The Renate Barnard - SAPS - Discrimination Case

DigitalSoldier said:
I actually agree with much of what you are saying. I also have no problem with AA/BEE, it has not affected me either so you won't see me complaining but, I have a problem with people in position they are not qualified for or critical positions being left vacant cos no black person is available for the position.
Click to expand...

Yeah it can unfortunately open itself up to abuse.
 
DigitalSoldier said:
I actually agree with much of what you are saying. I also have no problem with AA/BEE, it has not affected me either so you won't see me complaining but, I have a problem with people in position they are not qualified for or critical positions being left vacant cos no black person is available for the position.
Click to expand...

I agree, if there is no suitable black person to fill the job to times in a row, why pass up someone who is perfectly qualified for the position based on color?!
 
Smooth Criminal said:
Slight correction there:
BEE has nothing to do with redistribution, it's about economic growth and getting the previously disadvantaged more involved in contributing to the economy.

EE on the other hand introduces preferential procurement. In terms of the BEE framework, all non-whites are considered black. In terms of EE, you have the specific structure (black female, black male, coloured female, etc.)
Click to expand...


BEE is not about economic growth. Economic growth comes down to productivity. The best person for the job is the most productive person. The person who will add the most value.

If the best person is ignored because of colour and the next best person is employed, productivity and hence economic growth will be worse of, if compared to productivity if the best person was employed.

BBE: All else being equal the distribution of jobs according to colour should be the same across the board. (80% black, 10% white and 10% other I think) . BEE aims to achieve this by awarding jobs so that their distribtuion goals can be achieved, however the cost is LESS economic growth as the most productive people aren't necessarily employed.
 
Last edited:
Smooth Criminal said:
If I didn't understand the BEE framework as much as I do now, then I would tend to agree with you.

But I have to disagree. Apartheid left black people (black in the sense of non-white) with little capital. When democracy arrived, they were not able to take advantage of it because they had no capital to invest in the first place. What you then have is 10% of the population contributing towards the country's GDP. This effectively meant that our country was operating at 10% of it's potential.

If we were to grow and realise our full potential, there is no question that it was essential to get the non-white population involved. Most people don't realise that you don't have to be black owned to be BEE compliant. Companies with less than R5 mil turnover are automatically BEE compliant. And larger companies improve their BEE profile by doing business with smaller companies.

EE is just one aspect of BEE, and in most instances it doesn't even apply. It was put in place to expand on the narrow-based approach of black ownership being the sole requirement for BEE compliancy, as most people just sold shares to their wives to meet the requirement.

I may not be 100% accurate in my understanding, so somebody with more knowledge on the matter is free to correct me :)
Click to expand...


I agree that you need people to be productive, but if 10% of the country is highly productive and you fire them to employ people who aren't as productive(As they don't have the skills and experience), total output and economic productivity decreases.

If you want to maximize growth you need to maximize productivity. In order to do this people must become productive - EDUCATION!

If people started getting skills that society valued they would become productive members. Thats what we need. Education and skills.
 
this is racism tho. having her get the job could only improve the community, she isn't stepping over anyone and cheating her way to the top, she genuinely worked hard for it. and now she is being held by a system that was suppose to help fix the country, but it's robbing those that DO genuinely work hard
 
Smooth Criminal said:
If I didn't understand the BEE framework as much as I do now, then I would tend to agree with you.

But I have to disagree. Apartheid left black people (black in the sense of non-white) with little capital. When democracy arrived, they were not able to take advantage of it because they had no capital to invest in the first place. What you then have is 10% of the population contributing towards the country's GDP. This effectively meant that our country was operating at 10% of it's potential.

If we were to grow and realise our full potential, there is no question that it was essential to get the non-white population involved. Most people don't realise that you don't have to be black owned to be BEE compliant. Companies with less than R5 mil turnover are automatically BEE compliant. And larger companies improve their BEE profile by doing business with smaller companies.

