5.1 THE INTENSIFICATION OF WORKER UNIONIZATION COUNTRYWIDE
5.1.2 UNDERGROUND WORK AND THE EMERGENCE OF MA WU
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."
different picture is painted. He argues that:
"Management thought of their response to our action very carefully and when they responded, we were caught unaware. In the process, we ended up divided. Therefore it was logical that we had to be careful on every step we were planning to take. Yes, we were quiet but we were not dead. It was a matter of time before we came back to the surface again" (Interview, June 1987).
It appears that both parties accept the existence of a period of relative peace and stability immediately after the 1983 strike action with its subsequent dismissals, but the parties seem not to converge on their understanding of the reasons behind this state of affairs.
In 1984, in an attempt to consolidate this perceived state of 'peace and stability',
management engaged, for the first time in the company's history, since its establishment in 1913, in a process of employing female employees to work on the shop floor. These female workers were engaged to replace dismissed employees who had been involved in the November 1983 strike. Management was divided on the thinking to employ women to work on the shop floor. Some held the view that the nature of work in most engineering industries do not lend themselves to being performed by women. Others were of the view that women, like men, would be able to perform duties expected of them on the shop floor only if they are given the opportunity. The former view, was mostly held by that section of management who in most cases were in direct contact with the shop floor.
The latter position seems to have been propounded by the senior level of management.
Eventually the decision to go ahead with the decision to employ women was adopted.
This response brought with it a sense of ambivalence on the part of employees who already were part of the establishment. This sense of ambivalence seems to emanate from
the following reasons:
The first one appears to be that workers were still hoping that management might still change its decision and bring back the dismissed fellow workers.
Secondly, there was also concern on the part of the workers that the kind of jobs available might not be suitable for women.
- Thirdly, workers were also concerned that the engagement of women was just another ploy management was using to neutralize the militancy of male workers already the company.
Fourthly there was also a sense that the employment of women should not lead to the further division of employees within the company since this might strengthen the hand of management.
On the question of women being used to neutralize the militancy of male workers, one worker actually pointed out that this was not just a perception on their part since certain managers on the shop floor used to express the view that the 'mix' might help normalize the situation on the shop floor. This sentiment is in line with the argument that women are considered not only to have naturally nimble fingers, but also to be naturally more docile and willing to accept tough work discipline, and naturally more suited to tedious, repetitious, monotonous work (Elson & Pearson, 1989: 148).
On the part of management, there were those who thought of women as being incapable of doing what historically has been regarded as mainly 'male jobs'. Others held the view that women were docile and therefore appropriate to act as a neutralizing element in a climate that was beginning to get volatile. On the part of the employees themselves, there were those who viewed the employment of these women with scepticism. For one, they were considered a threat to the jobs of their' fellow comrades'; secondly they also like management, viewed them as incapable of performing some of the duties because of
their gender; and thirdly, like management, they viewed them as a neutralizing instrument in a relationship which was beginning to be heated. All these and other assumptions, which clearly are grounded on sexist, partriachal and male chauvinistic views of the world were however, proven wrong. The widely held view that most jobs in the
engineering industry are male orientated was put to test with the employment of women at the company under investigation and proven to be just an assumption with no solid basis. For instance, when asked about their adaptation in a male dominated work environment, one woman worker had this to say:
"Most of us were a bit frightened initially because it is common knowledge that the industry is mainly dominated by men. We were not sure if we were going to cope with the demands of the new situation. However, because we had said we want work, we were very determined to ensure that we are able to cope. Since work allocation was not based on gender, we had to give it our best to perform as expected and at the end found that there was nothing to fear because we were coping and in certain instances, we were even better than men" (Interview, June 1997).
This view concurs with the observation by one manager that: "They were very quick to adapt and honestly, I do not think anyone ever expected such a rapid adaptation."
The assumption of women's docility and their unwillingness to associate themselves with the trade union movement is also found wanting with the experience of S A Wire Co. In fact, the opposite of this assumption appears to be true. As Baskin (1991: 285) correctly points out:
"Women workers in South Africa - unlike many other countries - are no less
keen to join unions than men. Indeed, experience often reveals that women are often in the forefront of those joining unions. They also tend to be the most militant and dedicated members during industrial action. Individual women often provide the strong and
charismatic leadership essential for the unionization of a factory."
Looking at the company under investigation. it is probably easy to substantiate the observation made above because not long after their employment. 100% of women
working on the factory floor were unionized. whereas there were men who remained out of the union. Based on this factual information. it is incorrect therefore to generalize that women are less willing to join the trade union movement.
Towards the end of 1985. the majority of workers had already joined the Metal and Allied Workers Union (MAWU). However. such development did not just happen towards the end of 1985. It was a culmination of a process that had already begun taking place as early as the beginning of 1985. It is only that the union was only introduced to management towards the end of the year. Explaining the reason for a prolonged time between the initial coming into contact of workers with the union and its introduction to management. one of the first workers to join had this to say:
"The 1983 strike sowed seeds of division amongst ourselves. There were those who were never dismissed and subsequently retained their service and everything. Some of us had to come from outside to reclaim our positions in the company. and as a result lost our service. You therefore had to be very careful in everything you wanted to do. So we had to keep a very low profile so that initiaUy it was only those of us who lost service whom we could recruit to join the union and we had to keep this close to our chests. Mind you, after the strike the majority of employees continued their membership with the South African Allied Workers Union (SAAWU)." (Interview. September 1997).
As to the reason why there was a switch from the South African Allied Workers Union (SAAWU) to the Metal Allied Workers Union (MAWU). most respondents appear to cite two issues. contributing towards the shift. The first issue concerns the issue of the South African Allied Workers Union (SAA WU) as a trade union particularly the manner in which it handled the 1983 strike action. Most respondents feel very strongly that they
were sold out by the trade union, in particular, the organizer who promised to deal with the dispute at hand but chose to run away This sentiment is adequately captured in the response that:
"We joined the union to defend and advance our rights and interests. Why do you have to keep paying subscriptions to a union that runs away at the time when it is supposed to discharge its duties" (lnterview, September (997).
The other reason deals with the issue of paying subscriptions to the union. The South African Allied Workers Union (SAAWU) expected workers to call personally to pay their subscriptions into union offices. The Metal Allied Workers Union (MA WU) offered to arrange for the company to deduct union subscriptions from employees' wages and pay them over to the union. Workers thought this to be a proper arrangement because to be expected to pay union subscriptions to the offices, in most cases, is very inconvenient.