On the 5th of June 2015, 700 delegates at the National Union of Mineworkers 15th national congress voted for new leaders. Free State secretary David Sipunzi was elected general secretary, replacing Frans Baleni, who served in the position for 9 years.
He was elected by the skin of his teeth: Frans Baleni 345 votes – David Sipunzi 354 votes.
The congress was the first since the Marikana massacre and mass loss of N.U.M membership to AMCU. It also took place after the expulsion of metalworkers union NUMSA from COSATU and the dismissal of the federation’s general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi. Baleni is accused of playing a leading role in orchestrating these two events.
There are a few moments during the conference and afterwards that are worth quoting:
N.U.M founding general secretary Cyril Ramaphosa (far right).
“Leaders must lead with humility, and serve members even if you have to go down on your knees to serve members. Members were attracted to NUM because it was on the cutting edge of serving members – Cyril Ramaophosa [iol.co.za]
ANC secretary general & former mineworker Gwede Mantashe.
Once you have a federation dominated by the public sector you are in trouble. We should have industrial unions building themselves, as well as putting on our shoulders to help this union the NUM to be strong enough to deal with Amcu. – Gwede Mantashe [news24]
Former N.U.M general secretary Frans Baleni (left) & newly elected president Piet Matosa.
I decided to campaign for another term after I was approached by nine (9) regions which nominated me for the position. I accept the democratic decision arrived at by the membership of the N.U.M – Frans Baleni [radio702]
Newly elected general secretary David Sipunzi speaks to the media at a report back session in the Free State.
The expulsion of NUMSA is not a contribution towards worker unity, that’s my belief. The expulsion of [Zwelinzima} Vavi is not going down well with the general membership at the ground level. I’m tired of being shouted by members asking when is Vavi coming back. I can no longer close my ears to those calls – David Sipunzi [ewn.co.za]
Will the election of David Sipunzi and William Mabapa [deputy GS] change the N.U.M’s position towards the other industrial unions within COSATU? Will the proletariat reclaim SA’s biggest worker federation?
The very public scrap between former trade union leaders John Copelyn and Marcel Golding, both now billionaire business people, has raised a crucial question for the labour movement: the role of union investment companies.
Central, in this case, is the SA Clothing and Textile Workers’ Union (Sactwu), two of its former general secretaries and the present incumbent.
Copelyn was the long-serving Sactwu general secretary who went to parliament in 1994 as an ANC MP. He was joined by Golding, former deputy general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM). But they soon deserted parliament to launch in 1997, an investment company, using union funds.
Sactwu remains the largest single shareholder in Hosken Consolidated Investments (HCI). This company has interests in many areas known for low-paid labour: hotels, casinos, coal mines and transport. And while the Sactwu investment arm has boomed, the clothing and textile industry has lost tens of thousands of jobs. A number of premises that once housed a thriving garment trade are now part of an HCI rental property portfolio.
Copelyn’s successor as Sactwu general secretary, Ebrahim Patel, is now economic development minister in the Zuma government and has been accused of trying to exert influence on the editorial content of free-to-air commercial station, eTV, owned by HCI. Current Sactwu general secretary, Andre Kriel has also been implicated.
And it was not for the first time that Kriel has stepped outside his union role to intervene in commercial matters. In December last year in the wake of the controversial takeover of Independent Newspapers by Sekunjalo Investments, Kriel initially demanded that all queries relating to the takeover and the subsequent sacking of Cape Times editor, Alide Dasnois, be referred to him.
Although Kriel would not confirm it, it is understood that Sactwu’s investment vehicle may have contributed some R200 million toward the Independent purchase. Whatever the details of the case, there is more than a hint here of how unions involved in big business and investment, may blur the lines between the interests of labour and capital.
In our economic system, it is in the interest of employers is to maximise profits while workers want to improve wages and conditions, a cost on profits. This leads to what supporters of the system sometimes refer to as “creative tension”, that is resolved by negotiation.
It is not in the interests of workers to weaken, cripple or destroy a business to which they sell their labour in order to survive. But it is certainly in the interests of capital to undermine the strength of labour and to ensure a regulatory environment that favours employers.But what happens when the representatives of labour, the unions, also become employers, relying on maximised profits in order to ensure higher dividends?
Supporters of this development maintain that the profits then go to benefit union members.
Critics point out that this is at the expense of other workers and amounts to “crumbs from the table of capital”.
It is a contradiction that, at the least, leads to confusion. Yet there is an understandable history of unions and their federations openly supporting — usually after debate and democratic decision-making — political parties and campaigns, both financially and in terms of volunteer labour.
In South Africa’s case, Cosatu, although not all of its affiliates, is part of the governing ANC-led alliance, a lingering legacy of a common battle against the apartheid system. By and large, this qualified as unadulterated rank and file support, at a particular time and for openly debated and supported policies that workers saw might strengthen their position. It is the antithesis of moves to increase the power of capital.
Unions crossing this boundary, brings to mind the opening line of a song from the 1931 miners’ strike in the US state of Kentucky: “Which side are you on?”
AMCU members picket at the Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana in January 2014.
When a delegation of African National Congress leaders met with the owners of the world’s biggest mining houses in the early 1990’s, a defining compromise on ownership of the country’s mineral resources and the distribution of profits that followed was made.
Mining giants such as Anglo American and Goldfields were able to retain control and ownership of valuable mines in exchange for including previously sidelined leaders in their deals – and most importantly – a commitment to improve the standard of living of its employees.
A loan agreement signed between South Africa and the International Monetary Fund on the eve of the first democratic elections then became the proverbial nail in the coffin of any aspirations of a socialist state in 1994, affirming capitalism’s victory in Africa’s newest democracy. In an opinion piece published on the guardian’s website, ANC and SACP stalwart Ronnie Kasrils recalls this as the moment the liberation movement sold us out.
Fast forward 20 years and as the country celebrates two decades of freedom, its mining industry has been flipped on its head. The platinum and gold giants that were able to retain its riches have failed to improve the lives of the majority of its people. As a result, thousands of miners on the platinum belt and gold reef continue to down tools demanding better wages.
This year has seen a particularly interesting situation develop. For the first time in the country, Anglo American Platinum has decided to sue the Association for Mining and Construction Workers Union, AMCU. The platinum giant wants AMCU to pay nearly 600 million Rand for losses it’s incurred due to the intimidation of its non striking workers. The company claims this intimidation has led to it not being able to produce more than 60 thousand ounces of platinum.
What makes the situation interesting is that the lawsuit has been filed slap bang in the middle of a strike by more than 10 thousand AMCU members at Amplats.
One cannot deny that the two are linked – and the message from the boardroom is that AMCU hasn’t budged a “centimeter” in negotiations aimed at finding a settlement. Of course, these talks are all about compromise, and AMCU’s relentless pursuit of a living wage of 12500 certainly makes a multi-million Rand lawsuit a useful bargaining chip.
So it seems we’ve reached a stalemate. Now, the moral evaluation must arise; how much have the mine bosses given to the people & how much have they made? Who bears the moral responsibility to either pay more – or – demand less?
A difficult question, not because the figures are hidden in stacks of financial reports, but because one cannot measure the mining companies’ contribution in monetary terms.
GRASSROOTS 