A rebuttal of Manyi's statements regarding the latest CEE report

Solidarity briefly reviewed the latest report from the Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) on affirmative action (see here - PDF) and came to the following conclusions:

1. In his speech today, the Chairperson of the CEE, Mr Jimmy Manyi, referred to Convention 111 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), which obliges member states to "enact mechanisms of redress". Mr Manyi conveniently decided not to acknowledge that the ILO also states that affirmative action measures may not be of a permanent nature. In the same speech, Mr Manyi once again said that calls for a sunset clause for affirmative action in South African are "premature". This is despite the ILO's clear stipulation that affirmative action must have a definite end.

2. The CEE's report also asserts that the information in their report debunks all speculation about a skills shortage in South Africa. This is despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, including the fact that two years ago the ANC's own Gwede Mantashe said that at any given time more than 40% of technical positions at South African municipalities are vacant, despite the fact that the ANC controls the vast majority of municipal councils. Many independent research organisations, including Solidarity's own research department, have issued comprehensive reports detailing the nature and scope of the problem and what should be done to effect a solution. All of this is apparently untrue, according to Mr Manyi.

3. This year there was an increase in the number of reports received by the CEE. The reason for this was probably the fact that companies were able to submit their reports electronically for the first time this year. In total, 10 580 reports were received. However, only 7 227 reports were analysed, while 3 351 (32%) of the reports received weren't analysed. No reason was given for the exclusion of these reports. The CEE once again compiled an overview of a different number of companies and a different number of workers compared to all previous years. This already renders any conclusions with respect to any changes in representation statistically dubious.

The complete lack of correct statistical methodology is the same as in all the previous years. The CEE's report even includes some mistakes with simple addition. Solidarity, MarkData, Ipsos-Markinor and the Sociology of Work Unit at Wits University last year already pointed out these glaring errors in CEE's methodology.

The researchers at Wits (who were commissioned to study the situation by the Department of Labour) concluded that "... the reports were worthless as a means of determining change in the labour market". This year, the CEE's chairperson only remarked that there were "unsuccessful efforts" last year by "rightwing elements" to discredit the report. He does not give any evidence as to why the criticisms are invalid.

4. The CEE's report asserts that black people are not promoted at skilled and professionally qualified levels. The report says that promotions at these levels disproportionately favour the white group. However, the representation of black people at the professional level was 31,4% in 2002 and 46,3% in 2008. White men's representation decreased from 47,4% in 2002 to 33,2% in 2008 and white women from 21,1% in 2002 to 18,4% in 2008. The figures at the skilled level moved in the same direction. If the CEE's assertion was correct, all of these figures should have moved in exactly the opposite directions.

5. Despite saying that this year's report details "progress or lack thereof" with affirmative action at all occupational levels, Mr Manyi again largely focused at the four upper levels of the workforce. The number of workers at the four upper levels surveyed by the CEE was only 5,6% of the economically active population of South Africa. This year Mr Manyi was again particularly unhappy with top and senior management levels.

These two levels constitute only 0,4% of the economically active population of South Africa. To use the apparent disproportionate representation of white people at these levels (who make up only a miniscule part of the labour force) to justify the application of draconian affirmative action policies at every single level, is incomprehensible.

Even taking into account the flawed nature of the reports that are biased against submission by employers who have already achieved racial targets, the representation of black people at the upper levels of companies is still steadily increasing. At senior management level, the representation of black women increased from 5,3% in 2002 to 10% in 2008 and black men increased from 16,9% to 22,5%. At top management level, black women increased from 3,3% in 2002 to 6,1% in 2008. Black men increased from 15,1% to 18,1%.

Statement issued by Solidarity, August 24 2009

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter