{"id":1027,"date":"2019-12-10T11:33:31","date_gmt":"2019-12-10T09:33:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/marxistworkersparty.org.za\/?page_id=1027"},"modified":"2020-04-23T11:44:55","modified_gmt":"2020-04-23T09:44:55","slug":"trade-union-unity-which-way-forward-now","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/marxistworkersparty.net\/?page_id=1027","title":{"rendered":"Trade Union Unity \u2013 Which way forward now?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Originally appeared in Inqaba Ya Basebenzi No. 7\n(August 1982)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

by Rocco Malgas and Paul Storey <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In mountaineering, the dangers in a false step become\nthe greater the higher up a cliff one succeeds in going. So it is in the class\nstruggle, where all kinds of unforeseen barriers, crumbling footholds and\nsudden high winds imperil the unwary climber.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The growing power of black workers organised in the\nindependent unions \u2013 now 300,000 altogether \u2013 is the single most important\nadvance in the past ten turbulent years. The ability of the workers to build\ntheir own strong organisations through repeated militant struggles establishes\nthe working class, not in theory but in visible fact, as the decisive force\nthat can challenge the power of the ruling class and show a way forward to all\nthe oppressed.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This very fact gives the question of trade union unity\na significance that goes far wider than the union members and immediate union\nissues. With the economic climate worsening sharply, with the bosses and the\nstate preparing new attacks, the breakdown of efforts to unite the unions in a\nsingle independent federation endangers the progress of the entire movement.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Union leaders bear a responsibility as never before to\nall oppressed and exploited people to ensure that the obstacles to unity are\novercome.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

207 strikes and\nstoppages in 1980; 342 in 1981 \u2013 the bald official statistics show something of\nthe rising scale of workers’ actions, but not the courage, tenacity and changed\npsychology of the working class which in fact they represent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already this\nyear more than 200 strikes have taken place: among them the nationwide stoppage\nby 100,000 workers to protest Neil Aggett’s murder; the metal and engineering\nstrikes which brought 120,000 out in the East Rand; the unprecedented wage\nstrikes involving possibly 70,000 mineworkers on nine gold mines; and now the\nhard-fought strike in the motor assembly plants of the Eastern Cape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Workers have begun to sense the immense potential\npower in their own hands, if only they can combine in full-strength against the\nbosses and the state. This is the basis of the tremendous enthusiasm of the\nrank-and-file workers for trade union unity.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When the first unity conference<\/a> took place in Cape Town in August last year, such was the pressure of the ranks that not a single leader of any union seriously involved in struggle could oppose it. The few that stayed away felt obliged at least to declare support for unity “in principle”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The path from\nthe first conference posed before the unions the problem of how to organise<\/strong> unity: how to meet together,\nbuild together, discuss and decide together in a democratic and disciplined way\nthe appropriate actions<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inter-union\nsolidarity committees formed as a result of the conference took shape in only a\nfew areas. This reflected no lack of support for the idea by the union members,\nbut more the uncertainty over how to use these committees and where they should\nlead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the months\nthat followed, the unions continued to chew-over the unity question, while all\nthe time being stretched in action as strikes brought thousands of new recruits\ninto their ranks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Growth<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All the major\nindependent unions have grown rapidly, some on firmer foundations than others,\nwith vigorous factory committees and a developed system of elected shop\nstewards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By November\n1981, for example, Fosatu \u2013 the biggest of the independent federations \u2013 reached\n95,000 members, up 35,000 in a single year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of this increase, nearly half was provided by the\ngrowth of the Metal and Allied Workers’ Union.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This militant\nunion, whose Transvaal branch alone is now 26,000 strong, shows that the\nbackbone for a fighting labour movement comes from the heavy battalions of the\nindustrial workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This changing\ncomposition of Fosatu, combining with the stormy struggles of the period and\nthe heightened confidence of the membership, has produced a shake-up of leadership\nwithin the federation \u2013 encouraging it to begin to address the tasks of the\nworkers’ movement not simply in their narrower economic ambit, but also in the\nwider struggle for a state and society controlled by workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the\ndevelopment in Fosatu shows it most clearly, all the mass organisations with\ngenuine roots in the factories have been under increasing, pressure of the\nworkers either to evolve towards the left, or to hold firmly to that course.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The line-of-march\nof the working class brings it inevitably into bigger and more decisive\nconfrontations with the combined forces of the bosses, and with the state which\nshelters them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This makes united trade union organisation imperative\n\u2013 while simultaneously making it all the harder to achieve.