Quarterly Labour Force Survey: StatsSA briefing; NEHAWU Memorandum

This premium content has been made freely available

Employment and Labour

14 October 2020
Chairperson: Ms M Dunjwa (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour (NA) 14 Oct 2020

Quarterly Labour Force Surve

The Committee met with Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) on a virtual platform to discuss the quarterly labour force survey. This was followed by a discussion of a memorandum from the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) that had been referred to the Committee.

StatsSA reported that it usually collected information for its quarterly labour force survey (QLFS) on a face-to-face basis, but because of Covid-19 they had had to change their approach and had collected data through phone calls. This had raised many doubts, as the validity and credibility of the findings were being questioned.

An issue that raised much debate was the definition of unemployment. Members argued that the international definition did not reflect the situation on the ground in South Africa, and therefore urged that adjustments be made. The definition also raised concern over its effect on the findings, as the survey revealed that the unemployment rate during the lockdown had decreased by 6.8 percentage points, to 23.3%. The labour absorption rate had decreased by 5.8 percentage points, while the labour force participation rate had decreased by 13 percentage points.

Questions were raised on the effect of the inclusion of 15-year-olds in the computation of the unemployment rate. This was seen as a loophole in the credibility of the data. However, StatsSA defended their findings, stating that there would not be any further adjustments to their report. Their data was freely available online for downloading, and individual researchers could compute and compare if they wanted to come up with different estimates.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL) was meant to ensure that people were employed, but its main responsibility was to ensure that conducive working environments were created. Although the lockdowns may go, Covid-19 had come to stay. The DEL’s job was to ensure that all departments created that conducive working environment. She said the presentation by Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) would empower the Portfolio Committee.

Quarterly Labour Force Survey

Ms Malerato Mosiane, Manager: Labour Statistics, StatsSA, made a presentation on behalf of the Statistician-General, Mr Risenga Maluleke, who was absent from the meeting. The briefing was based on the quarterly labour force survey (QLFS) that was released on 29 September 2020.

Stats SA usually collects information face-to-face, but could not this time around because of Covid-19, so it had changed its approach and collected QLFS data through computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). To facilitate CATI, the sample that was used for the first quarter QLFS was also used in the second quarter, in order to have as many telephone numbers as possible. Only 63% of that sample had telephone numbers. This had raised some biases in the estimates produced for quarter two, as the information was now collected only from households for which they had stored telephone numbers, as they had not kept all the contacts. However, adjustments measures were made to provide for the bias introduced by going to telephone-only households.

She shared the definitions used by StatsSA in their data collection. For a person to be regarded as unemployed according to the official definition of unemployment, a person should be of working age; not employed in the reference week, and had actively looked for work or tried to start a business in the four weeks preceding the survey interview, and was available for work.  People had different ways of looking for work that were regarded as active job search activities. Examples for these were people asking their friends and family members if there were job opportunities in the places where they worked, or waiting on street curbs where casual workers were usually found. These activities were not possible due to the ongoing lockdowns, however. On another hand, some could still use online advertising that required no movement. This meant that the unemployment rate was at 23.3% on 29 August.   Otherwise, if anyone did not look for work, they would not be able to publish anything, as the unemployment rate would be zero.

There had been a notable increase in “other not economically active populations,” as it was seen that some people were moving in while others moved out of employment, and this had increased the number of people completely out of the labour force by about 5.2 million between quarter 1 and 2.  The phenomenal increase was not unique to South Africa, but rather a global phenomenon, as other countries had also seen a huge increase in the population that was not economically active.

Stats SA could not unilaterally just change the definitions because of the lockdown. The QLFS estimates were produced using the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definitions. The use of the same definitions was to enable comparisons of the statistics, despite the impact of the national lockdown due to Covid-19.

There were 2.2 million fewer people employed in Quarter 2. South Africa had 39 million people of working age (15 to 64 years old), with a labour force of 18.4 million. The labour force consisted of the employed and unemployed. 14.1 million people were employed and 4.3 million people were unemployed, of whom 2.5 million were counted as discouraged work-seekers.

The decline in the number of employed and unemployed had resulted in a decrease in the unemployment rate from 30.1% in the first quarter, to 23.3% in the second quarter. Large movements were noted in all three segments of the labour market, as the number of employed moved from 16.4 million to 14.1 million, and from 7.1 million to 4.3 million for the unemployed.  Discouraged work-seekers saw a shift from 2.9 million to 2.5 million, while the economically inactive ranged from 12.5 million to 18.1 million. These were all records showing the shifts between the first and second quarter of 2020.

