so they had to compromise on the value-adding supplier concept – but that's OK, if you can front with the best of them then you'll get around this stupid requirement.

The rest of the codes are probably irrelevant to this group. They can assist any company in getting to the subminimum for at least two of the priority elements.  In fact there are about 24 points that a 50% black-owned value-adding enterprise could offer to a corporate under supplier development and at least another 8 under ownership, including the net value points. This makes 32 points, now all the irritating white company needs to do is spend 6% of payroll on training and bring in a few learnerships and we get another 8 points (which is the subminimum for skills) and we're on the scorecard.

The question is who are these people? It might be that they are close to people who sit on the BEE Council and perhaps, someone into equestrian pursuits and her friend John.

Amended BBBEE Codes Could Spell Disaster for SA

The consequence for multinationals is that they are unable to maintain a competitive BEE score. Multinational companies that generally import their products and services contribute a lot more to South Africa than just their products and services. Multinationals employ more than 200 000 South Africans. Disincentivising multinationals to continue to do business in South Africa because they are unable to meet unrealistic BEE targets would be counterproductive.

via allafrica.com

Written by Janine Appelgryn. She's only talking about procurement and the ridiculousness of excluding imports. It's well written.

I wonder what kind of phone Rob uses when he has to defend his shocking policies. Do you think it's an iPhiliso that is manufactured in the Eastern Cape. Does he use an IBMbeki laptop and make use of Windlamini software when he chooses to work on his speeches.
The car he drives is probably a MazdaMocratic (manufactured in Limpopo) which he only fills up with SASOL. He can't fly because the local Boeing factory hasn't been conceived of yet. And thank goodness he has no dress sense because otherwise he'd have to wear Italian shoes, wear suits from Saville Row and shirts from China. You see you can live without imports.

Davies’ new BEE codes could destroy the nonprofit sector Nov 14, 2012 | Paul Janisch

This was published this morning in the Business Day. The four points are very relevant to both the corporate and NPO sector, it's just the nonprofits who lose out completely. If business is clever they'll submit comments and if Rob is clever he'll read them. If the codes go through as is then business would be wise to stop implementing them altogether but continue with their 1% of NPAT contributions to the NPOs of their choice, regardless of race, nationality or mandate.

LAST month, Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies presented his proposed amendments to the broad-based black economic empowerment (BEE) codes of good practice to the public. The rationale behind the call for new codes is that, in Mr Davies's opinion, transformation has not taken place in the workplace and the private sector requires a little more encouragement to transform so that the "country's economy, control, ownership and leadership are reflective of the demographics of the society in the same way the political space does".

To achieve this, Mr Davies has proposed an extreme policy that has caused many sectors of society to question the efficacy of these codes and ask whether the current codes are such a failure at all. Should these codes be gazetted in their current form, they will most certainly have a detrimental effect on a large number of South Africans who depend on the nonprofit sector for their welfare. The sector is made up of 85,000 organisations formally registered as nonprofit organisations by the non-profit directorate in the Department of Social Development. The vast majority of these organisations are community-based organisations that provide a range of critical welfare and social development functions — often in partnership with the government.

This crucial sector of our society has been the most vocal about the proposed socio-economic development (SED) code specifically because it precludes any person who might not be black from benefiting under an SED donation. This race issue has caught the attention of the press but is certainly not the biggest problem the nonprofit sector faces when it comes to Mr Davies's new codes.

There are four major issues that the nonprofit sector must be cognisant of when it comes to their longevity under the proposed BEE codes:

• Only black beneficiaries may benefit under the SED code.

  The simple definition of black people is a natural person who is an African, coloured or Indian and is a South African citizen by birth or descent. This means that white people and foreign nationals who do not fit into this definition cannot be regarded as black. The current SED code requires that 75% of any SED contribution must go directly to black people. This leaves scope to include a broader range of beneficiaries under SED. The code also prorates points for contributions to nonprofit organisations whose beneficiaries are less than 75% black. The proposed SED code increases the beneficiary percentage to 100% black beneficiaries and does not permit a prorated calculation when it comes to allocating points. In other words, if less than 100% of the beneficiaries are black, then no points will be awarded. As has been widely reported, this jettisons the estimated 450,000 destitute white people and unknown number of foreign nationals who do benefit currently under SED. The Department of Trade and Industry has attempted to backtrack on the issue of prorating in a statement, but the code clearly does not recognise anything less than 100% black beneficiaries.

