The stand-off between the government and public sector unions over wage demands may blow out of control if it is not properly managed. For many weeks now, negotiations between the two sides have not yielded any positive results, but have turned into a combat which no side appears destined to win.
Workers’ fury at the government’s unilateral implementation of its 6,3% final wage increase against the unions’ demand of 7,3% is understandable. So is the government’s frustration at the unions’ failure to support its argument that a lot of money is spent on paying salaries for our bloated public sector at the expense of service delivery.
This week government ministers condemned “greedy” workers. Minister of Public Service and Administration Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi accused workers of “pursuing narrow trade unionism to the detriment of broader social transformation”.
Minister of Defence Patrick Lekota also lashed out at unionists for criticising the government. He called on them to raise common issues within the alliance.
Workers were clearly not pleased at the government’s approach. Lekota and Fraser- Moleketi’s hard line prompted Congress of South African Trade Unions acting president Peter Malepe to use the occasion of the federation’s conference in Midrand to launch a counter-attack on the government. He accused it of bad faith in unilaterally implementing its 6,3% wage offer.
Observers predicted a split in the African National Congress-led tripartite alliance. What emerged this week was a clear indication that both sides are still not prepared for compromise.
The proposed protests on Tuesday by more than 800 000 public servants is the last thing the country can afford. The unions need to recognise the government’s commitment to fiscal discipline and broader social and economic transformation.
It is time for the two sides to respect negotiation rules and find a settlement. Fraser-Moleketi’s offer to hold further talks must be welcomed. That could provide space for compromise and common ground to be reached. Negotiations should be more about give and take, and less about threats. Both sides need to agree on a set of constructive proposals to break the stalemate. The government can start spending money by increasing workers’ wages, while saving by embarking on a programme of rationalising the public sector.
The economy must be developed to accommodate people who will lose their jobs as a result of rationalisation. This would ensure that those laid off help with job creation and economic development.
For a long time, the government’s plan to transform the public service has been held back by the compromises of the transitional sunset clauses that guaranteed even the most redundant public servants jobs for at least five years. Now that period has expired, the government needs to move in reducing the size of the public service, and public sector unions must help the government to implement that plan. This will go a long way in avoiding further conflict and resistance to rationalisation.
Frankenstein’s spectre
The terms “genetic engineering” and “genetically modified” (GM) crops tend to raise the spectre of Frankenstein. It may be a knee-jerk reaction, fuelled by public ignorance and hysteria.
Those in favour of genetic engineering point out that in a world struggling to feed its burgeoning population, we cannot afford to ignore this new millennium technology, which offers farmers greater yields. They argue GM crops can be kinder to the environment than conventional crops: part of the reasoning behind the development of GM crops is to build in a resistance to pests, reducing the need to spray them with pesticides.
But how do we know this is true? Environmentalists around the world are protesting that genetic engineering is moving too fast, without enough safeguards to protect human and animal health, let alone the environment.
There is already evidence that GM crops may have a serious negative impact on the environment. Humans playing God with nature can be a messy business, as illustrated by the outbreaks of “mad cow disease” this decade.
Public concerns that GM crops are being pushed by a cabal of scientists with an eye more on profits than progress will increase in the wake of a report, released this week, showing the legislative framework in South Africa is inadequate to ensure risks to the environment are prevented or minimised.
It shows up a number of loopholes which can be exploited. The government is “not yet ready to protect the environment from the potential risks of genetic engineering”.
The way to deal with this situation, the report suggests, is for the government to draw up, and implement, a transparent and consultative national policy. Consumer choice and public participation must be part of the process, not least so that people can understand the implications of the new technology.
As the prestigious British Medical Association puts it: “The best strategy for dealing with environmental risks, where we are confronted by profound uncertainties, is to act cautiously. This principle should be applied for the foreseeable future to GM crop releases and the introduction of GM products into the food chain, until the health and environmental impact of GM organisms are fully assessed and in the public domain.”