DEEPER REALITY THAN SYMPTOMS

Collective bargaining needs to address the root causes of labour conflict

FROM many an employer’s perspective, the future of collective bargaining has been called into question for a number of reasons. These range from the fact that industrial action related to collective bargaining has become protracted and so violent that businesses now feel that they reach agreements under duress and are subsequently saddled with unaffordable wage increases.

Employers who survive a round of collective bargaining and the consequent violence, damage to property and intimidation are left reeling and immediately question the system, with some quickly arriving at the conclusion that the outcome would be far better if the current system were abolished.

What is not thought about, questioned or discussed nearly enough is the cause of the violence, damage to property and intimidation, and what should replace the current system. One thing is for certain: if any replacement to the current system is to endure and stand the test of time, it will require buy-in and commitment from all stakeholders.

That means that acknowledgement needs to be given to the fact that, from an employee’s perspective, strike action is no longer just about “bread-and-butter” issues; rather, it is a symptom of deeper underlying problems.

At a recent seminar hosted by the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of Southern Africa, Professor Steven Friedman, the director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg, argued that the underlying problems with the current labour environment are the major underlying problems within society.

The problems in question are undoubtedly poverty, inequality and unemployment. If left unaddressed, these problems will continue to be the trigger points for protracted, violent and ongoing industrial action. More and more social issues such as housing and access to quality medical care are finding their way on to letters of demand before employers sitting at the bargaining table.

November 4 saw the convening of the much talked about Labour Relations Indaba. Intended as a platform for social partners to discuss the promotion of employment and the strengthening of social dialogue, the indaba followed a call by President Jacob Zuma in his State of the Nation address for social partners to address, on the one hand, inequality, poverty and unemployment and, on the other, the violent and protracted nature of labour strikes.

Collapsing the current system without coming up with a viable alternative will not address the symptoms underlying the root causes plaguing labour relations.

The two issues are inextricably linked. Undoubtedly, addressing inequality, poverty and unemployment will lead to a decrease in the anger, frustration and desperation that underpins today’s violent strike action. One is not suggesting that issues that should be addressed by the state must be solved by the private sector, or vice versa, but that the starting point to addressing the problem is acknowledging its true nature.

One is also not suggesting that any sort of violence is justified. However, as long as striking workers feel the need to resort to violence, very real problems will continue to plague the labour relations landscape.

Suggestions that new legislation, specifically in the form of amendments to the Labour Relations Act, will result in peaceful industrial action are, in one’s humble opinion, short-sighted.

This growing level of anger and frustration can clearly be seen in the experience of the metal industry. In 1992, the industry experienced a four-week strike which was mostly peaceful. There was then industrial relations peace during the “honeymoon period” of the transition to democracy in 1994, the introduction of the current Labour Relations Act in 1995 and the following 12 years.

That continued to be the case until 2007 when the industry experienced a one-week strike which was characterised by relatively low levels of violence, with no real infringement on other employee’s right to work. However, in 2011 the industry was shocked by a two-week strike characterised by high levels of violence and intimidation, with huge infringement on the right of fellow employees to work.

This year employers believed that they had learnt from the past and were better prepared, but were again shocked by a four-week strike characterised by unprecedented levels of violence and the complete and utter infringement of all other employees’ rights to work, regardless of whether they fell within the bargaining unit.

There is currently legal action brought by certain employers in the metal industry to stop the extension to non-parties of the collective agreement reached earlier in the year, as well as a broader, separate legal challenge questioning the constitutionality of the provisions in the Labour Relations Act which oblige the labour minister automatically to extend agreements reached between majority parties.

Should these unfortunate legal actions succeed, the industrial relations consequences could be extremely serious, particularly at a time when minimum wages are already a matter of great contention, having resulted in recent strike action which has inflicted serious damage to the country’s economy.

First, there is a real possibility that labour would undertake further major protest and even strike action against what they would see as a serious attack by essentially capitalist interests against hard-won and well-established trade union rights.

Second, they may well call for a complete overhaul of all legislation regarding minimum wages and other conditions of employment that could result in legislation a great deal more onerous to employers than that which currently exists.

In the metal industry, the parties to the collective agreement have acknowledged that the sustainability of the collective bargaining structures and processes are under threat from two key, socio-economic forces: the enhanced requirement for increased competitiveness in a global market and the urgent need to address the social living conditions of employees in an environment.

What is clear is that the current state of affairs is unsustainable and the time for action is long overdue. However, this action needs to be considered and well researched and, most importantly, it requires genuine commitment from all stakeholders, which clearly includes more than just employers and employees.

A successful system will be one which continues to address problems of minimum standards, inequality and poverty while also, critically, ensuring the continued survival and growth of the businesses in the sector. Until this balance is found, our industrial relations climate will remain seriously problematic and continue to erode investor confidence.

Collapsing the current system without coming up with a viable alternative model, acceptable to all stakeholders, will not address the symptoms underlying the root causes plaguing our labour relations environment.

The collective bargaining model can be equated to an airplane experiencing problems mid-flight. What is needed is to find a way to fix the problems mid-flight. Our greatest concern is that if we were to land the plane, without having devised an alternative model, we run the risk of never taking off again.