EE is just one aspect of BEE, and in most instances it doesn't even apply. It was put in place to expand on the narrow-based approach of black ownership being the sole requirement for BEE compliancy, as most people just sold shares to their wives to meet the requirement.

I may not be 100% accurate in my understanding, so somebody with more knowledge on the matter is free to correct me :)
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you and I have no problem what the idea was behind this. But why put civilians in harms way and all other services because you cant find a black person. Rather employ the best person for the job so that job can be fulfilled in helping you and me.

But currently this is the scenario that we will rather that the citizens murdered because we cant get some one to do the job that is black.

Thats why I had my first comment when it come to the right of us and safety then look past the colour and get the right person in the position.
 
WilD_CaT said:
BEE is not about economic growth. Economic growth comes down to productivity. The best person for the job is the most productive person. The person who will add the most value.

If the best person is ignored because of colour and the next best person is employed, productivity and hence economic growth will be worse of, if compared to productivity if the best person was employed.

BBE: All else being equal the distribution of jobs according to colour should be the same across the board. (80% black, 10% white and 10% other I think) . BEE aims to achieve this by awarding jobs so that their distribtuion goals can be achieved, however the cost is LESS economic growth as the most productive people aren't necessarily employed.
Click to expand...

WilD_CaT said:
I agree that you need people to be productive, but if 10% of the country is highly productive and you fire them to employ people who aren't as productive(As they don't have the skills and experience), total output and economic productivity decreases.

If you want to maximize growth you need to maximize productivity. In order to do this people must become productive - EDUCATION!

If people started getting skills that society valued they would become productive members. Thats what we need. Education and skills.
Click to expand...
You guys don't seem to get it. It's not about firing people and replacing them with people of colour. It's got nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth. How do you propose people gain the skills and experience if they aren't given the chance? When the advent of democracy, the only people who had the skills and experience were white. By your logic, white people should be given the benefit based purely on this.

I agree on your point about education. But again, in order to attain the required skills, you need to get your foot in the door. How is that ever going to happen when most of the experienced folks are white? Eventually the curve will flatten and everyone will be on a level playing field. But until then you can be safe in the knowledge that you will not be fired in order to make way for a previously disadvantaged individual.

And I'm not advocating this lady not getting the job - by all means if there was nobody else available then she should have got it. As I said, it can open itself up to abuse. Anyway I'm not a fundi on the subject, I've only delved a little bit into reading the codes of good practice. There is A LOT of information pertaining to the framework. My gripe is that it's not quite as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
 
Last edited:
There is no way you can advocate that the 2nd most productive person is a greater benefit to society that the most productive person. Pure and simple.

With regards to trying to alleviate the problem, you are asserting that if someone gets a job based on colour, their kids will get educated and thus societies productive members will grow. That is the case regardless of colour.

Next point. Society was never always this advanced and this wealthy. We got to this point by taking on jobs, earning a very little and living a pretty harsh existance and over time we were able to save, educate and improve our standards of living.

This results in real changes, real increases in productivity and standards of living. Artificially changing things now doesn't result in the process moving along quicker.

You want the poor and uneducated to get jobs. Take away minimum wage and deregulate the labour market. Then companies have the money to employ lots of people for a lot less. This means more workers. More workers means more productivity. If you increase the supply of goods and services(Increased productivity), the cost of goods and services decreases. (Supply and demand theory)

If labour is cheaper the cost of goods and services decreases. (Cost of inputs is less)

So we have have a society where people get employed. They may not earn much but since goods are cheaper their buying power has increased so they are wealthier. Since goods are cheap we are able to compete on the export market without devaluing the Rand as we are actually competitive and not artificially so. If the Rand doesn't lose value imports will be cheaper and so not only local goods but imported goods will be cheaper.

Once again buying power has increased and people are wealthier.

More employed people will result in less crime. Less of a cost to society. Society is wealthier.

More people working and being paid = more taxes. (Not that taxes are good but taxation is a reality). More taxes = greater services delivery(In theory) which will result in higher standards of living and greater education.

