New salary laws planned for South Africa could backfire spectacularly

[Tman543]

I don't see the big deal, all positions have a salary range and is already known to most staff in a company that have been around the block.

It might reveal some odd cases here and there as mentioned below

It’s good to know. I knew of a secretary earning R750k pa. she was 40 years old. Wasn’t an executives secretary, normal departmental secretary. The ME had his own secretary. This was in 2011.
Very strange.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Would be good to know that everyone at the same level doing same work gets similar remuneration. Some companies have such disparities that are simply too wide they are indefensible.

Does the same level equate to the same roles and responsibilities, or is this going by designation only?

I know various corporations where new employers earn more than their counterparts. Credentials and experience can also add to your remuneration. Companies also explore growth potential, where salaries also serve as a retention mechanic. From experience, where a company deems an individual grounded with no room to advance, it would show in a salary. Anyway, I have a lot to add to this topic, but I don't know whether I want to.

 

[ScrooV]

And what on detail must it be disclosed on?
This could be invasion of privacy on employees as individuals.

• changing the definition of “securities”;
• providing for the definition of “true owner”;
• providing for the preparation, presentation and voting on companies’ remuneration policies and directors’ remuneration implementation reports;
• providing for the filing of annual financial statements and copies of companies’ securities registers and registers of disclosure of beneficial ownership with the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission;
• differentiating where the right to gain access to companies’ records may be limited;
• clarifying when a notice of amendment of a memorandum of incorporation takes effect;
• empowering the court to validate the irregular creation, allotment or issue of shares;
• clarifying certain aspects relating to partly paid shares;
• excluding subsidiary companies from certain of the requirements relating to inter-group financial assistance;
• providing for instances where a special resolution is required for the acquisition of shares by a company;
• extending the definition of an employee share scheme to include situations where there are purchases of shares of a company;
• providing for the circumstances under which a private company will be a regulated company in the context of affected transactions;
• providing for circumstances where a company is unable to identify the persons who hold a beneficial interest in its securities;
• dealing with the composition of the social and ethics committee and the publication of the application for exemption from the requirement to appoint a social and ethics committee;
• providing for the presentation and approval of the social and ethics committee report at the annual general meeting or other meetings of shareholders; and
• ensuring the differentiation of duties between the chairperson of the Companies Tribunal and its chief operation officer.

I wonder how many people here against this have ever been told: "Sorry not enough money for bonuses this year or increases next year"

 

[Fulcrum29]

I don't see the big deal, all positions have a salary range and is already known to most staff in a company that have been around the block.

It might reveal some odd cases here and there as mentioned below

Would you like your salary to be discussed in public?

 

[Mystic Twilight]

Disclose to whom?

Publicly accessible information, it won't be sars requiring this since they should already know what you earn.

Would be good to know that everyone at the same level doing same work gets similar remuneration. Some companies have such disparities that are simply too wide they are indefensible.

You forget experience. There was a labour dispute case somewhat recently over pay difference for the same job, court dismissed the case as it was justified that the person with many years of experience deserved to earn more than the newbie who just started.

 

[Illegal Allien]

Publicly accessible information, it won't be sars requiring this since they should already know what you earn.



You forget experience. There was a labour dispute case somewhat recently over pay difference for the same job, court dismissed the case as it was justified that the person with many years of experience deserved to earn more than the newbie who just started.

I wish it was due to experience, a new hire was earning close to 35% more than her team mates, HR tried to fob it off as being the going market rate for the position. Sad to say that lady was a very poor hire and had to be let go for poor performance.

 

[konfab]

The Scandanavian countries already do this to some extent, except it is at a tax return level, not a salary level.

You need a population that actually values merit before you do this IMO. People have to expunge their jealousy of the success others before something like this will not have any negative side effects. Norway has an interesting system in that they tell you who accessed your information.

If they want to do it, it should be you need to be a taxpayer and need to be logged in. And that making a searchable third-party backup of the information is illegal.

You could actually rid the country of all race based employment policy with this, whilst still reducing inequality. Instead of favouring people based on their race, you favour people based on how much they have earned in the past 5 years.

This defaults to favouring unemployed people, or people who have never worked. Then it favours lower income workers. Then it favours people wanting to move up. Then it favours people who already have well paying jobs.

It is a simple math equation as to who a company should pick if all other things are equal.

 

[cguy]

I doubt this will pass - will be a bit of a s%#t show. Imagine having to worry about disgruntlement every time you want to make a strategic hire.

There are some companies (and even the US government) that have elected to make their salaries public. One thing that stands out, is that the wages are all very flat. You don’t have software engineer A earning 3x more than B, C and D, etc. The reality is they would never make such a hire because of the strife it would cause. It’s nothing but a handicap.

For interest:

Transparent Salaries | Buffer

See a transparent list of the Buffer team’s salaries, along with Buffer’s salary formula and overall approach to compensation.

buffer.com

EDIT: Just noticed one lucky South African on there making R1.8m/y as Software Engineer III.

 

[rietrot]

What a person gets paid is between them and their boss. It has nothing to do with anyone else.

This is communist nonsense.

 

[supersunbird]

Yeah..... not a good idea at all. Imagine how morale in a company will drop when they find out what the boss earns. Nobody takes into account the hard work that is put in on executive level. 7 days a week, 20 hours a day while the low level staff do a normal 9 to 5 with little to now responsibilities.

I definitely don't want my fellow employees to know what I earn, nor do I want to know what they earn.

Guess they have to report the work times too then, to weed out execs that only do 9 to 5 and thus don't earn their keep.

 

[killerbyte]

I wonder how many people here against this have ever been told: "Sorry not enough money for bonuses this year or increases next year"

I am against it and I have been told that line many times! What I earn is between me and my employer. My work is valued at a certain amount, and it is up to me to increase my value to the company and then go negotiate.