There were no winners during the public service strike. Everyone who participated in the strike sacrificed something.
Public Service and Administration Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi was humiliated when unions refused to meet her — twice on one day.
Unions lost face because they were forced to accept an offer that was substantially lower than the 12% for which they campaigned so passionately.
Public servants lost up to a month’s salary, which will be hard, if not impossible, to recover from.
The sick lost out on healthcare. The children lost out on learning. The public, which had shown unprecedented levels of support for the plight of public servants, lost sympathy when the strike turned violent.
Strike action serves the purpose of applying pressure as a collective. When public servants strike en masse, the power they can yield is substantial. This was evident during the strike as hospitals and schools strained under staff absenteeism.
Even though the success of a strike is measured, in part, by the number of participating workers who collectively withhold their labour, there will always be those who choose not to participate. Whatever their reasons might be to continue working, these choices should be respected in a democratic society.
Sadly this did not happen during the strike.
In fact, I would argue that in addition to the number of days the strike lasted, it will be remembered for the incidents of intimidation. One of the low points was the attack on Claire Lucas, principal of St George’s Primary School in Ennerdale, south of Johannesburg.
Lucas was assaulted by 10 sjambok-yielding men — allegedly teachers. Besides her injuries and the loss of dignity she suffered, the fragile image of the teaching profession was dealt a severe blow.
If educators themselves don’t respect one another and the choices they make during periods of industrial action, why should society bother to hold them and their profession in high regard?
The attack on Lucas was unacceptable. Those who executed the assault should be brought to book as they are nothing more than thugs. Teacher unions simply were not vocal enough on the matter. The public condemnation by union leaders should have been much louder and much more unequivocal.
This condemnation should not be interpreted as a condemnation of those who participated in the strike and in pickets. We support teachers in their continuing quest for better salaries by using all legal methods at their disposal.
We are fully aware of the high levels of dissatisfaction among teachers over their salaries. This point is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that, for the first time in history as far as I know, all the teachers’ unions joined the labour action.
But now that the strike is over, there is much work that lies ahead.
Relationships have to be fixed: between the government as the employer and public servants as its employees; between those who chose to work and those who went on strike; and between the public, who is concerned about the education of its children, and the teachers, who have to attempt to recover lost time.
The ability to heal these relationships will determine if the national department’s far-reaching recovery plan will achieve some levels of success.
There is still a lot of anger on the ground — and understandably so — but please, let us start to move forward and stop punishing our learners. We cannot allow them to continue to be the real losers in this ordeal.