From here on out the sky is the limit.
 
Last edited:
Smooth Criminal said:
You guys don't seem to get it. It's not about firing people and replacing them with people of colour. It's got nothing to do with the redistribution of wealth. How do you propose people gain the skills and experience if they aren't given the chance? When the advent of democracy, the only people who had the skills and experience were white. By your logic, white people should be given the benefit based purely on this.

I agree on your point about education. But again, in order to attain the required skills, you need to get your foot in the door. How is that ever going to happen when most of the experienced folks are white? Eventually the curve will flatten and everyone will be on a level playing field. But until then you can be safe in the knowledge that you will not be fired in order to make way for a previously disadvantaged individual.

And I'm not advocating this lady not getting the job - by all means if there was nobody else available then she should have got it. As I said, it can open itself up to abuse. Anyway I'm not a fundi on the subject, I've only delved a little bit into reading the codes of good practice. There is A LOT of information pertaining to the framework. My gripe is that it's not quite as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
Click to expand...

No offense but thats like saying I'll let a varsity leaver design and implement a bridge. You need to get the experiance first. Without it, we have the monumental F*** ups of today ( eskom ,telkom , saa etc ).

Oh and experiance is just another education in a less formal environment ( for Wildcats sake :p ).
 
Last edited:
Get used to it. I know many whites who have been victims of this kind of racism thanks to our government's laws.

My brother in law who has twice won best salesman of the year (out of 30 ppl) in Western Cape in his (very big multinational) company was told that although he's the best he won't make manager coz he is a white guy. 8 years experience in this job. The previous manager quit and they made him temporary manager until they hired a 23 year old black idiot with no experience and a mediocre diploma to be his manager! This idiot couldn't even use Windows XP!

Disgraceful, disgusting, fscking wrong...
 
The worst thing is not the fact that its happening, but the fact that it is held up as some great thing, a triumph that benefits everyone.
 
milano said:
Since when does enthusiasm and passion count? This is SA. It's all about building a non-racial (black) democracy. Wake up whitie!
Click to expand...

I think when you become a victim of the incompetence that has infiltrated and is now so prevalent in many of these professions (doctor, lawyer etc), where there is a specific responsibility to be discharged, where lives of vulnerable people are involved and their trust is unconditionally given, you will be singing a different tune.

BEE, AA, EE or any other social manipuation has no place in such professions.

A typical Police Station is now full off gormless individuals. They have no verbal skills and their understanding of even simple sentences is on par with a 5 year old. This is where dealing with the public, many perhaps in some distress, is a skill that cannot be compromised.

The few times I have been in to a Police Station, it has been a struggle. You speak to the guy behind the counter, he does not understand. You try again, some understanding but much still largely misunderstood. You simplify, one slow word at a time and add hand gestures. At last a modicum of success, and then he just gives you a form to fill in. This is all they have remembered from their training - to follow A, B and C - and even this they fail at. They cannot take the initiative or think on their feet. All essential attributes. Bottom line, unsuited to the job, untrainable and no ability to learn from experience.
 
Restitution based on skin color and at the expense of merit is madness!

Who decides what is equitable and what not? Who here knows how much and by what margin somebody has been done in by Apartheid?

Surely the restitution period cannot be longer than the 5 decades of apartheid. We have 1.5 decades down, 3.5 to go...
 
Smooth Criminal said:
Slight correction there:
BEE has nothing to do with redistribution, it's about economic growth and getting the previously disadvantaged more involved in contributing to the economy.

EE on the other hand introduces preferential procurement. In terms of the BEE framework, all non-whites are considered black. In terms of EE, you have the specific structure (black female, black male, coloured female, etc.)
Click to expand...

Thats all good and well, but in a situation where the lives of the general public are literally at stake depending on the depth and experience of the SAPS should BEE/EE not be disregarded. This is a matter of public safety and I think everyone should be campaigning against the SAPS, especially when it's my neck on the line! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X