• Contributions under SED must be for the purpose of "facilitating income-generating activities".

  If anyone was concerned about the number of people left out in the cold because of their race or nationality, then they should be very concerned about this definition, which in effect eliminates more than 90% of all nonprofits or community-based organisations operating in SA. In order to award points under SED, a BEE verification agency would need to satisfy itself that a contribution was made to facilitate income-generating activities. If this is not proved, the points cannot be awarded. It would be very difficult for high-profile charities such as the Nelson Mandela Children's Fund to prove that their work with children facilitate income-generating activities and so could not regard themselves as beneficiaries under the proposed code. The definition precludes every charity that cares for orphans, victims of violence, pregnant teenagers, destitute families, the aged, etc. You can choose any charity and you'll find that it probably does not meet the terms of the definition.

• Raising the exempt micro-enterprise turnover threshold from R5m to R10m.

  Such enterprises are exempt from implementing any of the requirements under the BEE scorecard. As such, there is no points incentive to make contributions under SED. By raising the turnover threshold from R5m to R10m, the number of companies that used to contribute to charities because their turnover was more than R5m but less than R10m, will drop. It is not known what the rand effect will be, but it will no doubt be felt.

• The codes themselves are very difficult to implement and the entry level has moved from 30 points to 40 points.

  Mr Davies has opted for a stick rather than a carrot approach with the new BEE codes. Not only has he set certain thresholds under a few elements that need to be met, a failure of which will result in the company dropping its score by two levels, but he has raised the entry point on to the BEE scorecard from 30 to 40 points. The logic behind this eludes me completely because it will result in companies not being awarded enough points to get onto the BEE scorecard and, as a result, they will eventually stop bothering to try.

For clarity's sake, it must be pointed out that BEE is still a voluntary process and if a large number of companies cannot get to the minimum of 40 points then there would very little sense in implementing any empowerment programmes or initiatives. This would signal the death of a process that the private sector has made a success of with little or no government assistance or recognition — should this happen, BEE as a policy could not be resuscitated. This does not bode well for nonprofit organisations because they typically request contributions in exchange for BEE points. If a company struggles to accumulate the necessary 40 points then the points' incentive for contributions disappears. And with it huge amounts of money will no longer be made available to the nonprofit sector.

As can be seen, the nonprofit organisations' concern is very similar to those of companies which have to try to implement the new codes. We can only hope that the destruction of the nonprofit sector was not Davies's intention when he published these codes. It is in all probability an unintended consequence of being advised by a group of people who appear to have designed the codes to suit their narrow needs. It is doubtful that the Department of Trade and Industry did any empirical survey as to the success or failure of BEE in the private sector when it drafted these codes. If the department had taken these four issues into consideration before publishing this poorly drafted set of proposals, we might have seen a business-friendly document that could have achieved something in the short to long term.

Concerned parties have until the end of this month to send their comments to the Department of Trade and Industry.

• Janisch is a black economic empowerment analyst, consultant and blogger based in Johannesburg.

Some animals are not more equal than others – Constitutionally Speaking

If the President is good at his job and ensures that textbooks are delivered on time and that houses are built and services delivered; if he does not enrich himself or turn a blind eye when his family members and cronies become corrupt; if he demonstrates respect for himself and for the people of South Africa by acting tirelessly to solve our problems instead of solving his own family housing crisis, then all good citizens would respect the President of the country — no matter which party he leads. Decent South Africans would then also be entitled to judge those harshly who fail to respect a President who acts as a true servant of the people. But that is entirely different from demanding that legislation be drafted to protect the President’s dignity.

