Sechaba kaNkosi
The war of words on the future of the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) took another turn this week when it entered the fray, angrily dismissing calls for its review as naive, misdirected and one-sided. Nedlac officials argued that the debate should not be about whether it can or cannot deliver consensus between government, organised business and labour on socio-economic policies; government also needs to rethink its approach to the process.
Nedlac rejects using the impasse on the Basic Conditions of Employment Bill and the equally controversial Skills Development Bill as a yardstick of its abilities. Executive director Jayendra Naidoo says three other chambers in Nedlac have managed to deliver far-reaching solutions on important policies. Restructuring, he contends, could undermine the work that has been achieved in those chambers. The disagreements on the two proposed laws represent lack of common vision in the labour market chamber.
When people talk about a review it creates uncertainties about the legitimacy of a process because it is not clear exactly what the review should be all about. The point is social partners have always found it easy to point accusing fingers whenever they fail to find solutions. But Nedlac is clearly the best institution for them to practise tolerance towards each others positions which can result in a much quicker resolution of conflicts, says Naidoo.
However, Sipho Pityana, director general in the Department of Labour, this week reiterated his call for the restructuring of Nedlac, arguing that in some instances the institution was discussing issues that could well be handled in other forums of a trilateral nature. Pityana insists that while he still recognises the importance of Nedlac, recent developments suggest the institution might not be structured properly. He says it is overcrowded, and therefore spends more time arguing on differences than solutions. The bottom line is that you cannot have everything negotiated in Nedlac simply because its has socio-economic implications. Education, for example, does have those implications but the people best suited to deliberate on its policies are academics, teachers, students and the relevant ministry.
Pityanas concerns are mainly based on the failure of the social partners to reach consensus on the Employment Bill and potential tensions that are likely to develop once the skills development strategy is tabled in Nedlac. He fears this could sabotage his departments five-year programme to restructure the labour market.
Two particular incidents stand out when Pityana outlines his frustration. Last month a slight technical amendment on the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act had to be reversed at the portfolio committee because a parliamentary representative of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) submitted a position contradicting what had already been generally agreed upon in Nedlac. Cosatu has consistently rejected possible areas of agreement on the employment Bill, even when the government had shown its willingness to meet labours demands.
Cosatu defends its position and accuses a lobby in government of trying to reduce Nedlacs powers, saying this lobby is backed by those who want to undermine the role of the alliance in policy formulation.
Says Cosatu: Our view is that Nedlac should not be counterpoised to parliamentary democracy, but should be seen in the context of the need to enrich and deepen democracy. It is therefore an institution which we should defend. At the same time, we must not lock ourselves into Nedlac, but [should] adopt flexible strategies depending on the issue.
In a letter to Naidoo this week, Pityana points to this as the need to review Nedlac. His analogy is simple: when parties opt for mass action rather than negotiations there is a problem with the process. And the more parties adopt such measures the more difficult it is for government to implement its strategy.
Among his proposals for a restructured Nedlac is the provision of a conflict resolution mechanism and protocols that would clearly spell out a process in case social partners fail to reach consensus at Nedlac.
You cant spend two years negotiating one piece of legislation when you have more that demand similar attention. If we were to continue on this footing, skills development and employment equity will only come into existence in the next century, when we should be focusing on how we position the country for that period, says Pityana.
But Naidoo again differs. He says the government needs to simplify and involve social partners in the process of legislation from beginning to end. He says what creates more problems is that government spends close to two years researching and formulating policies that it thinks will be automatically accepted in Nedlac. This deprives other social partners of a chance to study the proposals and respond accordingly. Unless this is done, adversarialism between Nedlac partners will continue.
The art of governing is the art of building consensus among the governed. You need to involve other partners from the minute the idea is conceived to the day it is implemented. That way everybody feels part of the product, they own it, argues Naidoo.