There had been a 39.2% contraction in the number of unemployed, and an increase of 33% of those out of the labour force. Questions were being asked for those not economically active, as to why they were not looking for work and not in the labour force. For most of the first quarter, it was found that the biggest share of those not economically active were students, accounting for about 40%, but this had declined in the second quarter to 31.6% in all categories,  such as discouraged work searchers, those who indicated as being too young or too old to work, those with physical disabilities or illness that prevented them from working, and homemakers.

There was a huge increase for those with other reasons, but these had indicated they were not looking for work due to the lockdowns, hence the massive increase from 6.0% in the first quarter to 29.4% in the second quarter.

The decline in employment and unemployment, and the gap between the labour force participation and absorption rate was still high, indicating an 11% difference between the first and second quarters. Unemployment had declined by 6.8%, from 30.1% to 23.3% between the first and second quarters.

Two unemployment definitions were used in the QLFD report. The official definition required one to be looking for work, ready to work, or ready to start a business should conditions allow. Some people may have other reasons that would discourage them from looking for work. They could be limited by family responsibilities to care for the young or old, or a lack of money, so even though they may say they did not look for work the expanded definition for the unemployed included them as part of the calculations of the unemployed rate. Therefore the job search criterion was relaxed to mean that as long as one stated one was available for work, even though not seeking it, one was included among the unemployed. The expanded definition which included those discouraged and those having other reasons for not searching showed a 2.3% increase, to 42.0%.

The provincial picture showed that five provinces had an official unemployment rate lower than the national average of 23.3%, with Mpumalanga the lowest at 13% and the Eastern Cape the highest. Both the expanded and official definitions showed the same nature of results.

Moving to employment, the formal sector accounted for a greater share of employment in both the first and second quarters. The number of persons employed decreased by 2.2 million in the second quarter to 14.1 million. The formal sector (non-agricultural) accounted for 10.1 million jobs, with a decrease of 1.2 million (10.8%). The informal sector (non-agricultural) accounted for 2.3 million jobs, with a decrease of 640 000 (21.9%). The agricultural sector accounted for 799 000 jobs, with a decrease of 66 000 (7.6%), and private households accounting for one million jobs had a decrease of 311 000 (23.6%), which was the largest decrease.

The shedding of jobs was:

  • Utilities – 3 000 jobs
  • Mining – 63 000 jobs
  • Agriculture – 68 000 jobs
  • Transport – 110 000 jobs
  • Manufacturing —250 000 jobs
  • Construction – 278 000 jobs
  • Finance – 283 000
  • Private households – 311 000 jobs 
  • Trade – 373 000 jobs
  • Community and social services – 515 000 jobs.

Looking at employment and the gross domestic product (GDP) share per industry, trade, construction and agriculture have higher employment shares relative to their GDP contribution. For instance, trade accounted for 12.8% of the nominal GDP, but in terms of employment accounted for 20.8% of total employment.  Community and social services accounted for 27% of the nominal GDP, but in terms of employment accounted for 22.9% of total employment.

Moving to the unemployment rate of young people, the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 24 (52.3%) declined by 6.7%.  Usually they were the hardest hit, having the lowest rates in all areas, as they struggled in the labour market. They had a high unemployment rate, a low participation rate, and a low absorption rate compared to people of other ages.

Looking at the unemployment rate by population group, the black African population group remained higher at 26.3% than the national average of 23.3% and other population groups. The white population group had an unemployment rate of 6.1%, and it was 14.4% for Indians and 19% for coloureds.

Looking at the unemployment rate based on sex, it was noted that women always had higher unemployment rates compared to their male counterparts, and it was even worse when it came to black women based on the official definition of the unemployment rate. Each population group had experienced a decline in the unemployment rate, but among the Indian/Asian group it was seen that the female unemployment rate had increased from 15.3% to 23% within the two quarters, and the expanded definition told the same story. Irrespective of gender, black Africans and coloureds had the lowest employment rate

Additional questions were added to the QLFS questionnaire to try to establish, during the lockdown, whether people were receiving full salaries or half salaries or not receiving salaries at all, and what the certainty of retaining to their jobs was once the lockdown was lifted.