After all, respect is earned. One cannot legislate it into existence.

via constitutionallyspeaking.co.za

There is a reason why Brett Murray painted the Spear and what Zapiro and almost every other satirist takes the piss out of Zoomer; he deserves it. No one would dare insult an icon like Mandela and Mbeki was left alone - although there were times when he really needed to be reminded of his fallibility.

Zoomer on the other hand has not earned any respect and as such must be derided as president.

Thanks for explaining this in terms of the Constitution prof.

Trade and Industry on revised Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Codes

The Socio Economic Development (SED) element is addressing socio-economic developmental initiatives that can be tackled either through monetary or non-monetary contributions with the targeted beneficiaries as defined in the BEE legislation as stipulated above.  BEE SED was never intended to displace Corporate Social Resp/Invest of companies, its meant to alleviate inherent social challenges confronted by a specific group of the society through no design of theirs as an add on to corporate social responsibility. Thus companies must continue to do their CSI in spite of the BEE SED.

via www.info.gov.za

It is vital to flog this dead horse a little more. I met with the Charities Aid Foundation Southern Africa (CAF Southern Africa) on Friday who confirmed that giving to charities exists largely because of BEE points. In other words there is a direct correlation between giving and the BEE points awarded. If you think about it the industry that has arisen (spearheaded by EmpowerDex's EVS for profit) that will "objectively" determine the number of black people in your charity is confirmation that corporates give in exchange for points.

In this paragraph there are two terrible falsehoods that must be identified.

1. The sentence "inherent social challenges confronted by a specific group of the society through no design of theirs" is another way of saying that black people are poor entirely because of apartheid and the white poor are poor for some other reason.  How can that be even vaguely true - the poor in this country are poor because of a wide variety of socio-economic issues, most of which must point to a government that chooses not to address this problem.  This is statement is racist in the extreme.
2. The DTI has now conclusively proved to us that they do not understand the impact of BEE on the South African economy.  If they cannot see a link between CSI and BEE points then it shows that they have not conducted an acceptable survey on BEE's success or failure.

Then there is the second paragraph

The principle in the proposed BEE SED element still remains the same except the target has been adjusted to 100% as we are cognizant of the intended objectives of BEE. However, if less than 100% of the full value of the SED contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable.

We all know that the prorata portion is rubbish.  But it's the first part that is bizarre.  It's relatively easy to prove 75% black beneficiaries on a balance of probabilities.  Proving 100% black is ludicrous and technically impossible.  In the case of the most destitute (which by the way don't qualify under the new codes anyway) how do you prove blackness if they are either newborn or do not have an ID? Do you reject them on this basis?  It is Joan van Niekerk of Childline who summarised this ridiculous notion 

"We don't know the race of the child who phones us. It's inappropriate to ask, 'Are you black, and how black are you?' This is a different kind of apartheid."

Any charity that can claim to support 100% black people is either racist or lying in the extreme - both characteristics sit very comfortably within the ANC.  

The upshot is that every charity that receives contributions under this code will only ever be able to offer prorated points.

Dti clarifies revised B-BBEE codes - liars

BEE SED was never intended to displace corporate social responsibility/investment of companies, but its intention is to alleviate inherent social challenges confronted by a specific group of the society through no design of theirs as an add on to corporate social responsibility. Thus companies must continue to do their CSI in spite of the BEE SED.

"The principle in the proposed BEE SED element still remains the same except the target has been adjusted to 100% as we are cognisant of the intended objectives of BEE. However, if less than 100% of the full value of the SED contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable," said the department.

via www.bizcommunity.com

I think that they don't understand the link between BEE points and donations. Increasing the number to 100% is racist and actually impossible to manage.
The fact still remains that people give because of BEE points and 25% of those donations do not have to go to black people - this is equitable.
And they can backtrack as much they like, the code is still the same and is not pro-rated.

Don't trust them, don't vote ANC, stay away from the SACP - because it's a commie who is leading this charge; and continue making your voice heard about this document.

