IT IS difficult to understand why Irvin Jim, the general secretary of the National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa (Numsa), and his comrades are waging battles in the labour federation Cosatu. The fight for the control of Cosatu is useless. It’s a fight over the control of an organisation which is nothing more than a conglomeration of disparate unions which hardly share a vision. Nor do they represent workers with similar experiences.
Cosatu does not represent workers. The affiliates do. Trade unionists with full powers over the direction of their respective unions who have direct membership of workers should be content with running their unions and serving those members diligently.
The obsession with Cosatu has resulted in some unions losing a sense of direction. Numsa, which has become the biggest union in the last few months thanks to the decline of the National Union of Mine Workers (Num), is one such union which runs the risk of losing its sense of direction.
Ironically, Numsa should look at the decline of its rival sibling Num for some harsh lessons. The slow demise of Num can be attributed to two factors.
First, the leaders of Num, such as general secretary Frans Baleni, no longer see themselves as champions of worker interests. They see themselves as politicians who, through Cosatu, are entitled to have a bigger say in the running of the country via the alliance with the ANC.
But this has not worked as the workers have been neglected.
Secondly, the mining industry in South Africa has shed jobs as its share of the global economy continues to deteriorate.
Numsa, on the other hand, has gained membership because of its recruitment in the mining sector and the fact that the metal industry sector, where the union organises, has not experienced the job losses suffered by the mining sector.
Now confused by its bulging membership, Numsa could lose direction. The biggest challenge facing Numsa and many other unions is not so much about whether Cosatu’s suspended general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi should be forgiven for having an extramarital affair almost similar to those Jacob Zuma has had more than once and for which the public generously forgave him, or whether or not Cosatu is mismanaged.
The challenge is how unions should operate in an environment in which the lines between the domestic and the global economy have been blurred, if not completely erased.
The South African economy is so linked to the global economy you would have expected Jim and his comrades to develop clever tactics to bargain with companies to ensure they invest in South Africa, while at the same time advancing workers’ interests. There is no greater challenge than this for unions all over the world.
As the economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in his book The Price of Inequality: “The way globalisation has been managed ... has itself led to still lower wages because workers’ bargaining power has been eviscerated. With capital highly mobile – and with tariffs low – firms can simply tell workers that if they don’t accept lower wages and worse conditions, the company will move elsewhere.”
In South Africa, however, the government has kept the labour-friendly legislation.
But the recent decision by BMW, the German car maker, to stop a planned expansion of production lines in South Africa due to a protracted strike by Numsa is an indication that global companies are always ready to use their
global mobility for their own benefit.
Ivan Glasenberg, chief executive of the mining giant Glencore Xstrata, was recently quoted in Business Day saying: “We invest in many countries and we have many opportunities around the world where we can invest our money. Governments are free to make their rules as they wish, but once they make their rules we will decide if that’s a place that justifies big investment.”
Faced with these threats, unions should know how to box cleverly. So far, Jim and his comrades have demonstrated they are not up to the task.
For example, Jim is calling for nationalisation of industries. Why would investors come here to create jobs if they know their investments will be taken by the government?
Why is Jim calling for Mugabe-type policies?
As Zimbabwe discovered rather painfully, foreign direct investment is no longer something that workers can easily tag with the imperialist brush and declare it as an enemy. Foreign investors stand in-between wealth and poverty of South Africans. Even domestic investors have global networks. This global interconnectedness requires a new type of trade unionist. It needs a globalisation-oriented trade unionist who is not stuck in anti-colonial rhetoric but understands that the new global companies are very different from the imperialist Dutch East India Company.
The new environment does not need a trade unionist whose sees his or her main job as chanting empty slogans and advocating ancient ideologies. It does not need one who is obsessed about influencing the ruling party.
The post-1994 legal dispensation is very friendly to workers in South Africa. Few countries have the rights that workers here enjoy. And that’s a good thing.
I’m not one of those people who believe that the labour laws are inflexible. The ANC, to be frank, has done its bit in advancing the interests of workers.
There is no indication that the ANC would, in future, risk losing the elections by adopting extreme anti-worker policies. Even if the ANC chooses to adopt anti-worker policies in future, why should that be a problem in a country which allows anyone to contest elections. The unions can simply respond by forming a party and removing the ANC from power.
But for now, Cosatu is not useful in determining workers’ struggles in the work place. It is the affiliates that matter.
