OLD or NEW South Africa

[JanChris]

Is it still applicable for personnel agencies and companies, to advertise for "AA" or "previously disadvantaged", when seeking candidates for a vacancy. When you advertise for a "white" candidate you are not allowed and your add wont be placed in the printed media. Are the "previously disadvantaged" youngsters still "disadvantaged" or are they now going to use it to their "advantage".

[HR Solutions]

Yes it is applicable

[JanChris]

Yes it is applicable

Can you explain why and how long will it take to correct and is "AA" going to be used as an excuse, as most "other" things in the country?

[HR Solutions]

We have discussed this previously on another thread if you recall whereby you didn't like my answer then. Why don't you search back.

[JanChris]

We have discussed this previously on another thread if you recall whereby you didn't like my answer then. Why don't you search back.

I do not think it is the same question. Why reluctant to answer or please refer me to your "previous" comment.

[HR Solutions]

Not reluctant - just not into the same "backlash" - do a search

[JanChris]

Not reluctant - just not into the same "backlash" - do a search

I have but do not seem to find your "response" to be relevant to my question.

[HR Solutions]

Jan - Companies do state whether they want AA, EE etc etc .....
Its a fact and nothing wrong with it. People fit in where they qualify to fit in.
Its not up to us to decide whether it is right or wrong - its the law and if companies want to hire according to equity etc its their choice, and their choice if they want to comply with certain tender requirements etc etc, therefore it is not the agency that is right or wrong.

[Justloadit]

Maybe the thread being referred to is BBBEE wrong

[Justloadit]

There are a number of threads in the 'BEE and Employment Equity Forum'

[AndyD]

Is it still applicable for personnel agencies and companies, to advertise for "AA".........

I think if you change the question around a little it does make interesting discussion. Given that AA was legally implimented to redress the balance, at what point must the line be drawn and the policy must fall away? It can't go on indefinately because if it's working the balance will at some point have been redressed and if it's not working it needs to be stopped and a new method found. Either way surely there's got to be a time limit.

[Greig Whitton]

Given that AA was legally implimented to redress the balance, at what point must the line be drawn and the policy must fall away? It can't go on indefinately because if it's working the balance will at some point have been redressed and if it's not working it needs to be stopped and a new method found. Either way surely there's got to be a time limit.

Should the same logic apply to other laws and policies? At a certain point, should the prohibition of violent crime or consumer exploitation - for example - be withdrawn and/or substituted? If not, why not?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but thoughtful responses are welcome)

[Justloadit]

Should the same logic apply to other laws and policies? At a certain point, should the prohibition of violent crime or consumer exploitation - for example - be withdrawn and/or substituted? If not, why not?

(I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, but thoughtful responses are welcome)

You can not place crime in the same plane as AA/BEE.
BEE is a legalized form of "Apartheid/Racism", at what point is the world going to continue to tolerate this?
It is the same as placing a placard on a bench in the park - "Only non whites allowed to sit here, we are trying to redress the past"

[Greig Whitton]

You can not place crime in the same plane as AA/BEE.

I respectfully disagree. The purpose of any legislation is to shape social behaviour. We don't want people to commit crimes, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise crime. Similarly, we don't want people to discriminate against others on the basis of race or perpetuate historical prejudices, so we implement laws that prohibit and penalise those behaviours.

The behaviours may differ, but the purpose of the legislation is identical.

Any argument for the failure of AA/B-BBEE on the basis that those policies and laws still exist, can be extended to any other legislation or law that still exists. Ergo, when will we abolish the laws prohibiting violent crime? The answer is obvious: when people stop committing violent crime. Until that day arrives, less obvious questions arise:

Are our laws prohibiting violent crime effective? (i.e. the problem lies with the legislation)
Is the implementation of our laws effective? (i.e. the problem lies with our legal system)
Is violent crime inevitable and unavoidable? (i.e. the problem lies with human nature)

All of these questions can (and should) be directed to the AA and B-BBEE legislation as well.

[Greig Whitton]

BEE is a legalized form of "Apartheid/Racism", at what point is the world going to continue to tolerate this?

Considering that affirmative action is used (to varying degrees) by China, India, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Canada, and the United States, I suspect that "the world" is not too concerned about our own affirmative action.