Publications
Partners
Democratic centralism, one of the most abused concepts within the South African political and labour arena, played an ironic role this week in Wednesday’s strike called by the SA Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu).
This because the three union federations represented at the tripartite National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) signed deals, which are being protested against, without consulting all members.
This sort of top-down decision making within much of the labour movement and in the ANC, where elected officials assume the authority of their constituencies is usually described, is not democratic centralism. However, it would be better described as bureaucratic or centralised democracy.
The three federations – Cosatu, the Federation of Unions of SA (Fedusa) and the National Council of Trade Unions – agreed not only to the controversial national minimum wage of up to R20 an hour, but also to a series of amendments to the labour laws. These amendments are a prime focus of worker concerns.
As a result, Saftu was able to capitalise on being the only federation opposing these amendments. The implication is that, even if the federation had been a member of Nedlac, it would not have agreed to either the minimum wage or the labour law amendments.
This gave Saftu the opportunity to call on all workers, irrespective of affiliation, to join a strike “to promote or defend the socioeconomic interests of workers”. It amounted to a direct challenge to the other federations and was an obvious attempt to wean members away from unions affiliated to, especially, Cosatu and Fedusa.
Unsurprisingly, Cosatu and Fedusa slammed the Saftu strike call as “grandstanding” and fundamentally meaningless. They have also noted that Saftu is not a Nedlac member. However, Saftu did apply to join the tripartite body, but the application was opposed by the other federations.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of blocking Saftu’s membership of Nedlac, the new federation has clearly put the others on the back foot. They are having to react to an accusation that they “sold out” on the minimum wage and opened the way to undermine collective bargaining.
It is widely known within the labour movement that Cosatu has previously demanded a minimum wage of R4 500 a month as bare subsistence. The agreement now, at R20 an hour, is for R3 500 a month for full-time employees.
While it is true that perhaps 6 million workers earn less that R3 500 a month, the translation to R20 a hour, coupled with proposed labour law changes, could open up the prospect of more “zero hours” employment.
This means workers being regarded as self employed and being hired on casual contracts — presumably at R20 an hour — for no set periods will have no minimum working hours.
Such situations are already a feature of our labour landscape, with workers waiting to be picked up or called for paid employment. In countries such as Britain, this even applies to lecturers at universities.
Saftu’s action has at least opened up the debate on these issues. But it has also raised the vital question of union democracy and worker control. For all the frequent protestations that unions are “worker controlled”, this is seldom the case.
Under the cover of democratic centralism, bureaucracy rules. This is generally managed by insisting on “the right to manage” and by controlling information while providing patronage that is often funded by income from investment companies.
Hopefully, the current disputes within the unions and their federations will move beyond a destructive slanging match and into serious consideration of the democratic reforms needed throughout the labour movement.
* Sign up to Fin24's top news in your inbox: SUBSCRIBE TO FIN24 NEWSLETTER