Union leaders must remember that their primary obligations are to workers. Until that happens, workers will continue to suffer neglect as their leaders play dirty politics in the name of workers.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of
Sowetan
New style of unionism needed in modern era
Cosatu does not represent workers. The affiliates do. Trade unionists with full powers over the direction of their respective unions who have direct membership of workers should be content with running their unions and serving those members diligently.
The obsession with Cosatu has resulted in some unions losing a sense of direction. Numsa, which has become the biggest union in the last few months thanks to the decline of the National Union of Mine Workers (Num), is one such union which runs the risk of losing its sense of direction.
Ironically, Numsa should look at the decline of its rival sibling Num for some harsh lessons. The slow demise of Num can be attributed to two factors.
First, the leaders of Num, such as general secretary Frans Baleni, no longer see themselves as champions of worker interests. They see themselves as politicians who, through Cosatu, are entitled to have a bigger say in the running of the country via the alliance with the ANC.
But this has not worked as the workers have been neglected.
Secondly, the mining industry in South Africa has shed jobs as its share of the global economy continues to deteriorate.
Numsa, on the other hand, has gained membership because of its recruitment in the mining sector and the fact that the metal industry sector, where the union organises, has not experienced the job losses suffered by the mining sector.
Now confused by its bulging membership, Numsa could lose direction. The biggest challenge facing Numsa and many other unions is not so much about whether Cosatu’s suspended general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi should be forgiven for having an extramarital affair almost similar to those Jacob Zuma has had more than once and for which the public generously forgave him, or whether or not Cosatu is mismanaged.
The challenge is how unions should operate in an environment in which the lines between the domestic and the global economy have been blurred, if not completely erased.
The South African economy is so linked to the global economy you would have expected Jim and his comrades to develop clever tactics to bargain with companies to ensure they invest in South Africa, while at the same time advancing workers’ interests. There is no greater challenge than this for unions all over the world.
As the economist Joseph Stiglitz noted in his book The Price of Inequality: “The way globalisation has been managed ... has itself led to still lower wages because workers’ bargaining power has been eviscerated. With capital highly mobile – and with tariffs low – firms can simply tell workers that if they don’t accept lower wages and worse conditions, the company will move elsewhere.”
In South Africa, however, the government has kept the labour-friendly legislation.
But the recent decision by BMW, the German car maker, to stop a planned expansion of production lines in South Africa due to a protracted strike by Numsa is an indication that global companies are always ready to use their
global mobility for their own benefit.
Ivan Glasenberg, chief executive of the mining giant Glencore Xstrata, was recently quoted in Business Day saying: “We invest in many countries and we have many opportunities around the world where we can invest our money. Governments are free to make their rules as they wish, but once they make their rules we will decide if that’s a place that justifies big investment.”
Faced with these threats, unions should know how to box cleverly. So far, Jim and his comrades have demonstrated they are not up to the task.
For example, Jim is calling for nationalisation of industries. Why would investors come here to create jobs if they know their investments will be taken by the government?
Why is Jim calling for Mugabe-type policies?
As Zimbabwe discovered rather painfully, foreign direct investment is no longer something that workers can easily tag with the imperialist brush and declare it as an enemy. Foreign investors stand in-between wealth and poverty of South Africans. Even domestic investors have global networks. This global interconnectedness requires a new type of trade unionist. It needs a globalisation-oriented trade unionist who is not stuck in anti-colonial rhetoric but understands that the new global companies are very different from the imperialist Dutch East India Company.
The new environment does not need a trade unionist whose sees his or her main job as chanting empty slogans and advocating ancient ideologies. It does not need one who is obsessed about influencing the ruling party.
The post-1994 legal dispensation is very friendly to workers in South Africa. Few countries have the rights that workers here enjoy. And that’s a good thing.
I’m not one of those people who believe that the labour laws are inflexible. The ANC, to be frank, has done its bit in advancing the interests of workers.
There is no indication that the ANC would, in future, risk losing the elections by adopting extreme anti-worker policies. Even if the ANC chooses to adopt anti-worker policies in future, why should that be a problem in a country which allows anyone to contest elections. The unions can simply respond by forming a party and removing the ANC from power.
But for now, Cosatu is not useful in determining workers’ struggles in the work place. It is the affiliates that matter.
Union leaders must remember that their primary obligations are to workers. Until that happens, workers will continue to suffer neglect as their leaders play dirty politics in the name of workers.
Mpumelelo Mkhabela is the editor of
Sowetan
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos