/ 6 February 2006

Talk to us, not at us

Are we afraid of change?

Absolutely not! We have always said we want to see a Transnet that is dynamic and growing. We have argued for and agreed with the approach of the government and management that puts Transnet at the centre of economic growth. But, change must be managed in a way that facilitates maximum support from those involved, and especially workers.

Do we want to negotiate for ever and ever on restructuring?

Hell no! We want to get off the 49th floor of the Carlton Centre and back into the operations where we can contribute to improving safety, accelerating training, and growing the volumes carried by Transnet’s businesses.

The dispute issues are multiple, but they are not complicated or insurmountable. We are committed to a 24/7 process of negotiation. Focused, quality negotiating is needed, not years, or even months.

Has Transnet management complied with the government-labour National Framework Agreement for the Restructuring of State-Owned Assets by referring all restructuring the Transnet restructuring committee?

No! There are too many things happening outside of the agreed processes, including: the sale or closure of four Transnet businesses; the intended transfer of Metrorail and its 9 000 workers to a new state- owned enterprise whose shape and financial status is uncertain; and the commercial tendering of the Transnet Pension Fund Administration.

Procedures and agreements help eliminate clumsiness, confusion and unfair treatment of individuals, and they help keep everybody on board.

Is it true that many meetings have been held with us?

Yes, we’ve met management 10 or more times. Management has had a tendency to talk “at” us, through tedious power-point presentations.

Transnet management has refused to debate the future of three companies that have been earmarked for privatisation: Freightdynamics (road freight), Autopax (long distance buses) and Viamax Fleet Management. They say the decision is not up for discussion.

We have said that we want to discuss not only what will happen to the 2 000 plus workers in these companies, but also what impact the privatisations will have on the companies’ customers.

Will workers be transferred with their conditions intact?

At this point workers cannot be transferred with their conditions intact.

The rules of the two pension funds have been changed to facilitate the transfer of workers to new companies. But in order for workers’ pensions to be unaffected, the Transnet Pensions Act needs to be amended, a dispensation from South African Revenue Service is required, and agreement is needed with the new companies.

Similar complications exist when it comes to housing loans and travel concessions.

Glib statements about a guarantee of employment conditions are not enough. Detailed legally binding protections are required to put such guarantees into effect.

What is the truth about potential job losses?

We have agreed with management that the restructuring on its own should not lead to job losses. However, there is a threat of redundancy lurking in the background. First there are the jobs of those workers whose companies may be privatised. We have previous experience of disastrous privatisations that resulted in job losses further down the line. Transnet’s Production House, whose corrupt sale to Skotaville was exposed by the Mail & Guardian, is a case in point.

Second is the fact that if we allow management to get away with unilateral decision-making on restructuring, it will set the stage for unilateral internal cost cutting resulting in much larger job losses. We already know that Spoornet management is cooking up a proposal for one person train operations, doing away with train assistants. This in an environment where safety is one of Spoornet’s biggest human and financial risk factors!

Is strike action really necessary?

We hope that Transnet management will heed the wake-up call of the strike and that they will see workers’ united display of frustration as an opportunity to engage the trade unions on a new and constructive footing.

The significance of the current actions should not be lost. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the South African Railway and Harbours Union from the dispute, the solidarity across the lines of job grade, race and organising tradition is unprecedented. The question is whether management is big enough to recognise that a united workforce is an asset.

Barrett is the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union’s policy research officer and acting Spoornet coordinator