Self-serving union strikes harm workers

There has to be a better, less expensive way for employers and employees to resolve disputes without workers resorting to strike action. It has simply become too costly for individual workers who down tools over mainly wage-related demands, with some taking more than seven years to recover from the impact financially.

The Department of Labour’s Industrial Action report has shown once more that there are no winners when workers head for the picket line, but the biggest loser is labour.

In 2017 workers lost R251m in wages, compared with R161m in 2016, a 56% increase. Among the workers who take to the streets to express their dissatisfaction are the country’s majority working poor, who earn less than R3,500 a month and have few assets or savings.

Industrial action also has costly consequences for the economy and affected businesses. A total of 960,889 man days, the most time yet, was lost to strike action in 2017, and because the law prohibits employers from hiring casual labour, production suffered.

The contention by Cosatu and other unions that the record number of strikes in 2017 illustrated deepening levels of exploitation of workers by employers and the power of labour in responding to the crisis could be part of the explanation. However, this is nothing compared to the suffering experienced by families when the sheriff attaches their belongings due to failure to keep up with loan repayments as strikes ensue.

Many strikes were clearly motivated by politics or competing unions campaigning for members, rather than workplace disputes.

There is an entrenched perception in the labour movement that the longer and more robust the strike, and the more militant the organisation that leads it, the more likely that union is to dominate its sector. Too often workers are called out on strike for weeks, only for unions to settle for the wages they protested against initially.

In 2015, MTN workers embarked on an eight-week strike led by the Communication Workers Union (CWU), demanding a 12% wage increase. Yet after two months the union encouraged the workers to accept the 8% increase the management had offered from the start. MTN shares fell 7.6% when the strike was at its peak.

While the CWU received a record number of membership applications from MTN at the time, most of the workers whose hopes hung on the promises that came with strike action are still reeling from the financial impact.

Even when unions maintain the upper hand in negotiations and score victories for workers, the amount of money lost during strikes tends to hollow out such wins. The right to strike is one of SA’s most sacrosanct laws and is enshrined in the Constitution, but it means nothing if workers shoot themselves in the foot when they exercise it.

Whether striking is always the remedy for grievances and disputes with management over working conditions is questionable. If unions honestly outlined the potential costs and the possible benefits of strike action, there would surely be less aggressive rhetoric.

The struggle to recover lost wages due to the no-work, nopay rule means most long strikes defeat the object — the onus is on the unions to find other ways to exert pressure on employers. The same responsibility confronts employers, who can also set the business back years by failing to do everything possible to avoid a strike.

The proposed amendment to section 65 of the Labour Relations Act that would limit the right to strike and management’s right to lock workers out of the workplace if disputes could be referred to arbitration or the Labour Court is not the solution. A paradigm shift by employers and unions over disputes is needed. Mahlakoana is a political and labour writer.