The recent violence in Marikana, which has left 44 people dead, again exposed tensions in the labour union movement. Specifically, the almost decade-old clash between the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) and the splinter Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) came back to haunt the different role players. The dynamics between the two unions speak to a wider fragmentation within the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu). Speaking at the South African Medical Association conference on 25 August 2012, Cosatu General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi stated that the upsurge in the formation of splinter unions was an ‘orchestrated attack from the employers, right-wing organisations and their think tanks’ and represented ‘the biggest onslaught waged by the bourgeoisie against the living standards of the working class’. He invoked notions of the sacrosanctity of worker unity and the importance of a single union for each industry. He averred that ‘splinters are inherently harmful … because they divide the loyalties of the workers and undermine their unity’.
Vavi referred to the emergence of Amcu, formed by former NUM members and shop stewards, and the National Transport Allied Workers Union (Natawu), a breakaway from the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu), as a ‘worrying trend’. Former Satawu president Ephraim Mphahlele heads Natawu.
The most critical issue is that splinter unions have been moving into territory that have been traditionally dominated by Cosatu-affiliated unions. This trend speaks to broader issues about the (in)ability of the unions, whose leaders have been accused of being unusually close to political and business elites, to respond to the challenges faced by the struggling working class. Over the past few years workers have experienced a vicious assault on their livelihoods as a result of sluggish economic growth and other factors. There is a general feeling that Cosatu-affiliated unions have failed to address the multiple challenges faced by the working class and many union leaders have been accused of using their positions to acquire wealth for themselves and their cronies.
Looking back, there have been watershed incidents that fuelled the formation of splinter unions. In the case of Amcu it was the feud between then NUM Secretary General Gwede Mantashe and Joseph Mathunjwa, the current Amcu head. Following a disciplinary hearing, which exonerated Mathunjwa of leading an illegal strike in 1998, Mantashe insisted on another hearing that he himself would chair. Mathunjwa’s NUM membership was terminated after he refused to appear before the second hearing. He went on to form Amcu. Of course, there are various versions of this story, with some sides claiming that Mathunjwa was hauled before the first hearing because of clashes he had with Mantashe about how he, as the then secretary general of the NUM, was allegedly mismanaging workers’ contributions to a job creation fund. Allegations of the misuse of workers’ subscriptions and possibly corrupt and dodgy deals have also been at the forefront of the formation of Natawu. Claims of the misappropriation of investment funds within Satawu led to Mphahlele’s resignation. Mphahlele said that his resignation was as a result of suspected dodgy deals in Satawu-related business transactions. During his tenure as president of Satawu, Mphahlele introduced an anti-corruption drive that culminated in Satawu losing out on a tender from the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (Prasa), through Black Star, a subsidiary of the union’s investment arm. Mphahlele objected to this deal as it compromised the role that Satawu would have to play if Prasa workers had any grievances.
The blurring of lines between government, unions and private companies has become the norm in South Africa’s political landscape. Satawu is just a single instance of this. While Cosatu harps on about the existence of outside forces whose motive is to destabilise the unions, the involvement of union leadership and union investment arms in multimillion rand deals with private companies raises pivotal questions. For instance, if union leadership is seen to have financial associations with big companies, there are issues about how it can be expected to fully advance the interests of workers. In that context it seems that there may be a legitimate need for a newer breed of unions that can open up the space for unionisation and break the monopolisation of representation by the big unions.
In the case of the Marikana shootings there have been attempts by Cosatu and the larger unions to criminalise the splinter unions and delegitimise the genuine grievances they have. However, workers, such as mineworkers, are increasingly realising their role as kingmakers. Fragmentations within the NUM and Satawu and the formation of the rival Amcu and Natawu are important examples of how some workers are using their power to open up space for a different type of labour unionism; one that represents the interest of workers. Criminalising the splinter unions and their actions in order to delegitimise their grievances will only alienate the membership, Cosatu and the respective unions’ representatives. The intolerance of dissent, which has become a characteristic of the labour union and political landscape of South Africa, poses a danger to the broader democratic space within South Africa. The more workers feel excluded the greater the chance of conflict in the months leading up to Mangaung.
Compiled by the Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division
