Whoever mentioned "emotional' was spot-on
. BEE is not just about hiring PDI's over PAI's, it involves a whole lot off things including achieving equality by giving PDI's preference (this means, of the two or more qualified applicants, hire the PDI one. Not just hire an unqualified IT Tech to be an IT Dir just cause he's black as you imply) , advancing PDI's (through mentoring/coaching etc), Bursaries & study loans etc, on the side of employment.
On the side of procurement it takes into account % of ownership & management by PDI's, procurement from BEE compliant companies, promotion of ppl with disabilities etc. So anyone who says BEE benefits the rich only is mistaken, yes to a large extent they benefit greatly (ie make large sums of money) whilst the rest benefit minimally which is just one of the problems; but, if company A has to have "X" percentage of PDI managers/owners and has to procure its goods from company B & C (which also has "X" percentage of PDI owners/managers & procures from company D&E) then everyone of those people PDI people benefit.
So yes its not benefiting as many as it should but your opinion is clearly not based on reason alone.
You are misunderstanding me. If you have 2 exact candididates and you pick person B as you think they are the best fit for your organisation, and this person happens to be black, the BEE has no effect. It had no influence on your decision so it wouldn't have mattered.
BEE only has any effect if it causes someone to take person B over person A because of race/gender. In which case it meant that you didn't choose the person who you as the employer believed would be best (In the absence of BEE)
Mentoring or coaching is a very important concept or business, but if you are just doing it in order to train your PDI's and it wasn't par for the course then BEE increases the costs of hiring that PDI. So it increases the costs of doing business.
It is the same thing for bursaries or study loans, if you would've given the person a bursury anyway, then does BEE have any implications? No. If you are only doing it as you feel it will enhance your BEE credentials, then you have increased the costs of employing that person.
Again for ownership. If some people get capital to start a business by virtue of a sound business plan etc. etc. then BEE has no effect. If however they get a loan due to their BEE credentials, then it can increase the costs of doing business for banks. If a white guy for example needs a BEE partner, then it increases the cost of doing business for him (As now he has to pay his BEE partner due to legislation) as it removes from his bottom line.
BEE only has ANY effect if it causes a person to choose A over B by virtue of race/gender. In that case there are winners and losers.
But the issue is not whether person A benefits at the expense of person B. That is obvious.
The issue does it have greater implications on the economy and he was asked for the cons (Against BEE).
I'm against any measure that increases the costs of hiring people, as it results in increases in unemployement (Standard supply/demand. Price goes up, demand drops)
Then there are the social/political implications which play a role on the economy as a whole. Something seen as a major problem in this country is the wage gap. BEE doesn't incentivise those with skills to stay here if they would lose out because of it. It incentivises them to leave. I don't think everyone will or wants to leave but it definately does have an impact.
This merely increases the skills gap and the wage gap is simply a result of that. The irony when it always comes to wage gap discussions is that "something must be done", particularly to higher income earners. Their salaries need to be capped or they need to be taxed more.
The wage gap is simply a sympton of the real problem which is skills shortages... BEE can possibly have an effect from both sides. It can force people to leave with their skills and it can also give others the oppertunity to gain skills. But if there are 2 jobs open, and person A gets a job over person B because of BEE. And person B gets the second opening, then demand met supply and you have no problem. Overall BEE hasn't any real effect other than the BEE candidate getting more than person B.
Which is just a transfer of wealth. But when person B cannot get that job, then you have lost out as a whole, as a more productive member of the economy has been replaced by a less productive member.
If it was good for business the market would've instituted BEE itself. It is really that simple. The fact that we need state involvement, menas that the market does not deem BEE as the best thing for it. Period.
