Customer case study. A real AskMandla household, from the WhatsApp thread, June and July 2026.
This household employs three people: two domestic workers and a gardener and handyman. She found us on Instagram in June 2026, said "Thanks so glad I came across this on Instagram", and started signing all three up. One of those contracts she then stopped, part-signed, because it did not fit her arrangement. She was right, and it is the most useful case study we have.
The problem was flexibility
Her arrangement was not a fixed five-day week. She said so early: "I am just wondering as sometimes she does not work every day so then the wage is different for that week." And: "On the form I said she works 5 days ie Monday - Friday but it is not always like that it depends on my needs."
Two of the three were straightforward. The third was not, and a week later she stopped it: "Please cancel [her] contract. We are disagreeing on some points so I no longer want to sign the contract."
Then, more precisely: "if for instance she does not come to work then I can't earn money that day yet I am expected to pay that can't work for me." And the line we have quoted internally ever since: "one size fits all does not work for me."
What we did with that
We did not argue her into the standard clause. Our Chief Legal Officer got on a call with her, at a time she picked, and they went through the terms one at a time. She asked for a redraft, read it, and signed.
That is the useful part of this case study. The BCEA sets floors, not a single template. Below the floor there is nothing to negotiate: minimum wage, leave entitlement, notice, UIF. Above it, a lot is the household's to decide, including how variable days are handled, what happens when work is not available, and what the notice arrangement is.
A customer telling us the contract does not fit is not a complaint to manage. It is usually correct, and the answer is a call and a redraft.
She did not like the payment model either, at first
When she reached the wallet top-up she said so bluntly: "No I don't like this. I want to pay my employee as I normally do." And: "Not understanding why all this was not explained earlier."
Both fair. We should have explained the payment model before she got to it, and that criticism has been taken. On the model itself we did explain our reasoning rather than drop it: one top-up covering salary, UIF and our fee is what lets us run the payroll, produce a real payslip, and put the UIF contribution where it belongs every month. Paying her worker directly in cash produces none of that.
She landed on "Acceptable", which is an honest place for a customer to land.
Her worker asked for time, and got it
The detail we would most want other households to notice. After all three were set up, she came back: "Have had a meeting with [her] and she would like to commence only on 1 September with going on the payroll as she needs time for the change is this possible please?"
Her worker wanted the start deferred. Going onto formal payroll changes things for a worker, sometimes including a grant she or her household relies on, and wanting time to think is reasonable. The start date moved to 1 September.
Ask your worker before you set a date. She may need a month, and giving it to her costs you nothing.
The gardener with no papers
Her third worker is from Malawi and had applied for his permit in April the previous year. Fifteen months later he had heard nothing, and she had kept his receipt.
We were straight with her: without a valid permit or an ID we cannot lodge a UIF registration, because the Department needs a number the person does not yet have. What we could do was draft his contract, put him on payroll properly, and hold the registration ready to lodge the moment his papers come through. His work is documented and paid lawfully in the meantime.
An undocumented worker still has BCEA rights: minimum wage, hours, leave, notice. Home Affairs' backlog is not a reason to employ someone informally.
What changed
- Three workers on written contracts, one of them on terms she negotiated rather than accepted.
- A flexible-days arrangement handled explicitly, instead of a five-day clause that was not true.
- A worker who set her own start date.
- A contract and lawful payroll for a worker whose permit is still outstanding, with his UIF registration ready to lodge.
What this cost
R450 once-off onboarding per worker, then R49 a month each. The legal call and the redraft were not extra. If the standard terms do not describe your household, say so in the chat and ask for the call.