Cover inside cover right to fight A selection of 15 years of Inside Labour columns from Business Report, South Africa’s most widely read business newspaper Introduction MANUALLY, digitally or mechanically, labour is the source of all production, distribution and exchange. It provides all raw materials, manufactures the implements, vehicles and devices used in the process, transports, warehouses, retails and is the essential ingredient in every service in between. But labour is people, men and women — all too often, children — who sell their skills and abilities, their hands and brains, to create and operate the world as we know it. As such, the legions of labour, if organised, make up one of the potentially most powerful forces on earth. In simple terms: if every worker— every seller of labour — stopped work at midday tomorrow, the world as we know it would stop; but if every company director went off to play golf for a week, it is unlikely that there would be any perceived difference, other than congestion on the golf courses. Of course just stopping work or having company directors disappear for a period is no answer, but it does underline the crucial role of those who labour and, therefore, of trade unions that are the basic organisations of those who sell their labour. This is why, no matter how this power is used, abused or frittered away, labour and its right to fight back against exploitation, matters. Which is why, in 1996, when Peter Bruce, first editor of Business Report, offered me the opportunity to write a weekly column about labour, I readily agreed. Since then, over 15 years, I have provided this column to five other editors, James Lamont, Alide Dasnois, Jabulane Sikhakane, Quentin Wray and now, Ellis Mnyandu. In the spirit of open debate and freedom of expression, none has ever interfered with the content or rejected any column. And they never wavered in the face of occasional attacks — both verbal and written — on my writing. These came from senior political and trade union figures as well as from the business sector. As a result, I have felt it necessary to explain, from time to time, that the Inside Labour column is not an expression of my views, however much I may agree with some of the points made; that it is about issues, developments and thinking within the labour movement and its right to fight. Of course, I make the decision about the topic of each column, and this is subjective. But the topic is also dictated by how readily available the information is. And I do have an agenda: to encourage debate and discussion about real issues that affect the labour movement by reflecting arguments and questions which arise within the trade unions and among trade unionists. I am also an admitted socialist and life-long trade unionist, so I have an interest in promoting trade unionism and worker unity. And I feel this interest is best served by open, democratic debate, not by ignoring unpleasant realities or sweeping awkward issues under the carpet. Nor do I see it a betrayal of the trade union cause to cast the spotlight of publicity on mistakes, corruption or acts of stupidity within the movement. We ignore these at our peril. If they “give ammunition to the bosses” then it is all the more important that they be addressed by the unions. To paraphrase an ancient dictum, the correct course in not to shoot the messenger, but to heed the message and debate its contents. The cartoons FIFTEEN years ago, when Inside Labour first appeared, the first of the annual collections of cartoons by Jonathan — Zapiro — Shapiro was published. As an avid fan I have a copy of that first book — and each of the 14 that followed. To my mind, these provide the most succinct analysis of major political and economic developments in each year. So I was immensely grateful when Jonathan agreed to allow one of his cartoons to be used as a cover illustration and to provide 15 labour- orientated cartoons to introduce each of the annual selections of Inside Labour columns. 1996 The end of the transitional government of national unity (GNU), a result of the Codesa negotiations at Kempton Park, arrives. So too does perhaps the world’s most liberal Constitution and the year also sees the launch of GEAR — the government’s neo liberal Growth Employment and Redistribution proposal. It comes at the same time as the Social Equity proposals by the labour movement that are based on a diametrically opposite premise and provide the basis for ongoing economic debate and acrimony. Here is the start of the conflict between government’s macro-economic policy and the ideals and ideas of the labour movement, especially in terms of attitudes towards privatisation. This year also sees the the first prominent whistleblower about political corruption — Bantubonke Holomisa — sacked for exposing the fact that Sol Kerzner, the gambling and hotels tycoon, had bribery and corruption charges dropped after giving a R2 million handout to President Nelson Mandela and the ANC. Holomisa goes on the form the United Democratic Movement. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) also gets underway and — controversially — the first indications appear that former defence minister Magnus Malan and the apartheid dirty tricks establishment, along with letter bomb killers such as Craig Williamson, will be let off the hook. For the labour movement, the primary focus is the application of the new Labour Relations Act, with its inclusion of the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). It also sees many unions moving from militancy on the margins to the mainstream. 8 February 15 Silencing the privatisation protests Despite all the hullabaloo and proclamations of union power, last week’s national framework agreement on privatisation contained nothing new. It was simply a reiteration of established positions. Yet it will probably serve the purpose of taking the steam out of protests about privatisation. Significantly, most of the top brass in Cosatu were missing from the launch in Cape Town. They were tied up in their Johannesburg headquarters, dealing with much more important matters: discussions with their trade union federation counterparts from Swaziland. This provided another illustration of the usefulness of the symbiotic nature of government in South Africa. It would have been a diplomatic blunder of the first magnitude for the South African government to enter into discussions with the leading opposition force in a neighbouring state. But Cosatu, though a member of the governing alliance, could do so. For Cosatu loudly trumpets its independence. At one level, this is a valid claim. The trade union federation is, in the final analysis, subject to whatever pressures are exerted by its rank and file members. But, at a leadership level, Cosatu is very much part of the ANC-led alliance in government. This means that decisions taken by government — on anything from privatisation to the state of affairs in Swaziland — are usually agreed on by all members of the alliance. The partners constantly confer, debate and reach compromise solutions on issues such as the restructuring of state assets, a term that implies more than simple privatisation. This does not make the new framework agreement a victory for the unions over uncontrolled privatisation. Rampant privatisation was never intended. But it made for a classic straw man. And knocking it down has apparently worked. Only the 110 000-strong Municipal Workers Union refused to endorse the agreement in the closed executive meeting at which it was discussed. This should not be surprising as the Cosatu leadership remains very much in command. The use of the term “reconstruction” is important. It is not synonymous with privatisation. Privatisation means just what it says: the sell-off of state assets. Reconstruction, on the other hand, can include the sale of these assets. But in the present South African context, it also implies the probability of a continued state or state-linked presence in these reconstructed sectors. The government is seeking a middle way. It faces the same problems as any regime committed to social equity in a harshly competitive world: government political priorities tend to run counter to the dominant economic rationale. The result is the reconstruction balancing act. It is an attempt to straddle the divide between the demands for social equity and those for profit, with the probable end result of pleasing nobody. But after so much talk and so many claims, confusion and apathy seem a much more likely outcome than conflict and anarchy. 9 February 22 A tale of union anger — and collapse WHEN John van Wyk and 58 others have their day in the industrial court in Cape Town in coming weeks, it will signal the end of a brief but tumultuous chapter in South African labour history. It will not close the book on the conditions and circumstances which gave rise to considerable turmoil in the trucking industry over the past 18 months. All 59 are long-distance truck drivers claiming wrongful dismissal from Mainline Carriers. The merits and details of the case cannot, for legal reasons, be commented on. But these are not really the pertinent issues for those outside the immediate process. Nor is whether they win or lose, although this will obviously have an effect. What should be of immediate interest throughout the labour movement, and to all those concerned with labour relations, is the fact that every one of the complainants is a trade unionist — yet no trade union is involved. All were former members of the Transport and General Workers Union, of which Van Wyk was a senior shop steward.