Of the 14.2 million persons who were employed in the second quarter, more than half (58.1%) were expected to work during the national lockdown by the companies or organisations they worked for. Professionals and managers were more likely than all other occupations to be working from home.

The proportion of those working from home was likely to be higher among those who had the tools of the trade to work from home -- the professionals and managers and technicians. However, only 0.6% of domestic workers managed to work from home. The plant and machine operators were unable to work from home, so a small percentage of them were working from home as compared to their places of work.

As to whether the people were receiving a salary during the lockdown, 17.6% did not receive pay, while 81.3% received a full salary. A link was seen between salaries and levels of education. Those with degrees continued to receive salaries. At 24.8%, those with less than matric were more likely to have a reduced salary, with 24.8% of them not receiving a full salary. The findings concluded that there was no pay decrease as education levels increased.

Ms Mosiane referred to previous questions on labour market definitions from a previous meeting with the Portfolio Committee. For instance, why did Stats SA include youths aged 15 when computing labour market indicators? She said that in terms of the unemployment definition, information was collected from those aged 15 and above. The basic conditions of the act that looks at compulsory school attendance -- Act No. 84 of 1996: the South African Schools Act, published in 1996 -- states that every parent must cause every learner for whom he or she was responsible to attend a school from the first school day of the year in which such learner reaches the age of seven years until the last school day of the year in which such learner reaches the age of 15 years or the ninth grade, whichever occurs first. Therefore, given this basis as a country, they had decided to start to collect data at the age of 15 because from that age it was no longer compulsory for a child to go to school. This was drawn from ILO guidelines, which indicated that each country should look at its laws to see at what age to start collecting information from. Some countries started even at lower ages, depending on their laws

Regarding students engaged in economic activities, there was a survey that measures child labour economic activity, which showed that 96.5% of children were involved in economic activities for their own homes. 97.4% of girls were involved for self-consumption, whilst the males were involved in both markets that were sold in the market and self-production which were consumed by the producers. More economic activities were seen in the male child than the females. The proportion had decreased from 2010 to 2015. However, being involved in economic activities did not mean they were involved in child labour, as it depended on the working conditions -- whether they were hazardous, or if they spent too many hours working The main reason for working among the young ones was mainly to get pocket money from their parents.

Other questions were related to foreign nationals, to establish how their labour market prospects compared to South African-born citizens. 35.4 million people were born in South Africa, according to the survey. There had been a module attached to the labour force survey in 2017, and previously used in 2012, and only 5.3% of those of working age were of foreign nations, amounting to 2 million.

Discussion

Mr M Bagraim (DA) appreciated the good work done by StatsSA , despite the Covid-19 limitations. The lockdown had affected everything, including the efforts of the statistics team.

He quoted Mark Twain, who had said there were “lies, damn lies and statistics.” He then explained how the changing of criteria made it difficult for people to plan with their information, as they kept changing their approach. What they were looking for was proper statistics where one was comparing apples with apples, not apples with oranges, which seemed to be the case from the Stats SA presentation. He asked for comments on the changing criteria structures. Referred to their challenges with insufficient financing that caused them to postpone their findings, he asked that they also explain why they had to postpone.

He referred to what he had heard from other organisations in the labour field, such as the trade unions, not to accept their statistics, as the position was a lot worse. He could not understand why the current figures were easier on the eye, and could not be right. He argued that the presented results were not reflecting what was on the ground at all, and that the public would not agree with the findings.

Dr M Cardo (DA) argued that the presentation from StatsSA gave a distorted picture of South Africa, indicating the official employment rate was down by 6.8% points. The very strict lockdown should cause more unemployment, so he saw the report as being deceptive. He referred to how the people aged 15 to 64 were not economically active in quarter two, and to the increase of 23.4% in the category of “other” between quarter one and quarter two in the economically active group. He asked Stats SA to explain who the “other” referred to.  He also asked for the difference between the country labour force survey and the country employment statistics, and what the statistical data to be presented on Thursday would reveal. Would it coincide with the findings of Stats SA from the country labour force survey from the second quarter in terms of the unemployment rates? Thirdly, he applauded them for being honest with their methodological constraint when carrying out the survey due to the lockdown, especially with to the computer system telephone as compared to the usual face-to-face interviews, which meant having to use a sample that excluded those households without telephones. He asked if the depleted expertise due to budget cuts would affect the quality of their employment data in future.

Ms C Mkhonto (EFF) said that looking at the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) applications and comparing them to the presented statistics, made it difficult to accept the statistics. This was because a lot of people had lost their jobs. She encouraged StatsSA to check with the UIF to see their unemployment numbers and the number of those claiming from the UIF. From the presentation made by Stats SA , she noted the absence of the percentage of people with disabilities ready for the market, but were unemployed. She asked for the inclusion of these statistics. She also suggested that educational institutions to be encouraged to have a system for tracking their students into the labour market, and hoped the numbers from this system would greatly assist.

Dr N Nkabane (ANC) referred to the expanded definition of unemployment, and questioned its alignment with the South African Schools Act, as well as the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and section 28 of the Constitution. She also questioned its alignment with section 3 of the Labour Relations Act, read together with section 28, 1A and 3 of the Bill of Rights in chapter 2 of the Constitution. The expanded definition seemed to portray two conflicting versions of unemployment compared to what StatsSA was representing. An argument could therefore be made that Stats SA was not providing true information of what was happening on the ground. She asked how they would come up with an integrated approach, taking into consideration all the relevant factors. 

She asked StatsSA how a 15-year-old at school in South Africa could be included in a labour market survey. Despite the use of ILO guidelines, she suggested that they needed something that addresses the South African situation.

Mr N Hinana (DA) raised concerns on the validity of the information provided by Stats SA due to the impact the budget cut had on its functionality. He explained that the constraint on finance during the lockdown meant quality work could not be done, as finance was one of the major keys. He questioned why they would make conclusions during the lockdown period

He referred to StatsSA’s explanation of why blacks and coloured people did not reveal the factors why they were very vulnerable, he said it should be realised that they were in a country where people had lived with a challenge of disparities for many years. He still requested that contributing factors affecting unemployment for coloured people be communicated, and remedial programs also be known. He further urged the need for sufficient information on how the disabled were catered for and what actions were taken to accommodate them.

He commented that all stakeholders, be they business-related or trade unions, also complained about their best estimates of unemployment were somewhat different from what Stats SA had presented. Based on this, he questioned the accuracy and usefulness of the presented information.

Mr M Nontsele (ANC) said he viewed the presentation from StatsSA as work in progress, and its validity should not be questioned. Some of the points raised in the presentation had been distorted due to the lockdown. The UIF’s temporary relief scheme had been introduced due to the negative impact of the lockdown on employment, but now many of those people had gone back to work.

The consequence of phoning people without direct interaction may have given StatsSA a distorted view, considering the unemployment situation. It would therefore be better to say the report was a work in progress, and a much clearer view would arise in the second quarter, when they could establish those who were fully employed or not.

He agreed with the points raised regarding unemployment. The unemployment rate before the lock-down had been close to 30%, based on the narrow definition, whilst the broader definition was close to 35%. The broader definition of unemployment may have caused an inevitable increase in the rate of discouraged work-seekers.

He requested that account should be taken of the spike in poverty levels and the extent to which people had been exposed to this by Covid-19, as that would lend greater credence to the arguments presented by StatsSA. The report should be considered a work in progress until a clearer view was put forward, including the reasons for the inclusion of children in the calculations for unemployment. He suggested a cautious approach should be taken, where the Stats SA could start calculating employment statistics from the age of 18, but still include those below 18 who had a special permit to work, as this would not make a significant impact on the statistics provided. This would be a win-win approach, as this area had been an issue previously when they made their presentation.

He requested StatsSA to find a method that conformed to their standards of reporting in terms of both the law and the international platforms where they engage. However, he still refused to support the view that the report was invalid, but rather considered it as a work in progress, and requested that the report be not dismissed.

Mr S Mdabe (ANC) referred to the report given by the Auditor-General (AG) on the UIF dispensations to employees who could not get salaries. The report from StatsSA stated that there were 14.1 million unemployed people, but based on the AG’s report, the amount of the employee relief scheme equated to 16.2 million people that had been paid. The discrepancy was huge between what the UIF had paid to the unemployed and what StatsSA indicated should have been paid in the period from March to June. He asked how there could be such a huge discrepancy.

