Mechanisation an unhealthy alternative
Wine farmers in the Western Cape are replacing workers with mechanical harvesters. The harvesters also pose an environmental hazard. Matt Tandabantu investigates and gets arrested for trespassing?
Seven years ago, farm workers picking grapes on the Boschendal wine estate came together and requested a wage increase from the farm owner. Within two days, they found themselves replaced by a mechanical harvester, flown in from Germany.
It is estimated that about 50 mechanical harvesters are in use in the Western Cape vineyards. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost and countless families have been left homeless and destitute.
The farmers are replacing workers with machines because they don’t want to pay a living wage. It is no longer acceptable for farmers to pay workers in wine through the exploitative ‘dop system’ The formation of unions for farmworkers and the extension of rights through the Basic Conditions of Employment Act have made the farmers even more keen to get rid of labour.
Hazard
The harvesters are also causing an environmental hazard that the farmers want to keep secret. Animals such as chameleons, snakes, rats, kittens, and many kinds of insects are being harvested along with the grapes. Their body parts are ending up in the bottled wine. This never used to happen when farm workers picked the grapes by hand.
Workers on one farm get their drinking water from a river next to the cellar. Continually seeping out of the cellar is a kind of effluent from the left over grape juice, mixed up with the body parts of animals. The workers said the water in the river is not fit to drink.
Conditions
Interviews with workers and people living in communities in and around farms in Stellenbosch revealed deep-rooted anger at the bad working conditions and the racist attitudes of farmers.
A woman worker who has worked for six years on a farm in the Koelenhof district earns R95 per week. She has to pay the farmer R50 a month for electricity. She supports six children on what is left of her wages. Now the mechanisation process is threatening her job.
A group of workers said that two years ago their union demanded a R50 a week increase. During negotiations the workers dropped their demand to R30 per week. The farm boss eventually granted an increase of R8 per week on condition that nine workers and their families take voluntary retrenchment and leave the farm. "Those families were evicted, it was those who were more involved with the union, yet the rest of us have never received that increase of R8," said a worker who did not want to be named.
Action
A group of ten environmental activists have spent several months visiting the farms and collecting information about both labour and environmental problems. The activists are demanding an immediate stop to mechanical harvesting and a return to handpicking. They say that "in terms of the law the wine produced on the farm is illegal if it contains body parts of endangered species, such as chameleons." They are also demanding that farmers pay for the rehabilitation of workers affected by the ‘dop system’, which is still taking place undercover at some farms. They are lobbying various government departments to force the farmers to pay for medical treatment for children born with foetal alcohol syndrome as a result of this system. The activists have found support not only from workers but also from traditional healers in the area.
SAAPAWU spokesperson, Cde Howard Mbana, says that "the union is totally against mechanisation which affects jobs." SAAPAWU is demanding that employers negotiate any type of mechanisation before it is implemented. Should there be any need for the reduction of workers a social plan must be agreed on for those workers who will be affected. The social plan should emphasise human resources development.
A meeting is to be convened with the farmers to put demands around health and safety, working conditions and consumer rights.: "If our demands are not met we will be forced to black-list these farmers both locally and internationally.
Numsa is concerned about the view expressed in the White Paper (on Energy Policy) which states that the government would embark on measures to "support gradual steps towards a competitive electricity market". The steps proposed include splitting ESKOM into two companies – one which transmits electricity and one which generates electricity. Furthermore, power stations will be separated into a number of competing companies, with five independent regional distributors and transmission companies. The Companies Act of 1973 will be used to supply industries with electricity for the purposes of dividends and tax payments. Numsa does not agree that large industrial consumers be allowed to purchase electricity directly from ESKOM.
It is Numsa’s belief that proposals on electricity in the White Paper have the potential to undermine what the document states as an objective – a progressive realisation of universal household access to electricity. It also has the potential to change the country’s status as one of the places with cheap electricity.
Allowing industrial consumers to purchase directly from ESKOM will reduce revenues of distributors and undermine consumer pressure required to lower price levels. Taxation proposals in relation to ESKOM mentioned in the White Paper and introduced through the ESKOM Amendment Bill, can over time have the impact of heightening the price of electricity. It has been labour’s position that a decision to have ESKOM paying tax and dividends must await a thorough investigation on the possible effects on the electrification programme, electricity prices and general tariff levels.
Alternative view Labour’s proposal is that the whole electricity supply industries should be under a single governance structure and be subject to public sector ownership and control only. The private sector may participate in the financial investment instruments such as ESKOM bonds. This is the only way that we can ensure that the electrification targets are met and the objectives of the RDP realised.Our position on public ownership of the industry does not imply that we are oblivious to the need to restructure the industry and deal with problems of efficiency. We believe that the industry should be restructured into two public utilities established in terms of special Acts of Parliament. ESKOM would remain responsible for all generation and transmission. A national distributor should be established to consolidate all electricity distribution. The national distributor would have the power to set up regional and district distributors of electricity so as to ensure efficient distribution. Local government structures will be represented in the regional and local distribution structures. ESKOM must remain responsible for providing future expansion of capacity and maintaining cheap electricity supply at its lowest possible cost.
