comments

Supported by the Department of Employment and Labour, trade unions (such as SAFTU and COSATU), and various actors’ guilds.

• • Ending “Disguised Employment”: Supporters argue that many performers currently work under conditions identical to standard employment—including fixed hours, direct supervision, and strict control by production companies—but are labeled “independent contractors” specifically to deny them basic labour rights.
  • Access to Fundamental Protections: Reclassification would guarantee vulnerable creative workers access to paid annual leave, sick leave, and maternity leave under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA).
  • Workplace Injury Compensation: As employees, performers and crew would finally be covered by the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act (COIDA), ensuring financial protection if they are injured or disabled on set.
  • Fair Pay and Dispute Resolution: The amendment would ensure workers are protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and give them access to the CCMA to fight unfair dismissals and exploitative working conditions.
  • Collective Bargaining: Formal employee status makes it easier for creative workers to unionise, negotiate standard minimum rates, and engage in legally recognized collective bargaining with major production houses.

Supported by freelance creatives, independent crew members, production companies, and industry associations.

• • Loss of Vital Tax Deductions: This is a primary financial concern for freelancers. If reclassified as “employees,” creative professionals will lose the ability to deduct critical business expenses from their taxable income, including agent commissions, travel to auditions, wardrobe, equipment, and self-tape costs, resulting in a severe drop in net take-home pay.
  • Capped Earning Potential: Opponents argue that enforcing standard regulated working hours and strict overtime limits will harm gig workers. Freelancers often maximize their income by working intensively over short periods; rigid labour laws will artificially cap what they are legally allowed to earn in a week.
  • Destruction of Autonomy & Flexibility: The creative industry relies on project-based, short-term contracts. Opponents state that a “one-size-fits-all” employee classification fails to distinguish between an actor on a five-year soap opera contract and a freelance makeup artist working a two-hour commercial shoot, destroying the ability to juggle multiple clients simultaneously.
  • Driving Away International Investment: Applying heavy payroll administration, leave tracking, and labour-law compliance to short-term projects will drastically increase local production costs. Opponents warn this will make South Africa uncompetitive, driving international film and advertising work—and the jobs they create—to other countries.
  • Not Fit for the Gig Economy: Critics argue that while traditional labour laws work well for 9-to-5 corporate jobs, forcing the dynamic, freelance-driven creative sector into an outdated legislative box will ultimately lead to fewer gigs and massive job losses.