5.1 THE INTENSIFICATION OF WORKER UNIONIZATION COUNTRYWIDE
5.1.1 SAA WU AND THE FIRST STRIKE ACTION
The intensification of the unionization campaign countrywide, caught up with S A Wire as evidenced by the coming into operation of the South African Allied Workers Union (SAA WU) in 1982. The unionization of S A Wire employees brought with it new challenges and experiences not known to the company in its entire history of existence.
During the first year of the union's existence within the premises of the company, there was a five hour work stoppage. The first collective action ever taken by the workers in the company's 69 years of existence.
Through this work stoppage, workers were demanding that they be refunded their pension fund contributions. In the Iron, and Steel industry, the pension fund scheme, requiring employees to contribute a certain percentage of their earnings towards their retirement had only corne into operation in 1978. This means that there was no retirement scheme for employees who worked and retired before 1978 and consequently had nothing to depend on after their working days were over.
Even when this retirement scheme was introduced, neither the workers nor their elected representatives were involved in the taking of this important decision. As a result workers were clearly opposed to the deduction of part of their earnings to contribute to the
pension fund scheme as one worker puts it:
"We decided to stop working because we were aware that there were certain companies that had already refunded their employees their pension fund contributions. We therefore felt that applying pressure on management would produce similar results" (Interview, April 1997).
In talking to the workers, what comes out as the main objective of the stoppage appears to be two-fold:
Workers were not satisfied with what they were earning, and were of the view that if the pension fund contributions were to cease this, no matter how little, would
supplement what they took home on a weekly basis. They therefore wanted to make sure that the deductions are stopped.
Employees could not trust management and therefore viewed the idea of management keeping their pension money until they retire with scepticism. Therefore central to the strategy was an attempt to ensure that if the idea of bringing an end to the deductions does not succeed, they at least are accorded some representation on the administration of the fund.
According to management, the fact that workers had to embark on a work stoppage was very unfortunate in the sense that:
"As management we were not involved in making that kind of decision. [t was a legislative requirement that we were compelled to abide by. What was most disturbing was the fact that the decision was taken in the interests of the workers to ensure that when they retire, at least they had something to fall back to" ([nterview, April 1997).
[n November 1983 workers embarked on yet another collective action. This time it was a strike action. Unlike in the work stoppage, during this round of action they demanded the reinstatement of a dismissed fellow worker. This strike action which took place a year after the work stoppage, begins to clearly demonstrate a sense of collective power which came with the unionization of the workers. As one worker put it:
"Before the union came in, we could not question the right of management to dismiss workers. The situation was so bad that you were not even expected to argue with your White foreman because if during that argument, he felt offended, you were gone without being given an opportunity to state your side of the story. When the union came in, our situation of powerlessness became something of the past, and for the first time in my working career, [ personally felt that [ could stand up and fight the injustices which we
had always experienced at work" (Interview, June 1997).
This kind of action at S A Wire was never an isolated action. Some companies and industries had already begun experiencing strike action as Webster (1994: 271) correctly points out that workers were beginning to challenge issues of control. They were
beginning to question the right of employers to dismiss workers as they saw fit. The view held by management in this regard is that there was no need for the strike in the first place. For instance, one manager in articulating a management position in this regard had this to say:
''The employee who the workers were demanding that he be reinstated, was prior to his dismissal an Induna. When there was a shortage in the amount of work he was doing at that point, a decision was taken to offer him a job back on the shop floor to be an
operator. He rejected this offer and therefore presented management with no other viable alternati ve, but to terminate his contract of employment because there was no other job to be offered to him. For employees to embark on a strike action in support of an employee who blatantly refused to accept a reasonable offer under circumstances and carry out an instruction is difficult for me to comprehend"(Interview, June 1997).
The manner in which the strike action was handled by management left the workers' camp divided. When management issued an ultimatum insisting on employees who do not want to be dismissed to return to their work stations, some workers heed the call.
Others refused as clearly pointed out in the statement by one worker that:
"We viewed the call as a threat and therefore refused to be intimidated by management's threats to dismiss and suddenly found ourselves out of the gate" (Interview, June 1997).
In an attempt to further deepen lines of division which were already beginning to come to the surface, management engaged in a process of selecti vely re-employing among those employees who eventually were dismissed. Employees, who were re-engaged, however
did so, on the understanding that they would become new employees. After this process, workers were divided into three camps. There were workers who returned to work immediately after the issuance of an ultimatum however, before the decision to dismiss had been announced. These workers lost their earnings equivalent to the time they spent in the strike action.
There were those who defied management's ultimatum and subsequently were dismissed, but were selectively re-employed. Their loss was their earnings equivalent to the time in which they were involved in the strike, their earnings equivalent to the time lost after their dismissal but before their re-engagement. The service equating to the years they had spent with the company before the strike action.
The last category involved those who also defied management's ultimatum and
subsequently were dismissed, and never considered for re-employment. Their loss was the most severe of the three categories in that over and above the loss suffered by the second category. For them what began as a fight against 'injustice' ended up costing them their jobs.
Interviews with both workers and management on these developments point to the fact that on the part of the employees, the coming into existence of a trade union slightly shifted their consciousness towards a more collective approach in their dealings with management, thus strengthening their position in the company. On the part of
management, the existence of a trade union appears to have brought with it a sense of frustration, powerlessness and ambivalence.
Whilst workers felt strengthened by their belonging to a trade union, the manner in which the union handled the strike action resulted in most of them questioning the integrity of the union organizer. Workers felt betrayed because the last time the trade union organizer was seen was after his meeting with management on the day just before workers were dismissed. He promised to come back but never kept his promise."