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The toughest\nobstacles to unity are not so much the specific differences between union\nleaderships over tactical and organisational questions, but rather the conflicting\npolitical directions \u2013 or tendencies \u2013 which these differences are known to\nexpress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Underlying the disputes over registration, industrial\ncouncils, non-racialism, demarcation, etc., is the question of the tasks and\nstrategy of the working class in the struggle to overthrow the regime,\neliminate apartheid, and destroy the dictatorship of the capitalists.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the SA\nworkers have no mass party of their own; and because the ANC is not yet the\nmass force of organised workers which in time it will become \u2013 the unions\nthemselves have inevitably become the forum in which the political tasks of the\nclass are most directly confronted and argued-out, in open and veiled ways,\nwithin the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither the industrial nor the political tasks of the\nworkers’ movement can be carried forward by a multiplicity of small\norganisations pulling in different directions \u2013 and even a hundred thousand\nmembers is really a tiny organisation in a labour force of nine million and\ncompared with the immense power of the enemy.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is why the\nspeech of Fosatu general secretary Joe Foster, endorsed by its Congress in\nApril this year, was correct to acknowledge the political character of the\ntrade unions’ existence \u2013 and to link this to a call for the formation of a single, united trade union federation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Wilgespruit\nconference of fifteen unions and federations, which met two weeks later, was\nthus presented with an unavoidable choice: begin to translate the earlier,\ntentative moves and talks about unity into concrete organisation \u2013 or\ncrystallise the differences into rival federations and groupings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What was on the\none hand a tremendous opportunity for common advance, thus carried within it on\nthe other hand the chemical elements for a crisis\nof disunity<\/strong> if the opportunity was not grasped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The walkout by\nthe Macwusa delegation \u2013 not in itself crucial because of the very small size\nof this union \u2013 was nevertheless a very important symptom. For, by the time of\nthe July ‘summit’, it was clear that a major rift had opened-up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Discussions\nbroke down with a number of union leaders, among them the representatives of\nthe vitally important Saawu, refusing to participate in common organisation\nwith unions which are either registered or take part in industrial councils.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essentially,\nthis means a refusal to unite with Fosatu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be stated without mincing words that this\nstandpoint is a mistake.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Intransigence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An intransigent\nattitude against political compromise with the bosses and the regime is the\ngreatest quality of strength in a workers’ leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\n‘intransigence’ hides a weakness when it manifests itself in defiant postures,\nhasty splitting and ultimatums directed towards other organisations in which\nlarge bodies of our fellow workers are organising to carry on a genuine and\ndetermined fight.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every union\nactivist rightly and jealously guards the achievements of his or her own\norganisation built at the cost of lives and livelihoods under the constant\nmenacing pressure of the bosses and their police state. In South African\nconditions, differences over policy \u2013 even differences of detail \u2013 can be felt\nas life-or-death issues affecting possibly the whole future of the unions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the vital\nstruggle for correct policies must be carried on as a struggle to win the conscious support of the mass of\nworkers<\/strong>, first and foremost the organised workers. To do this successfully\n\u2013 to avoid the mountaineer’s false step \u2013 a clear perspective of the path ahead\nof the movement is necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The current\nbreakdown of the efforts towards trade union unity results most of all from an\ninsufficiently thought-out perspective: a vision that is too narrow and too\nshort-term. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Main Task<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

With only a\nfraction of industrial workers organised (hardly one-tenth of African\nindustrial workers), the main task of building the trade unions still lies\nbefore us. Millions<\/strong> of workers remain\nto be recruited and united in struggle \u2013 not in the dim and distant future, but\nin the years immediately ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The incapacity\nof capitalism to ease the yoke of exploitation and poverty on the shoulders of\nthe working people; the inability of the regime to concede reforms of any real\nsignificance to workers \u2013 these inescapable facts guarantee a fiery future for\nthe independent trade union movement and will\nfrustrate the hopes of reformist elements within the union leaderships to\nachieve a stable accommodation with the ruling class<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Placed in this\ncontext, the attempt of some militant unionists to preserve seemingly ‘correct\npositions’ in the splendid isolation of little organisations is obviously\nabsurd. Correct positions must be fought\nfor and won within the broadest ranks of the workers organising for action.