Forces Of Change - new website calling for change in ANC leadership

We call for change at the 53^rd national conference of the ANC.  We need change because:

• South Africans do not have confidence in the leadership of President Zuma.
• We need a leadership that will lead the ANC towards quality and durable change, towards an ideal as set out in the Freedom Charter, which remains its strategic vision and mission.
• A leadership that will regain the confidence of all Africans on the African continent.

We believe that this will be best obtained by the following leadership structure, which is tried and tested and open to scrutiny.

PRESIDENT: Cde Kgalema Motlanthe
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Cde Matthews Phosa
National Chairperson: Cde Thandi Modise
Secretary General: Cde Fikile Mbalula
Deputy Secretary General: Cde Thenjiwe Mthinthso
Treasurer General: Cde Tokyo Sexwale

This website will provide honest and unbaised information for the use of the branches.

The online debate will be conducted on facebook and on twitter

via forcesofchange.co.za

I don't like the comrade references and the term ANC leadership is tautologous, but we need to remove showerhead and get him locked up for corruption, incompetence and moronisity (if I was president I'd pass an-anti political morons bill - pretty much lock up most of the ANC and fair chunk of the other parties).

Please support this website

Obama's victory speech - courtesy of Tim Cohen

"I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try."

via www.bdlive.co.za

This will go down as something as great as Churchill, Martin Luther King, Mandela or JFK ever said.

Sipho Zikode backtracks and shows his hand – and SED is still a travesty

Sipho has been in the press recently. Our Seep is the spokesman for the DTI who was quoted by IOL

DTI spokesman Sipho Zikode explained today on 567MW Cape Talk that that proposal was for a pro-rata sliding scale - with 100 per cent funding for organisations with 100 per cent black beneficiaries, and less thereafter.

Let's help Seep here. When you are looking through the proposed codes you'll see this line

[ ] Words in bold type in square brackets indicate deletions from existing enactments

Now off we go to paragraph 3.2.2 (I have emboldened the bold part

3.2.2 The full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions made to beneficiaries is recognisable if at least [75%] 100% of the value directly benefits black people.

Thus far Seep is correct. However his contention on the airwaves that it is pro-rated is refuted by paragraph 3.2.3

[If less than 75% of the full value of Socio-Economic Development Contributions directly benefits black people, the value of the contribution made multiplied by the percentage that benefits black people, is recognisable].

I don't agree with Dylan Edwards, who wrote in The Greater Good that

it seems that this an oversight, rather than an attempt to divert funding away from charities, or to manipulate charities into turning away white beneficiaries.

This is clearly someone who has no fucking idea about what he's talking about. And he's the deputy DG as well.

Trust me; there is no fundamental understanding of the economy and as such even less of an understanding of the codes and other transformation charters within the DTI.

Seep was also talking about late payments etc. at some function this week. And I quote

Though the charter was gazetted in 2009, black-owned businesses and professionals in the sector continued to face many problems, he said. These included lack of access to finance and big private sector and government contracts.

Other challenges included fronting, and late payments from big companies and the government. Late payment had caused the demise of many small companies.

And not forgetting the Manyi approved (and perfected) race card

Further, professional industry bodies were mainly run by whites.

The late payment argument is an interesting one. Here we have the mouthpiece for the DTI lamenting about late payment when his boss, the venerable Rob Davies doesn't pay much credence to prompt payment. Id est (taken from the new ED benefit factor matrix)

Percentage being 15 days less the number of days from invoice to payment. Maximum points that can be scored is 15% of 15 points under Enterprise and Supplier Development

Oh the irony.

Whilst I am debating prompt payment. Thinus alerted me to this thing on prompt payment which Rob published on the 2^nd of November about prompt payment, you've only got 30 days to comment on this. I suppose that Rob had to publish this now even though he's published a document that will contribute to the genocide of millions of destitute South Africans and cause the ultimate demise of the only hope for any form of equitable representation in our economy.

In general there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with the document other than limiting prompt payment to EME's. Why is this? And no, I'm not going to ask who the fuck Rob thinks he is even though I know the answer is Stalin.