In his May Day message, Cosatu general secretary Sam Shilowa outlined the trade union movement’s concerns over the new Labour Relations Bill. This is an edited version of his speech.
The often-stated objective of the (new Labour Relations) legislation (LRA) is to give workers rights, minimise conflict on the shop floor and provide for the speedy resolution of disputes with simple procedures. All of these we welcome. However, a number of issues will have to be dealt with to ensure that its basic aim is realised.
1. Centralised Bargaining: One of Cosatu’s stated objectives is to have bargaining at industry level. This helps ensure minimum standards, single integrated training programmes, technological upgrading, closing of the wage gap and so on.
The Bill purports to be encouraging centralised bargaining. However, to get it we are supposed to use our power — meaning strike action. Why should we first strike to get that which we are supposed to be getting from the Bill? We believe, like comrade President Nelson Mandela, that we should avoid unnecessary strike action. Yet the Bill encourages the use of this weapon in an unnecessary fashion by not compelling employers to centralise bargaining.
Those who talk about voluntarism must speak to workers in Ppwawu, CWIU and Saccawu among others. Employers have flatly refused the formation of Industrial Councils. In a much-publicised plenary meeting of the National Economic Forum (NEF), employers agreed that we should encourage centralised bargaining (voluntarily). Where are we? Nowhere. What has happened to the NEF agreement? Nothing! It has been thrown into the dustbin by employers.
It is obvious that we cannot leave our fate in the hands of employers. If they do not want to do it voluntarily despite their protestations of innocence, the law must compel them.
2. The right to strike: The Bill goes a long way towards granting workers the right to strike, by protecting them against dismissals, allowing pickets and so on. This we welcome. However, we think that the LRA should go further. The law must ban employment of scab labour during strikes. Most of the violence (where it occurs) during strikes is due to the presence of scabs.
Judging by the positions that the South African Chamber of Business and the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation are circulating among their membership, if there is any area of outright disagreement, it is this one. As you all know, they pay only lip service to the right to strike. They do not want it. They are ”scared” of this weapon. We must never allow then to limit our right to
As we prepare to face employers on this front, we must also condemn those who misuse this important weapon. Through their ”newfound militancy”, they misuse a weapon which some of our member s died for, years back, at a time when these new militants were afraid to even join stayaways, let alone fight for their own rights.
We understand the frustration of workers with employers. We support their demands for better conditions, closing of the wage gap, implementation of affirmative action irrespective of where they stood in the past. However, we cannot condone those who use violence and take hostages. All they do is discredit the actions of workers. We support the right to strike and will fight for it to be protected and strengthened in law. However, we need to ensure that it is peaceful and procedural and that we consult with the community to ensure their support.
3. Lock-out provision: We cannot give employers a loaded, unlicensed gun. The Bill grants them the full use of the lock-out provision (both offensive and defensive).
We must restrict it to a defensive action, with no scab
If we are locked out, nobody goes inside. The only reason they use it, is because they can employ scabs. Faced with a no scab provision, they will not play with fire for they will know that fire can burn them.
4. Workplace Forums: For years, we have fought for workplace democracy, consultation, involvement in decision- making and sharing of information. With the election of the new government, we have stated publicly that democracy means more than the right to vote every couple of years.
It must include economic democracy. This is only possible through industrial democracy.
You know that employers have always refused. Instead they prefer toy telephones called ”just in time”, ”quality circles”, etc. This we reject. If there is anything new, not in approach, but in the LRA, it is the provision of the workplace forum, to be triggered by the union. While we welcome the move towards compelling employers to democratise the workplace, we do not agree with the philosophy underpinning the draft Bill. In, short its philosophy is:
* Unions and shop stewards are engaged in an adversarial relationship with employers, hence the advocacy of a separation between the union and the forum, except to trigger it.
* It is fine for some shop stewards to serve on the forum, but not as a collective, since they will bring in that union conflictual approach.
* While it makes innuendos about the benefit to workers, its target is productivity enhancement and to limit issues around which workers can bargain and strike on.
* It assumes that those who are not in the union are a collective force.
Our approach is simple. We are saying:
* The composition of workplace forums shall be the shop stewards’ committees.
* The agenda should exclude any matter covered by a collective agreement.
* There should be provision for multi-plant joint meetings on matters common to workers of the same holding company.
* Workers who are not members of the union can’t be in the
While these are not all of the issues, you can see that we are saying we will use our collective leadership to deal with employers on all issues. The employers are not restricted. They remain managers on the forum and during negotiations. We remain shop stewards on the forum and during negotiations.
As labour we are committed to a swift negotiation process. Should employers stall, we know that you will deal with them accordingly. Even if they co-operate, you must continue to apply pressure, lest they relax.