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By its nature,\nevery trade union strives to include all workers employed in the industry or\narea where it chooses to organise, and not just those who agree precisely with\nthe politics of the union leaders. This is necessary for effectiveness in industrial\naction, just as a strike committee has to try to bring out all workers\nregardless of their differing viewpoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unions have to\nhave clear policies, democratically decided by the membership \u2013 but unions are\nnot themselves revolutionary parties or cadre organisations. It would lead to\nfatal mistakes and the fragmenting of the trade union movement if union leaders\nwere to treat ‘their’ respective organisations as an exclusive preserve of the\nadherents of this or that political standpoint within the movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To galvanise\nunorganised workers for the struggle, to maintain confidence, to achieve and sustain\nleadership by the working class at the head of all the oppressed, it is necessary\nfor the trade union movement to march as a united army of labour, and not sink\nits forces in the quicksands of disunity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is not at\nall to suggest that differences should be shelved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is an\nessential part of trade union democracy that the holders of differing views\namong the workers \u2013 not only on occasional, specific issues, but also contending\npolitical tendencies \u2013 must be able to put their case freely within all the\nunions; subject only to the practical necessity that the will of the majority\nprevails when decisions are made, and minorities abide loyally by the\ndiscipline of such decisions while continuing, if they wish, to argue for a\nchange.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Provided democracy is to be scrupulously upheld within\nthe proposed new federation, what possible argument could there be for any\nunion leadership, genuinely fighting for the interests of the working class, to\nrefuse to join?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To take a\nspecific example: Saawu, GWU and Mawu have arisen from different origins, have\nfollowed different methods of organisation, and their leaders adhere to\ndiffering policy positions on some issues. But it would be impossible to find a\nsingle sound reason why the fighting ranks of these unions should be kept\nseparated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, looking\nto the future, is it not clear that the workers of these unions, perhaps more\nthan any others, once organised together, would provide the central dynamo of a\nmilitant united federation capable of drawing the workers of all sectors into\nit?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Initiative<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The initiative\nbeing taken by the GWU towards practical co-operation in the metal and\nengineering industry with Mawu deserves the fullest support. It ought to be\nmade clear throughout the movement that this, and the other ‘demarcation’\narrangements decided on, are intended as a move towards the single federation\nof industrial unions, so setting an unambiguous example to others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 1970s\nwhen the building of the new unions began, the choice between forming general\nunions and unions confined within single industries seemed an important issue\nof strategic difference. But the successful growth of the unions along both\nthese lines (for example, GWU on the one hand; Fosatu unions on the other) has\nbrought us willy-nilly within a few years to the practical solution of the\nmatter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx loved the\nsaying of Goethe, “Theory is grey, but the tree of life is\nevergreen.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All should now\nbe able to see the need for one united organisation within each industry,\ncombining in one national organisation of all workers. What would be the real\ndifference between one ‘general union’ with developed industrial\nsub-structures, and a ‘tight federation’ of industrial unions with strong\ninter-union councils for discussion and decision-making at local and national\nlevels?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the end of\nlast year Fosatu already had seventeen functioning inter-union ‘locals’, while\nboth Saawu and GWU have recently indicated that industrial-based unionism would\nno longer be a problem for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the\nobstacles raised against entry into the ‘tight’ federation proposed by Fosatu\nis the expressed desire of individual unions to retain their ‘autonomy’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The trade union\nmovement requires both autonomy and centralism. It requires autonomy in the\nsense that, within each industry, each area, indeed each factory, there should\nbe the greatest possible self-management by the organised workers of their own\nimmediate affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A fighting,\ndemocratic labour movement depends on initiative, and nothing stifles this more\nthan the bureaucratic mentality that everything of the slightest significance\nmust be referred for decision ‘somewhere else’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But ‘autonomy’\nshould not be used to justify free-lancing. The workers’ movement stands or\nfalls by its ability to mobilise the greatest numbers in all areas in action\ntogether, with united demands, a common strategy and at times also a single\nline of tactical command. Thus a democratic structure of central worker\nleadership and decision-making is essential to the advance of the trade union movement\n\u2013 and those who stand against this on the argument of ‘autonomy’ would be\nstanding against the very need of the workers to deploy against the enemy their\nfull strength.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undeniably it\nwill be difficult, even with the best will on all sides, to achieve complete\nagreement on a constitution for the founding of a united federation. But it\nwould be a mistake to allow this to become the main focus of attention,\nexaggerating the obstacles to a working compromise. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Practical Need<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over and over\nagain it will be shown that no important question in the life of the workers’\nmovement is finally settled by formulas and rules. In every organisation\ngenuinely run by workers, it is the\nworkers’ practical need for effectiveness in action which ultimately governs\neverything<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus, for\nexample, Fosatu\u2019s constitution recently had to be amended to recognise the area\nshop stewards’ councils, which have arisen to play an increasing role of leadership\nwithin the federation, and, to establish democratic regional congresses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the same way,\nwithin a new united federation, democracy and a correct balance between\nautonomy and centralism would depend far more on the strength and militancy of\nthe workers organised within it than on its constitution. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tragedy\ntoday is that differences between union leaders are being turned into a gulf\nbetween unions at the very moment that the movement is facing a period of\ngreater hardships and uphill battles even to defend its previous gains. The\nworking class has never needed trade union unity more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The recent quick\ngrowth of the unions, accompanying the mounting waves of strikes, took place\nagainst a background of sharp expansion of the capitalist economy \u2013 reaching an\nunprecedented growth of production of 8% in 1980-81. The anxiety of the bosses\nnot to lose output at such a time; their ability more easily to afford wage\nincreases and other concessions; the hiring of additional labour \u2013 all gave\nrise to a heightened confidence and combativity of the workers, which spread\nand was reinforced through successful action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the last\npart of 1981, however, the economy has begun to slide again into recession. By\nthe second quarter of this year, the squeeze was visible in all branches of\nproduction. This has meant reduction of overtime; redundancies; and the\nhardening of the bosses’ attitude in dealing with workers. Mass dismissals\nagain become their first weapon against strikes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Economic growth\nfor 1981-82 could fall to about 1%, with an actual drop in production expected\nfor 1982-83. The downturn is thought\nlikely to last at least two years, and possibly much longer.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because the\nruling class confront a more organised and determined working class than ever\nbefore, they have to calculate more carefully before launching a major assault\nagainst the unions. But for the same\nreason the crackdown, when the ground for it has been prepared, is likely to be\nall the more savage.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One sign of the\npreparations is the power taken by the state to treat industrial action as\n‘sabotage’, with striking punishable by 20 years imprisonment. Another sign is\nthe use of the Intimidation Act, probably as a test, against strikers at\nRichards Bay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A sense of the\nchange in the period has been creeping into the marrow of all the union\nactivists over much of the past year. Tensing themselves for the harsh\nconfrontations ahead, they have tended to become more rigid towards other\nunions in which opposing policies prevail. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Divisions<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Taking a\nresolute stand on ‘principle’ \u2013 today, in fact, even tactical differences are\nbeing awarded this title \u2013 we can forget that the bosses’ own first ‘principle’\nof struggle is to manipulate divisions and drive wedges into the workers’\nranks. In this way they single out groups of workers for step-by-step attack,\nsomething which can be prevented only by determined unity of the workers for\nmutual self-defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore it is\nvital to pursue with patience, and with all possible speed, the unification of\nthe independent unions in one federation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The leaders of Fosatu\nshould not, out of a feeling of exasperation, now limit their approach only to\n“those unions whose actions have to date shown serious commitment” to\nunity \u2013 apparently “satisfied” to leave the rest (their leaders and\ntheir rank-and-file alike!) to the judgement of “history”. History is\ncapable of being equally ruthless with all parts of a divided labour movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, just\nbecause a united federation has been proposed, there is not the slightest\nreason to throw out of the window the idea of a trade union united front. It is necessary as never before to have a\nprogramme of basic demands agreed by the unions and a joint campaign of action\non this basis.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even in the\nmidst of a heated argument, don’t two neighbours instantly join forces against\na robber’s attack? That is exactly the approach that the workers of all the\nindependent unions will take to the matter, if it is posed without ultimatums\nand preconditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Workers are not\ninterested in paper unity, but in unity for purposes of action. A campaign of\nunited action will help to raise the pressure within all the unions for lasting\norganisational links.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, it\nwill provide the workers with the means to test-out in practice all policies,\nprinciples and leaderships, and should be welcomed by all sides in the current\ndisputes within the union movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The arguments\nagainst industrial councils and registration can be driven home, not simply by\ntheory, but by bringing to light in the practical struggle the obstacles to\neffectiveness which they are designed to impose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Already, as a\nresult of the current motor industry strike, Naawu has withdrawn from the\nIndustrial Council for the motor industry because the workers refused to be\ncrippled by the arbitration procedure which membership of the IC made\ncompulsory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A campaign of\nunited action would serve to test before the workers the correctness of the\npolicy of non-racialism and show that it is not \u2013 as some allege \u2013 a sign of\nweak-kneed liberalism in the unions, but a vital part of class-consciousness; a\ndetermination of workers to unite with their class brothers and sisters against\nall the divisive racial barriers erected by the apartheid state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A campaign of\nunited action would serve to drive from their hide-outs and expose before the\nworkers the reformist, compromising elements within the union leaderships \u2013 elements\nwhich exist not only in non-racial unions but also in unions with an\nexclusively black leadership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Practical Agreement<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There should be\nno obstacles to reaching practical agreement on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n