Going forward, there had to be a way for departments to collaborate, especially those dealing with unemployment. Despite StatsSA having a different view and systems, and even different operating spaces, there was still a need to have a collaborative approach, as it was disappointing to see all those working on unemployment produce different results

Stats SA’s response

Ms Mosiane started by responding to Mr Bagraim, who had a concern on the StatsSA data being affected by the mode of collecting the information, making it difficult to work with the figures.  She agreed that collection of information was difficult, and indeed their methodology had changed, but this was only in the mode of information collection, as they had only moved from face-to-face collection, and not from the sample they used. The questions used in the quarter were the same as those asked in the previous quarters. She insisted on the validity of the results they had presented, as they also had not changed the definitions they used, as was suggested by Mr Bagraim. Not changing the definitions had helped them compare the estimates in the second quarter to those of the previous quarters, allowing them to see the number of people who had lost jobs and the decline in the unemployment rate.

The decline of the unemployment rate was because people could not go out to look for work, and given that the definition used required active job search and availability, those not looking for work were therefore not counted as unemployed. This had resulted in a 2.8 million decline in unemployment in the second quarter.

Retrenchments may indeed have taken place during the second quarter, but some companies had announced that they would be retrenching people, with a time lag existing between the announcement and the search for work, and this was seen in the estimates. She did not know if in the next quarter they would see an indication of the retrenchments in the numbers they would be publishing, but they had followed the international guidelines in terms of producing their figures. StatsSA data was freely available online for downloading, and individuals could compute and compare it to see if they would come up with different estimates.

It usually took StatsSA four weeks to process the data after data collection, so they published four weeks after the end of the quarter, but because of the change in the model of collection in the second quarter, some adjustments had been made to the estimates. Due to going only to households with telephone numbers, the adjustments had taken longer than expected, forcing them to postpone the publication twice from July to September.

If people did not have jobs, but did not look for work, they were not included in the unemployment numbers. The main reason given for not looking for work was the lockdown. This accounted for 5.1 million people. The QLFS was a household survey, where StatsSA goes to people's houses to collect information from the people themselves. They take what is told by the respondent. Where they send out questions to collect information, the focus is only on the formal sector, non-agricultural employment and earnings. However, the QLFS covers the whole economy, looking at the informal sector, private households and those in agriculture.

Another difference was in the sample size. In the QLFS, they go to about 28 000 households every quarter, and send about 20 000 questions to businesses in a year. The Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) derives estimates from payrolls at the end of the quarter. With the QLFS, the reference period was that one was employed if one did not look for work in the four weeks or after, and were available. This was the difference between the two surveys.  As long as the two surveys moved in the same direction, that was fine. They were meant to complement each other and not compete against each other. The QES estimates would be published on 15 October, but Stats SA could not tell how its estimates were aligned to the QLFS estimates.

The budget cuts had not really had an impact on the quarter two estimates. Other projects had been put on hold, but key projects like the QLFS continued to be funded so as not to hinder the process. Stats SA tried to get funding so that they could continue to produce the labour market indicators. Some municipalities had been requesting area estimates requiring an increase in the sample size, but this could not be done due to budget cuts. 

Responding to Ms Mkhonto regarding the large number of people applying for UIF relief funding making it difficult to accept presented stats, she said this could happen that one was not getting a full salary, even though employed, and could therefore claim from the UIF. It was not only for those completely unemployed, but was for those who were temporarily unemployed and got back their jobs within three months, and were still registered with UIF.  2.2 million people were said to have lost their jobs, but that did not mean they were unemployed, as one had to be without work, looking for work, and ready to take up work to be considered as unemployed. StatsSA agreed to check with the UIF to see if their published figures were in line with the UIF estimates.

Ms Mosiane said StatsSA did not have disability questions in their QLFS surveys for them to have estimates for the disabled. However, they were working to include this in the future questionnaires as the sustainable development goals (SDGs) required the disintegration of data according to the disabled. They were considering the questions recommended by the Oxford Group to see how they could incorporate them into the QLFS.

She outlined the methodology they used to collect their information. The figures could be looked up by researchers to compute and verify them to see if they were following the guidelines that Stats SA was meant to follow.

Responding to Dr Nkabane on the expanded definition of unemployment in the constitution, she said she was not aware of the definition provided by the constitution and would have to look it up and see if they could compare the estimates based on the Stats SA definition to that in the constitution.

On the Issue of 15-year-olds being included in the estimates despite being at school, she said that they followed this because according to the constitution, the compulsory age for one to go to school was until the age of 15, and after that they were no longer compelled to attend school. Some would be looking for work whilst others were working, even if it may not be full-time employment. If a daughter helped the mother in a Spar shop for at least an hour a day after school, she was counted among those who were employed.

