Publications
Partners
A POTENTIAL strike by Eskom workers was universally regarded as the biggest threat to the success of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, especially after the moving appeal by Eskom's new CEO Brian Dames that, in the interest of the country, the utility's workers should think before embarking on a strike.
His pleas and the union's threats were largely for show and positioning – the sort of propaganda peculiar to labour relations during wage negotiations.
Chances of a labour strike at Eskom were slight, mainly because it would have been unprotected as Eskom represents an essential service, but also because its labour force is divided between three trade unions and one or more would probably have backed down and not gone on strike.
This would have totally defeated the success of a strike. Despite several Eskom strikes in previous years, the workforce has never managed to disrupt its services to the extent of affecting electricity supplies.
But it's a very different situation in the case of the public service, where the dispute over wage negotiations could result, within a week or two, in a repetition of the 2007 public sector strike.
The public sector and the public service, in particular, have become the fulcrum of labour union power in South Africa. This goes back long before the 2007 strike, the biggest strike in the country's history.
During that strike, workers in essential services took the perilous decision to ignore the law and decide for themselves which services were essential and should be kept operational.
The strike was so successful that in both 2008 and 2009 they received a 12% increases, while private sector wage increases were about 8.5% in retail and 10% in mining.
Things are even sweeter within the local authorities. In 2008 municipal workers received an additional 11.5%, and in 2009 13%.
These increases mean that nowadays it is considerably more lucrative to work for the public service than for the private sector. Wages in the public sector are about 28% higher than comparable wages in the private sector, according to research by Labour Research Services, a University of Cape Town research unit.
This is simply not sustainable and inevitably has enormous implications for the country's budget, particularly in the longer term.
It would be less detrimental if the burgeoning state expenditure on wages and salaries led to better service delivery and improved infrastructure. For that matter, it is not unusual to see government services and public sectors grow during and after recessions.
This is in fact currently happening in Europe; it is healthy only if a broader public sector paves the way for new economic growth.
This does not seem to be the case in South Africa. Indeed, it is widely known that our public health and education sectors are deteriorating at an increasing pace, despite higher expenditure.
That's why the current wage dispute is a far bigger problem than the potential of a World Cup final being played in the dark.
After the 2007 strike it was hoped that a new wage structure for the public service would be created, enabling it to offer adequate career opportunities for professionals who would be attracted to it.
For that reason, provision was made for occupation-specific dispensations for professionals like health workers and therapists, teachers, legal experts, architects and several other specialists.
Government has broken virtually every one of the undertakings made in this regard.
The problem has been that the settlement agreement contained no specifics as to where the money for occupation-specific dispensations would come from, said Manie de Clerque, deputy secretary of the Public Servants Association (PSA).
The 2007 agreement was signed mainly by unions affiliated to trade federation Cosatu. During that strike the unaffiliated unions formed the Independent Labour Caucus, in which the PSA played a leading role.
The Caucus did not sign the 2007 agreement, in particular because the agreement did not make provision for a budget to meet the promises it contained.
The occupation-specific promises were partly met at the department of correctional services, but not at all at the department of justice (mainly public prosecutors) or the departments of health and education.
The negotiator for the public service therefore has an enormous credibility problem in this year's discussions.
At this stage government has offered public servants an additional 6.5%, but this refers only to wages and salaries, which comprise about 60% of public service employees' remuneration.
Workers at the South African Revenue Service this year received an 8% increase, on their entire remuneration package. Eskom employees recently received 9%.
These things make it extremely difficult to persuade public servants to accept an increase of 6.5% on only 60% of their pay package, said De Clerque.
Government has painted itself into a corner. There are indications that some ANC leaders think it is time to rein in the power of public service unions, especially the right to strike.
This is currently only being mooted behind the scenes, because the mere thought of such a possibility could have far-reaching implications for the alliance.
- Sake24.com
His pleas and the union's threats were largely for show and positioning – the sort of propaganda peculiar to labour relations during wage negotiations.
Chances of a labour strike at Eskom were slight, mainly because it would have been unprotected as Eskom represents an essential service, but also because its labour force is divided between three trade unions and one or more would probably have backed down and not gone on strike.
This would have totally defeated the success of a strike. Despite several Eskom strikes in previous years, the workforce has never managed to disrupt its services to the extent of affecting electricity supplies.
But it's a very different situation in the case of the public service, where the dispute over wage negotiations could result, within a week or two, in a repetition of the 2007 public sector strike.
The public sector and the public service, in particular, have become the fulcrum of labour union power in South Africa. This goes back long before the 2007 strike, the biggest strike in the country's history.
During that strike, workers in essential services took the perilous decision to ignore the law and decide for themselves which services were essential and should be kept operational.
The strike was so successful that in both 2008 and 2009 they received a 12% increases, while private sector wage increases were about 8.5% in retail and 10% in mining.
Things are even sweeter within the local authorities. In 2008 municipal workers received an additional 11.5%, and in 2009 13%.
These increases mean that nowadays it is considerably more lucrative to work for the public service than for the private sector. Wages in the public sector are about 28% higher than comparable wages in the private sector, according to research by Labour Research Services, a University of Cape Town research unit.
This is simply not sustainable and inevitably has enormous implications for the country's budget, particularly in the longer term.
It would be less detrimental if the burgeoning state expenditure on wages and salaries led to better service delivery and improved infrastructure. For that matter, it is not unusual to see government services and public sectors grow during and after recessions.
This is in fact currently happening in Europe; it is healthy only if a broader public sector paves the way for new economic growth.
This does not seem to be the case in South Africa. Indeed, it is widely known that our public health and education sectors are deteriorating at an increasing pace, despite higher expenditure.
That's why the current wage dispute is a far bigger problem than the potential of a World Cup final being played in the dark.
After the 2007 strike it was hoped that a new wage structure for the public service would be created, enabling it to offer adequate career opportunities for professionals who would be attracted to it.
For that reason, provision was made for occupation-specific dispensations for professionals like health workers and therapists, teachers, legal experts, architects and several other specialists.
Government has broken virtually every one of the undertakings made in this regard.
The problem has been that the settlement agreement contained no specifics as to where the money for occupation-specific dispensations would come from, said Manie de Clerque, deputy secretary of the Public Servants Association (PSA).
The 2007 agreement was signed mainly by unions affiliated to trade federation Cosatu. During that strike the unaffiliated unions formed the Independent Labour Caucus, in which the PSA played a leading role.
The Caucus did not sign the 2007 agreement, in particular because the agreement did not make provision for a budget to meet the promises it contained.
The occupation-specific promises were partly met at the department of correctional services, but not at all at the department of justice (mainly public prosecutors) or the departments of health and education.
The negotiator for the public service therefore has an enormous credibility problem in this year's discussions.
At this stage government has offered public servants an additional 6.5%, but this refers only to wages and salaries, which comprise about 60% of public service employees' remuneration.
Workers at the South African Revenue Service this year received an 8% increase, on their entire remuneration package. Eskom employees recently received 9%.
These things make it extremely difficult to persuade public servants to accept an increase of 6.5% on only 60% of their pay package, said De Clerque.
Government has painted itself into a corner. There are indications that some ANC leaders think it is time to rein in the power of public service unions, especially the right to strike.
This is currently only being mooted behind the scenes, because the mere thought of such a possibility could have far-reaching implications for the alliance.
- Sake24.com