The establishment of a national distributor with regional and district arms is the only way of ensuring that the country moves away from the existing situation where we have a plethora of tariffs.
The COSATU Exco recently reaffirmed its anti-privatisation stand
"Outsourcing"
and "sub-contracting" have become buzzwords in recent years, as South
|
At face value, there seems nothing wrong with this approach. Companies need to compete and be profitable if they are to remain in business. Failure will mean bankruptcy, and the loss of jobs.
However, if one interrogates the precise practices, and their implications for all concerned – not just shareholders and employers, but workers, communities, the environment, future generations, the national economy – then the picture can change dramatically.
In the NUM?s experience, subcontracting and outsourcing means:
Current union policy is not to oppose all sub-contracting (e.g. where specialised skills are needed for short periods). However, the union is opposed to subcontracting that is clearly directed at lowering the standards and employment conditions that we have fought so hard for over the years. This is the dominant practice.
Mines often use unscrupulous fly-by-night sub-contractors who escape the law and treat workers like units of labour (i.e. non-humans) that can be replaced at any moment. Even well established contractors, with more decent labour standards, usually come in after massive retrenchments. The re-hired workers do not enjoy the job security and benefits they had before. It is only after the union intervenes that decent standards are maintained.
Health and Safety
The health and safety implications of sub-contracting came to the fore at last year’s Health and Safety Summit. The Chamber finally admitted that the Mines Health and Safety Act holds mining employers responsible for the health and safety conditions of all workers on mines. Of course, this includes workers employed by contractors.
Unfortunately, the situation is not that uncomplicated. Even though the Act is clear on responsibilities, the devil is, as usual, in the details. The nature of subcontracting in the mining industry is extremely complex. Some mines work with very small contractors who employ workers that work in very dangerous areas. In some instances, contractors subcontract certain functions further, to other contractors.
In light of this, it is very difficult to enforce the principles laid down by legislation. It is specifically when it comes to medical surveillance, risk assessment and health and safety training, that the union finds that subcontracting can by-pass the mechanisms laid down to regulate and promote health and safety standards.
A further problem with subcontracting is the fact that a large proportion of the wage of a worker in some subcontracted teams tends to be linked directly to performance. This may encourage workers to take unnecessary risks in order to meet production targets.
We know of practices where, if a worker is injured, he is dismissed immediately. Often these workers are ‘illegal migrants’ with no rights. They are at the complete mercy of the sub-contractor. Can the mines turn a blind eye to such inhuman, slave-like practices?
It for these and many other reasons that the union is opposed to most outsourcing and sub-contracting practices.
Where sub-contracting is already a fact, the issue is whether employment practices that contribute to both efficiency and a safe working environment can be found. In our experience, much of the subcontracting practices do not contribute to a safe and decent working environment for workers.
Employer justifications
Outsourcing is justified because it is seen as a means of
lowering costs in order to become ‘globally competitive’ ("there is no
alternative"). However, we are told not to worry because it will only happen to
‘non-core’ operations, and where ‘specialised services’ are required.
It is also supposed to be a means towards ‘black empowerment’.
Let us look at this more closely:
‘Non-core’ business
The NUM’s agreement with the Chamber of Mines around
sub-contracting allows for specialised activities to be outsourced. We even
accepted ‘non-core’ activities. However, mines are exploiting this loophole.
What is the ‘core business’ of a mine? First, we were told that shaft sinking is not a core operation, and soon it spread to security, cleaning, catering, transport. The definition of ‘core’ is so malleable that it has become meaningless. (Shaft sinkers themselves are now engaged in ‘core’mining).
What is ‘specialised’? Certainly, we can accept Information Technology (IT) functions which require highly specialised skills, and which have entered the industry recently. However, mines are now tempted to treat almost everything as ‘specialised’, from cleaning to catering, rendering our agreements meaningless.
‘Black empowerment’
The union is not impressed with outsourcing dressed up as ‘black empowerment’. This label was first used in the RDP base document, and refers specifically to the improved working and living conditions of the vast majority of people in this country – black people at the lower rungs of the ladder as a result of our colonial and apartheid legacy.
The ‘empowerment’ of a few individuals at the top means little (except in those few cases where it has meant better labour practices). In any case, many companies have black faces only, while real ownership and control resides elsewhere.
‘Global competitiveness’
The post 1970s globalisation has been driven by the neo-liberal ideology of unfettered free market capitalism – a return to 19th century economics. Through the ideology of ‘deregulation’, ‘reduced state expenditure’ and ‘free trade’, all the social and welfare gains of the 20th century have been under threat.
Income inequality has reached unprecedented heights – at the global level, within countries, and between regions within countries. While, through new technology, the production of food and other commodities has increased dramatically – the world can be fed twice over every day – World Bank and UNDP studies show that at least half the world’s population live in poverty, without enough to eat. These people are not confined to Africa, or the ‘developing world’, but are found throughout the world (including rich countries like the USA, where 20 million people are said to live below the poverty line).