A good example also was university students who did a lot of part-time work, and were thus included in the estimates. However, this was not to say they were encouraging people to leave school and start working.

Responding to Mr Hinana’s comments on the effect of budget cuts on the reliability of the information, she referred to data in the public domain and encouraged people to crosscheck for verification to see how Stats SA arrived at their estimates. StatsSA published quality indicators to see whether the changes were statistically significant or not.

She commented on the reference to the unemployment rate among blacks and coloured being high, and the need to know the contributing factors.  She said that Stats SA did not ask for contributing factors to the picture they saw, but given the QLFS design they could check estimates from the different quarters to assess the changes in the labour market status. They were able to check the likelihood of people getting employed. It was difficult for the long-term unemployed and those without experience to get employment. The level of education had a role to play, as there was higher unemployment among those with low education levels.

They had followed all the procedures put in place in the model for the collection of information. They had measures to ensure that the published estimates went through a quality check. She therefore insisted that the published estimates were indeed accurate, otherwise the Statistician-General would not have let the results be published. They had followed the procedures in place, changing only the mode of collection. They had quality measures helping them to publish correct information.

She replied to Mr Nontsele that the report was not a work in progress, as he had suggested, and emphasised it would not be revised. They had included all the records collected for the quarter; so there was no need for revision, and no changes would be indicated in the next quarter.

She did not know if they would see a better picture in the upcoming quarter. They would have to wait and see what the estimates would look like, as they could not estimate or predict the outcome since they worked with collected and processed data to see the changes in quarters two or three.

Responding to Mr Nontsele’s expectation that the jobseekers' number would be higher than presented, she said people did not tell them about their discouragement, as they did not search due to the lockdown. The reason was mainly the lockdown, and not discouragement. All those who said there was no work in their area, or there was a lack of jobs requiring their skills, or they had lost hope of finding a job, were considered to be discouraged work-seekers. More people had given the national lockdown as the main reason for not seeking a job, rather than discouragement.

They had not had a full sample as a result of not having contact numbers for the full sample, but had made adjustments using historical data from the previous group, for which they had telephone numbers.

As regards publishing reports including only youths aged 18 -- and those under the age of 18 only if they had a permit – Ms Mosiane responded that when they did benchmarks for their estimates, they used five-year age groups. These were 15 to 19 years, and 20 to 24 years for youths. This would force them to produce estimates that were not accurate, as they would have to use the benchmark of 15 years to 19 years also. Such estimates would therefore have to be used with caution.

Responding to Mr Mdabe, who had raised the issue of the discrepancy between the 16.2 million UIF claims compared to the stated 14.1 million people being unemployed, she said they were not sure how the UIF data was computed. She did not know the relationship between the number of claims made to the UIF and the number of those unemployed, and denied stating that 16.2 million was the number of people they had found unemployed.

They used the definition they had to regard a person as unemployed, and not everyone qualified for this definition.

She welcomed the suggestion for a more coordinated approach, and said they would have to work with other departments such as the DEL, which handled the UIF data to see how they could work together and ensure their estimates were accurate after making relevant comparisons on the labour and employment side.

Chairperson’s comments

The Chairperson said that some of the questions reflected the fact that they were really in the “new normal” with regard to how they would have to do things. When StatsSA was explaining about 15-year-olds being added to the employment rate, she had wondered how one would categorise a housewife working all day. She did not require an answer immediately, but she requested that they discuss this and look into all of those areas and see how best to ensure this perception or feeling that the data may not be correct, because the question touched on how the data itself was collected. She echoed the request for more collaborative work with the departments.

She said that if this was how things were done, there had to be a change since they were now in a new normal. How data was collected made it relevant to have more collaborated data and checking with other departments to avoid conflicting data. The challenges of unemployment caused panic on the ground. The questions raised showed mistrust in the StatsSA information.  The discomfort was that if Members were questioning the authenticity, so would the public.

The Chairperson requested when StatsSA conducted research, they needed to check all statutes related to the fields they were searching in. They could not say they were not aware of the statutes that controlled their field of operations. She urged them to consider this very seriously going forward. There was a need for StatsSA to return so they could able to ask them more difficult questions, with the Statistician-General present, which would be more comfortable. 

