1. “Guards are forced to pay a daily ‘standing fee’ (R20–R50) to agencies or ‘bay bosses’ — often with no receipt.”
A. Multiple investigations and news reports document daily fees charged to guards (often R20–R50) by placement firms or mall contractors; guards say fees are taken from tips and sometimes no receipts are issued.
B. Why it’s legally problematic: if a private operator is collecting money from workers for the right to work (a “fee” or levy), this can amount to unlawful labour practice / exploitation. Municipal permit rules also regulate who may occupy public parking stands — municipalities can require formal permits rather than informal fee-taking. See municipal by-law provisions about stand licences and permits.
2. “After paying the standing fee and agency/uniform costs, many guards earn below the national minimum wage (tips excluded).”
A. Research and reporting show that once daily fees, uniform costs and agency deductions are subtracted, effective take-home pay frequently falls below minimum wages cited in surveys.
B. Legal support: the National Minimum Wage Act 9 of 2018 and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 say the national minimum wage must be paid for ordinary hours of work and that gratuities/tips cannot be counted to meet the minimum wage. If an employer (or de-facto employer) causes wages to fall below the legal minimum by forcing fees/deductions, that is a contravention.
3. “Some placement firms / mall contractors are operating like (unlicensed) security companies but don’t register with PSIRA.”
A. PSIRA guidance and reporting note that anyone providing security services for reward should be registered; many informal car-guard arrangements are not PSIRA-regulated.
B. Legal support: Private Security Industry Regulation Act (56 of 2001) requires registration/registration rules for providers of security services; unregistered security activity can be unlawful. This is often raised where a “company” collects fees but doesn’t register guards.
4. “No contracts, no payslips, no workers’ rights — guards are treated as disposable casuals.”
A. Studies and articles emphasise the informality: no formal contracts, no payslips, cash tips and fee deductions — making enforcement of labour rights difficult.
B. Legal support: the BCEA and Labour Relations Act require basic conditions (record keeping, pay records, protected labour rights) where an employment relationship exists. If an arrangement is effectively employment, the law protects guards.
5. “Mall owners / management collude with placement agencies to extort fees from guards.”
A. News reporting and first-hand accounts indicate trolley/car-guard schemes where private firms profit and guards bear costs; there are allegations of collusion with property managers.
B. Legal support: municipal property / land-use and by-laws give property owners and municipalities control over who may operate on premises; unlawful private charging schemes can breach municipal by-laws or amount to third-party exploitation. Ekurhuleni/Joburg by-laws and municipal codes regulate use of public/municipal space and permit regimes.
6. “Guards are threatened or assaulted if they refuse to pay or ask for receipts.”
A. Multiple reportage and qualitative studies record intimidation, threats or coercion tied to money collection, which increases guards’ vulnerability.
B. Legal support: criminal laws against assault, extortion and intimidation apply; where bodily harm or threats occur the Criminal Procedure Act and South African common criminal law protections apply, and victims should report to SAPS. Municipal by-laws do not permit vigilantism or coercion. (See reporting above for context.)
7. “The firms taking ‘standing money’ give no receipts and avoid tax / UIF / PAYE obligations.”
A. Investigations note absence of receipts and formal payroll, suggesting tax and social-security avoidance.
B. Legal support: tax law and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) require accurate income reporting; employers are required to deduct PAYE and UIF where an employment relationship exists. Failure could amount to tax evasion and contravention of UIF obligations. (See SARS / UIF rules; reporting gives the practical problem.)
8. “Guards ‘buy’ the best bays (auction/priority), so the system entrenches bribery and unfair allocation.”
A. Ethnographic studies report hierarchy/labels (guards 1–5 pay higher amounts or get better spots) and that placement is gated by fees or patronage.
B. Legal support: if evidence shows bribery, corruption or illicit fee arrangements in public spaces, municipal anti-corruption rules and criminal statutes against corruption apply; municipalities also control parking and stand allocation and may require permits.
9. “Guards are told to solicit money (demand tips) despite municipal rules that private guards cannot extort or order motorists.”
A. City guidance emphasizes that informal guards are not authorised to instruct motorists or demand money — what is allowed is a voluntary tip. Reports show guards sometimes pressure motorists.
B. Legal support: municipal by-laws often distinguish between authorised parking attendants/municipal staff and informal guards. Joburg guidance explicitly says guards may accept tips but not demand money or order motorists — asking/demanding can be unlawful under municipal by-laws and possibly criminal.
10. “Even when rules exist, enforcement is weak — municipalities and PSIRA don’t enforce registration or ban exploitative fee-taking.”
A. Reporting and academic commentary repeatedly point to weak enforcement: rules and Acts exist (PSIRA, municipal by-laws, labour law), but on-the-ground enforcement and prosecutions are rare, leaving guards exposed.
B. Legal support: the statutory framework (PSIRA, BCEA, National Minimum Wage Act, municipal by-laws) provides enforcement avenues — but practical enforcement requires municipal/police/labour/PSIRA action. The laws are there; the implementation gap is the issue.
---
Quick legal map (short)
Private Security Industry Regulation Act 56 of 2001 (PSIRA) — anyone providing security for reward is caught by the Act; registration and codes apply. Failure to register can make an operation unlawful.
National Minimum Wage Act 9 of 2018 & Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997 — wages must meet minimums; tips/gratuities cannot be used to meet the national minimum wage. Illegal deductions that reduce pay below the minimum are actionable.
Municipal by-laws / public-space regulations (City of Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, etc.) — regulate use of parking/stands and often set permit/stand licence regimes; informal fee-taking may conflict with municipal permit rules. Local guidance also notes guards may accept tips but not demand payment.
Criminal law / tax / UIF — where coercion, assault or extortion occurs, criminal law applies; where employers fail to operate PAYE/UIF correctly, SARS/UIF issues arise.
---
What forum readers usually mean by “supported by legislation”
When a forum poster says “this is illegal,” the strongest legal backing usually comes from PSIRA (if the activity is actually security work for reward), the National Minimum Wage Act / BCEA (if deductions push wages below legal minimum), municipal by-laws (if someone is occupying/controlling a municipal parking stand without permit), and criminal statutes (where threats or extortion occur). The gap is almost always enforcement rather than rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment