Opinion by Adriaan Andrews
About Adriaan Andrews:
Adriaan Andrews graduated with his Master of Commerce in Labour Relations and HR from Nelson Mandela University in April 2025. He is a lecturer in the university’s HR Management Department in the School of Industrial and Organisational Psychology and HR.
"I pursued this research because I am passionate about social dialogue within the framework of representative and participatory democracy. My focus is on giving a voice to the voiceless — particularly the unrepresented, marginalised, and vulnerable — as their inclusion is essential in decision-making processes that affect the population. One such decision is the development of the national minimum wage.
The study examined the four institutions involved in the establishment of the National Minimum Wage: the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), where the negotiations took place; the bargaining councils and the Department of Employment and Labour’s information-sharing roadshows; both Houses of Parliament; and the National Minimum Wage Commission (NMWC), which oversees the maintenance and annual review of the wage rate.
The primary objective of the study was to assess the extent to which the principle of social dialogue — specifically, representation for all interested parties — was upheld across these institutions during the development of the South African National Minimum Wage.
The findings revealed that affected groups — such as the unemployed, the elderly, informal sector workers, small and medium-sized enterprises, interested public groups and government representatives, and vulnerable employees and employers — were excluded from the process.
The negotiations were dominated by three federations: the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA), and the National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU), leaving out the trade unions that are not affiliated to these federations, as well as unorganised or non-unionised workers, and those in informal employment.
In 2024 when I submitted my Master’s, the Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS) for Quarter 1 of 2024 indicated that the South African labour market comprises approximately 16,7 million workers with 11, 5 million workers in the formal employment.
The QLFS further indicated that about 18.4% of workers were engaged in informal employment within the non-agricultural sector. Additionally, 7% of workers were employed in private households which includes domestic workers, and about 5.6% of workers were in the agricultural sectors.
The QLFS further indicated that just over 3 million workers are regarded as discouraged worker seekers (workers who have unsuccessfully looked for employment), with the number of individuals who are not economically active numbering 13.1 million. Lastly, the number of individuals who were unemployed stood at 8.2 million persons.
At NEDLAC, only 10% of workers in the labour market are represented through the trade union federations, with the majority of these being public sector workers. This highlights the issue of non-representation of the more vulnerable workers.
At NEDLAC, organised business is represented by Business Unity of South Africa (BUSA) and the Black Business Council (BBC). The National Employers Association of South Africa (NEASA) which focuses on SMMEs has 30 000 members, but is not represented at NEDLAC as it is not a member of BUSA or the BBC. This raises concerns about the representation and participation of small, medium, and micro and informal businesses at NEDLAC.
Putting this further into perspective, the Small Business Institute conducted a baseline study in 2021 of the formal sector, including the 267, 959 businesses that were registered for tax purposes. 98% of all registered businesses were classified as Small, Micro and Medium enterprises (SMMEs) employing 28 per cent of workers, while large businesses employ 72 per cent of the workforce.
Regarding the bargaining councils and Department of Employment and Labour roadshows which were intended to get widespread input about the national minimum wage – we don’t know how many groups and communities they visited, how much of the country they covered and whether they engaged the groups of workers who were not represented in the negotiations.
Very limited data about all of this was provided by the Department of Employment and Labour. This begs the question as to how many interested and affected groups and communities around the country were actually consulted.
Onto the negotiations in both houses of parliament, public and community representation should have represented the voices of the unrepresented, but it only reflected a small fraction of the population. From the whole of South Africa only 92 submissions were received, predominantly from those already represented at National Economic Development and Labour Council, and other well-resourced organisations, such as Agri SA.
Parliament allowed written and verbal representations from the public and communities for their voices to be heard, but parliament is in Cape town and if you are in Gqeberha or any other city or the rural areas, parliament is not going to pay for transportation and accommodation costs. And how are people supposed to get a written submission to parliament; what about the challenge of literacy?
It was essential to include all interested and affected parties in the process of deciding on the national minimum wage but this did not happen. Instead, the study demonstrated significant gaps in who was included in the negotiations at NEDLAC. This indicates that the process was not inclusive.
Consequently, the National Minimum Wage process did not achieve representative or participatory democracy as it failed to provide a platform for meaningful engagement with those most affected by the legislation. It highlights the need to develop mechanisms that actively facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable and underrepresented groups, ensuring their voices are integral to policy-making processes that accurately reflect the will of the people.