The Chairperson said she was not pleased, considering that if one had to carry out research, one needed check in all the statutes controlling one’s research area. However, the StatsSA presenter had claimed not to be aware as to what the constitution and other statutes stated on matters that directly affected their research area. She requested that moving forward, they refer to the related statutes, Acts and constitutions that describe what was meant by what. She added that it must be remembered that they were South Africans, and therefore consideration should not be made for the ILO alone. South Africa also had statutes that controlled, managed and assisted them to do their work. In her view, the Committee needed to have StatsSA back so they could ask more questions.  

She excused the StatsSA team so the Committee could look at the Department’s response to the memorandum that had been circulated before the meeting

Consideration of NEHAWU memorandum

Ms Aggy Moiloa, Deputy Director-General (DDG): Inspection and Enforcement, DEL, requested guidance from the Chairperson, as her expectation had been to present issues specific to the Inspection and Enforcement (IES) branch in relation to the memorandum from the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) that had been circulated. The issues raised in the memo were much broader than the IES matters. She requested Mr Virgil Seafield, DDG: Labour Po​licy and Industrial Relations, to come in first and then she would respond to issues specific to the IES branch.

Mr Seafield said 15 requests had been made in the memorandum, but 12 of them did not fall within the ambit of the Department of Labour. He went through all the issues, and responses were given to those that related to the Department specifically.

The Chairperson asked him to take the Committee only through the areas where the Department was involved.

Mr Seafield said that there were three areas that they would address. The first was the issue that Covid-19 should not be used to reverse the hard-fought gains of employees. The DEL’s response to that was very clear -- that the rights of workers would not be affected because of Covid-19, and that workers’ rights remained unchanged. The Constitution also ensured that labour inspectors would continue to monitor and enforce compliance with all legislation guaranteeing the protection of workers during the Covid-19 period. He said the pandemic had raised a number of areas that would probably need to be looked at going forward with regard to providing sufficient protection during the pandemic.

The second issue involved the complex implementation of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to protect workers, which he asked Ms Moiloa to respond to.  

Ms Moiloa said the Department continued to conduct Covid-19 related inspections. The OHSA remained the primary law and during the covid-19 pandemic, they looked for compliance with the OHS Act, as well as the hazardous biological agent regulations, because they related to Covid-19. They had conducted research related to OHS from 27 March to 7 October, having conducted 7 300 inspections. They found that the compliance rates were low, especially in the public sector, where it stood at 41%. In the private sector, it was at 58%.

It was found that there was a problem with the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE), which went beyond items of clothing, masks and sanitisers. Instances had been found where some workplaces had purchased bulk sanitisers that did not comply with their specifications. Some workplaces did not even have specifications. There was a problem with the adaptation of workstations, such as shop floor level workers' spaces not complying with what was demanded. Because of this, some violations were seen.

She also pointed out that section14 empowered workers to walk away from spaces not compliant with healthy working conditions. They could refuse to work due to possible exposure to Covid-19 after following the due process. Allowing them not to work in areas exposed to Covid-19 therefore empowered the workers.

After the 7 000 inspections were done, they had not come across instances where workers had voluntarily opted to walk out and not to work due to Covid-19 exposure. A call had been made that the workers utilise this law. There was a need for employers to provide a healthy and safe space, and if this was not done, the employee had a role to play.

There was a requirement for functioning health and safety committees wherever the labour force exceeded 20 people, but where there were fewer numbers, there must be health and safety champions. The protocols also talked about compliance officers that needed to be appointed. All these were there to ensure there was implementation, and people's rights were also protected.

Mr Seafield said that there was also an internal focus on those who had returned to work after 10-day self-isolation and confirmed fitness by a medical officer.

Ms Bahumi Matebesi, DDG: Corporate Services, DEL, expanded on the internal focus, as well as to how it related to the return to work and self-isolation. She referred to the demands for compliance with the OHCA, risk assessments and infection, the establishment of OHS committees and full implementation of the OHSA to protect workers.

As the Department, they also had to comply internally with the stated requirements for them as employers. They had signed a collective OHS agreement internally with organised labour. At the general public sector bargaining council (GPSBC), NEHAWU and PSA were all signatories to the collective agreement that had been put in place, and the Department had established and appointed compliance officers in all the provinces, as well as in the labour sectors where they had compliance champions.

