Johannesburg - There is no debating the fact that labour relations in South Africa are currently in complete disarray, and it is costing our economy in more ways than one.
According to the Department of Labour, in 2013 – R6.7 billion was lost in wages due to striking workers. This is an increase from the R6.6bn lost in 2012, the R1.07bn in 2012, and the R407 million in 2010. In 3 years, the amount lost in wages due to strikes increased by over 1 500 percent.
The number of strikes recorded is also on the rise. In 2009, the Department of Labour recorded 51 cases of industrial action. This increased to 74 cases in 2010, 67 in 2011, 99 in 2012, and 114 in 2013. That is a 123 percent increase since 2009.
SOBERING REMINDER
The World Economic Forum’s 2014/15 Global Competitiveness index, under the section “labour market efficiency”, ranked South Africa last (144 out of 144) in co-operation in labour-employer relations, and 143 out of 144 (second last) for hiring and firing practices. This is a sobering reminder that our labour relations have lost touch with the rest of the word.
Under President Jacob Zuma, absolute chaos has ensued within organised labour, and this trend shows no signs of changing.
However, nothing so aptly illustrates the current mess like the surge of strike related violence experienced over the last five years. Violence has increasingly become part of strike culture in South Africa, with intimidation, assault and even death occurring frequently in most labour disputes. All South Africans live in perpetual fear of becoming a victim of strike-related violence, yet nothing is being done to effectively eradicate it.
Under Zuma, both the scale and the intensity of strike violence has sky-rocketed. A perfect example of the intensity of strike-related violence is last year’s month-long metals and engineering industry strike, which saw 256 cases of intimidation, 50 violent incidents and 85 cases of vandalism reported within the first two weeks. The longer the strike ensued, the more violent it became.
Moreover, according to the South Africa Institute of Race Relations 2013 South African Survey, between 2010 and 2012 strike-related fatalities increased from 7 to 60; injuries increased from 31 to 150; and arrests increased from 271 to 643.
This disproportionate rise in just two years should spur trade unions and political parties to immediate action – after all, they have workers best interests at heart, or so they say. Yet all we get from Cosatu and friends are a few mumbles about “we condemn violence”.
The DA has been acutely aware of the threat strike-related violence poses to not only the proper function of labour relations, but to the safety and security of every South African. While nothing must compromise the protection and lawful exercise of workers’ constitutional rights, this must also be balanced with acting in the best interests of all people.
As early as October 2010, I submitted a Private Member’s Bill seeking to amend the current Labour Relations Act.
The bill sought to enforce accountability from trade unions and large organisations whose members unlawfully cause the destruction of property or bring harm to members of the public during strike action. While the bill was predictably criticised by Cosatu and the SACP, it received wide support from the Committee for Private Members Legislative Proposals and Petitions, the so-called “Private Members Committee” and was indeed the only Private Members’ Bill to be accepted by this committee during the fourth Parliament.
ERADICATING VIOLENCE
Unfortunately, following the ruling of the Constitutional Court in Ambrosini v Speaker of the National Assembly – which reformed the process for the introduction of Private Members’ Bills – our 2010 version of the bill was forced to lapse.
I reintroduced the bill in October 2014, as the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, 2014. In its current form, the bill seeks to eradicate strike violence by requiring organisations such as trade unions to educate workers regarding violence and the prescripts of the law before their members go out on strike; and to provide increased marshals for crowd control and to prevent criminals infiltrating union ranks.
It also empowers courts to stop a strike that has become excessively violent by forcing the parties into urgent arbitration; and it empowers courts to award damages judgments against unions that have not implemented measures for the limitation of violence as required by the bill.
Last month the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) acting spokesman Livhuwani Mammburu, publicly stated that NUM does not encourage, support or condone strike-related violence or damage to property. “We are totally against that” he said, when asked about the violent circumstances surrounding the recent strike at Northam Platinum’s Zondereinde mine.
However, Cosatu’s 2012 Workers Survey, found that half of its members (including NUM members) viewed violence by workers as necessary during a strike if a desired result is to be achieved. This shows that condemnations of violence by Cosatu affiliates is often just rhetoric.
I did, however, give NUM the benefit of the doubt in calling for them to support the Labour Relations Amendment Bill 2014 – the so-called “Strike Violence Amendment”, admitting that they may be genuinely serious about wanting to combat strike violence. The response received was both telling and unfortunate, with our bill being called “opportunistic”.
MISMANAGED STRIKES
It is clear that NUM and other affiliates of Cosatu do not want to take responsibility for violence that emanates from strikes that they initiate and mismanage. Nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than NUM’s feeble attempt to use the “framework agreement for a Sustainable Mining Industry” as a smoke and mirrors solution to a serious problem!
This agreement, allegedly entered into by organised labour, organised business and government, takes the form of a mutual agreement to act decisively in enforcing the rule of law; the maintaining of peace during strikes and other protests relating to labour disputes, to ensure protection of life, property and the advancement of the rights of all citizens.
While this agreement is in principle quite sound, it has no tangible effect. It’s a dog without any teeth.The DA’s Labour Relations Amendment Bill is certainly not opportunism as NUM claim, rather it is a sustainable solution to a real problem, with enforceable legal remedies.
The only opportunism in this situation is NUM hiding behind the fig leaf of a non-binding “agreement”.
If union bosses agree that strikes must be orderly and peaceful, then they should have no problem supporting carefully constructed legislation that seeks to further this aim.
Ian Ollis MP is the DA’s spokesman on Labour and can be followed on Twitter @ianollis