Outsourcing and subcontracting are back-door attempts at introducing ‘labour market flexibility’ – i.e. lower labour standards, a key ingredient of neo-liberalism. It is part of a global trend to cheapen labour, in the drive to become "globally competitive".
"But what can we do?", employers ask, "we have to compete with countries employing child labour and paying starvation wages. If we do not do the same, we will go out of business. There is no alternative."
There must be alternatives.
If half the world is going to starve, what use is ‘economics’ to them? If they are pushed into the informal/criminal economy, can the other half ever sleep peacefully?
Ultimately, the practice of undermining decent labour, health and environmental standards can only be stopped if there are international agreements around core standards, so that companies from different countries compete on level playing fields.
The current global economic crisis has opened up space for global regulation and global standards. If we move out of our parochial concerns and address the larger picture, we can move mountains.
People before things
Outsourcing and sub-contracting are part of a global trend towards permanent unemployment, the casualisation of labour, lower standards: in short, the race to the bottom.
It is conceded that, in the current global environment, it is difficult for individual countries and companies to observe decent labour practices and standards unilaterally. However, some countries (like Northern Europe and Canada) are doing so, and many global companies, under pressure from unions and communities, have adopted policies of ‘sustainable development’ which respects decent human and environmental practices. All it takes is will and imagination.
Global standards are now emerging, and a new ‘global trend’ is in the offing. The low road to human misery does not have to be followed. A different mindset, one that places people before things, can open up enormous possibilities – not just for the poor and excluded, but for the benefit of all.
After all- even your job can be
outsourced tomorrow.
Samwu wage negotiations At the time of going to press, SAMWU had just finished the third round in this year’s centralised wage bargaining for municipal workers. SAMWU Publicity Officer, Anna Weekes, gives an overview of the process so far.
While the negotiations were still in deadlock at the time of Shopsteward going to print, one of the union’s demands – for a minimum wage of R1335.00 for all workers – had been agreed to by employers.
SAMWU, with over 120 000 members, submitted a joint demand with the Independent Municipal and Allied Trade Union (IMATU), which has 70000 members. There are altogether about 230 000 municipal workers covered by the negotiations.
SAMWU’s opening demands were for the greater of R350 or inflation plus 5%. The negotiating team from South African Local Government Association, dominated by high profile ANC Councilors, opened the bargaining with an offer of 2% or R100 across the board, and rejected a minimum wage. The three rounds saw the employers move to the greater of R200 or 5%, and SAMWU drop to the greater of R250 or 7.9%.
SAMWU’s Collective Bargaining Officer, Dale Forbes, said that negotiations were hampered by central government placing a limit of 5,5% on the growth of municipal budgets. "The employers used this as a means of driving down the increase," said Forbes.
The negotiations also saw heated debates around cost recovery. "Businesses are the greatest defaulters on rates payments, yet the employers refuse to implement measures against them to recover millions of rands that could go to providing services," said Forbes. Yet when workers do not pay for services, they are cut off without wasting a moment!
SAMWU heard from the press that employers would apply to be exempted from granting a minimum wage to workers who were earning below R1335 per month -mainly in rural areas and former homelands.
Said Forbes: "This is ridiculous. Many municipal workers are only getting R600 per month. Instead of fighting against giving members a wage on which they can barely live, councillors should be working with SAMWU to get more money directed towards local government."
SAMWU finds it strange that while national government is implementing policies to uplift these disadvantaged areas, councillors are fighting this tooth and nail at local government level.
In our next edition, The Shopsteward will do around up of union collective bargaining agreements for 1999 and will also look at the issue of minimum wage.
COSATU Executive Committee Meeting – 11/12 May
Summary of main decisions |
The Executive Committee is unanimous on the need to use the National Framework Agreement (NFA) as an important site of struggle. The are a number of weaknesses with the NFA that the Executive Committee identified. These include the lack of clarity on its legal status. Also, the NFA is not inclusive. A task team has been established to look at how these weaknesses can be addressed. COSATU remains firmly opposed to privatisation.
Insolvency ActThe Executive Committee looked at the massive job losses and factory closures that have seen 108 000 workers losing their jobs in 1998. We noted the record levels of liquidations, in particular in the SMME sector. We are deeply concerned at the inadequate levels of protection afforded to workers by the Insolvency Act.
We will instruct our lawyers urgently to look at the Insolvency Act to see how it can be improved.
The June 2 ElectionsWe can now confidently say that the federation has unleashed its organisational machinery in support of the ANC’s elections campaign. The Executive Committee endorsed the final election lists. We are particularly heartened by those candidates who come from the trade union movement, believing that they will continue to uphold and advance the interests of the working people and the working class in particular.
Special CongressThe Executive Committee endorsed a discussion paper on the framework for the Special Congress. The Congress will adopt a programme that seeks to address weaknesses identified by COSATU over the last few years. The deadline to submit resolutions is 25 June 1999. The Congress theme will be: "Defend and Consolidate Social Transformation for Socialism."