Self-isolation required ten days of self-isolation and confirmed fitness by a medical doctor before a return to work. The employee conditions governing Covid-19 in the public service were guided by the Department of Public Services and Administration (DPSA). Guidelines were being issued by the Department of Health and the Center for Communicable Diseases, in addition to notices by the DEL that applied to workers’ security to return to work as a public servant. This had been happening from the time people started going back to work from level four of the lockdown. They had also come up with their own internal Departmental return to work plan, which was very fluid. As they moved to different levels, they updated it to meet the new demands of that level.

The compliance officer was a part of the crisis management team set up to ensure and check the level of compliance, and to ensure that as the employees returned to work gradually they were safe. They had to make sure was that offices were cleaned and disinfected, and the numbers and spacing of sanitisers was checked. Internally, they had complied with all the requirements. The latest requirement was to ensure their OHS committee was monitoring all the things they had set out in their return to work plan.

They had issued a circular internally, and needed to protect those over 60 and vulnerable employees and those affected by the virus.

The NEHAWU memorandum had other demands that required the intervention of the department on occupational health, but Mr Seafield had decided to mention them for the sake of totality, without actually responding to them. They included demands for the national Department of Health to issue a circular, the daily screening of health workers, a board of examination for foreign doctors to be prioritised, the Department of Health to report on Covid-19 fatalities, as well as the filling of vacancies in the health care facilities. In addition to that, was the implementation of a risk allowance for front-line workers. These were issues related to the Department of Health, and the DEL labour had not responded to these.

Regarding the processing of court claims in line with the OHSA Act of 1993, the Department was processing all claims and would continue to process them according to the legislation related to the procurement and provision of PPE being based on credible figures of the total workforce.

Ms Matebesi said the procurement and provision of PPE had to be based on credible figures of the total workforce and the type of work performed by the occupation category. They procure the PPE and also located them among their different front-line and internal staff based on the risk exposure. An inspector got a different type of PPE from the one dealing with clients that came to the labour centres. They ensured sufficient provision of stock so that they were able to distribute the PPE on time when the demand arose. Their employees were not allowed to go out without wearing PPE.

Mr Seafield asked Ms Matebesi to talk on the issue of psychosocial support for workers, how it affected the workers of the Department directly

The Chairperson interjected to ask for clarification, as some of the demands pertained to particular departments. She wanted to know if the DEL aimed to respond only to issues relating to its Department, or if they would respond on behalf of all other departments that were cited in the memorandum.

Mr Seafield said the DEL would respond only to internally focused issues for the Department, leaving out the external focus issues that dealt with other departments.

The Chairperson said her confusion had been clarified, and asked him to continue with his presentation.

Mr. Seafied said there were two more demands raised in the memorandum, one being the issue of psychosocial support for workers as it those working in the Department only. There was also the collective bargaining involving the DPSA as it affected workers in the public service, as opposed to workers generally in the workforce. He asked Ms Matebesi to respond on these demands

Referring to psychosocial support for workers, Ms Matebesi said they had a unit within human resource (HR) management called “employee health and wellness,” and doctors that were employed within the compensation funds. The two wings had been, and continued to be, very instrumental in making sure affected staff and those who may be sick and affected people around them, were provided with psychosocial support through employee health and wellness and service providers. They also extended this support to family members and fellow workers who may also have been affected by the employee

Ms Mkhonto commented on the presentation, and requested that they use it as a springboard for on-site visits, as it had indicated that during this Covid-19 period there was a lot to be monitored

The Chairperson requested that the presentations be sent to the office of the Committee secretary so that they could be circulated to Members by the end of the day. The Office of the Speaker had directed the Committee to investigate the memorandum.  She concluded the agenda and requested only the Members to remain, and the Department was excused.

Preliminary assessment of Department

The Chairperson then initiated another meeting on the preliminary assessment of the Department, and requested the Committee secretary circulate to Members reports on quarters three and four so they could study they were dealing with. It was a preliminary assessment of the Department so that when they came to present their Annual Performance Plan (APP), Members would be adequately informed, and could match their observations with the presentation by the Department. She reminded them that the DEL was one of the departments that had a challenge with the UIF, and therefore requested they be focused and meticulous so they could go through the APP from an advantage point. 

The President had called a joint sitting of Parliament the following day, and she urged Members be attentive, as they were concerned with issues about the economy of the country, the creation of jobs, and unemployment.

The meeting was adjourned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: