Unless a CEO is prepared to go on the record, his or her message should perhaps simply not be recorded or, at least, little value should be placed on it. Perhaps we should treat corporate South Africa's armies of spin-doctors with more caution. I know it is hard for executives to "take on" a minister, but there are countless ways it can be done productively.
These executives are failing in the most fundamental way. They are failing to protect their shareholders. They may think that by kissing the government boot they are keeping the wolf from the door, but they are not. They should learn to speak up; to have the courage of their convictions. It isn't necessary to shout. But to speak or write in measured terms of their industry, or legislation that might affect it, means we might begin to have something approaching an authentic conversation about the future of our economy. Gordhan was right. It isn't his fault when companies pay homage to policies they profoundly disagree with.
So said Peter Bruce in this week's Thick End of the Wedge column. He's completely right. There is an innate fear of government reprisals for any form of dissent. Ask Reuel Khoza about what happened to him when he apparently uttered something like "South Africa's strange breed of leaders is a threat to democracy." I think Mr Khoza managed to rise above this and gained an incredible amount of respect from a variety of quarters as a result.
Here I am raising money for a court case against the minister of trade and industry. A court case that would have huge implications for corporates. These implications range from the sheer cost of implementing what the dti wants to sending a message to the government that they many not operate beyond their constitutional mandate (which Rob has most definitely done). Thus far I have not had doors slammed on me but I have fairly good idea that listed corporates would not be that keen to support it. As someone said to me last week, no listed company would go for this because the donation would be reflected in their annual report. All it takes is one shareholder to question the contribution and then be accused of being anti-transformation. I think their fear is justified because of the sensitivity of transformation and race. The fact remains that anyone who supports this action is defending the constitution and preventing the government from barrelling our constitutional rights.
I then turned my attention to those minority groups that will be dramatically effected by the management and skills development codes. The two tables below show the contributions that Coloureds and Indians make to both those elements. Both tables draw the stats from the latest EE Commission Annual Report.
Management/EE
This is simple enough. The 1.69 points are the maximum number of points that Africans will contribute to any measurement under senior to junior management. The total number of points is 2. You have to ask yourself the question why any self-respecting company would be interested in hiring Coloureds or Indians if the maximum number of points that they can be awarded is just on 0.3 points. This will barely make a difference to the overall score. Dispense with them and focus on Africans (right now a generic term – but who knows when it is going to be broken down into a tribal EAP).
|
Male EAP |
Female EAP |
TOTAL |
Black points' contribution |
Black female points' contribution |
|
|
African |
40.70% |
34.20% |
74.90% |
1.69 |
0.85 |
|
Coloured |
5.80% |
5.00% |
10.80% |
0.24 |
0.12 |
|
Indian |
1.90% |
1.10% |
3.00% |
0.07 |
0.03 |
Skills Development
This is a more alarming measurement category. If you have 6% of payroll to spend on training (which you now have under the revised codes) then you are required to spend over 5% on the training of Africans.
|
Male EAP |
Black points' contribution |
Female EAP |
Black female points' contribution |
|
|
African |
40.70% |
2.75 |
34.20% |
2.31 |
|
Coloured |
5.80% |
0.39 |
5.00% |
0.34 |
|
Indian |
1.90% |
0.13 |
1.10% |
0.07 |
Let's assume that your target spend amount is R600. This is what you would spend on each race group
|
African Male |
R275 |
|
African Female |
R231 |
|
Coloured Male |
R39 |
|
Coloured Female |
R34 |
|
Indian Male |
R13 |
|
Indian Female |
R7 |
In case you were wondering whether the R7 is a typo, it's not, it's what the dti wants. What's the message here – do not invest in the skills of your Coloured and Indian employees. Send them on silly little NQF aligned courses that don't do anything for them or the company.
And white training – that's an additional expense.
The message I got from a respected Coloured academic this morning is that influential Coloureds won't support this because they are too in with the government.
Back to the court case
The pat-on-the-back support is overwhelming. "We are very proud of you", a company director told me. But that's as far as it has gone. It then seems that the money will be raised from smaller companies and concerned entities. Those that benefit the most from this will be those larger corporates who employ the most people. The dti (and hopefully the government too) will be sent back to the drawing board and will have to find other ways to drive their bizarre racist policies. And we'll all win. The issue here is that smaller companies have smaller pockets and they cannot finance battles that larger corporates will benefit the most from.
If this economy is going to survive another Zuma term it needs to take a stand on a variety of issues and this has to be led by those who sit at the top.
Comments