Satawu strike reveals poor thinking on both sides
April 14, 2009
By Ethel Hazelhurst
As with all high-profile industrial disputes the hype around the strike called by the SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) obscures many issues. The debate is seen through the prism of Left-Right politics and interpreted simply as a standoff between workers and capital.
But often an industrial dispute is due to a failure of common sense.
As the headlines of the past few days show very vividly, trucks figure prominently in road accidents that leave people dead or badly injured. A question unlikely to be asked in the inquiries that follow is: how much did the truck drivers earn?
When workers who perform demanding, difficult or dangerous jobs - in return for a pittance - go on strike, it's hard not to sympathise. Driving a truck through the night is demanding, difficult and potentially dangerous, but a long-distance driver earns only R4 317 a month, says Satawu.
On a macroeconomic level the question is: why are people not appropriately rewarded for their work? I have a theory I will get to in a moment. But first I would like to deal with the decisions made by employers and companies in what they think is their own self-interest.
Is it really a good idea to pay a long-distance driver so little? Yes, it will look better on the income statement than a higher wage. But is the wage cost the only one that matters?
What about the cost of accidents involving trucks? The cost of dead and injured people, or the cost of the country's damaged infrastructure, won't show up on the income statement of a company but the cost of the damaged vehicles and equipment and, possibly, legal costs do.
In the long run the company pays for all those external costs, either through taxes to repair infrastructure or in a diminished quality of life.
A better wage would attract better and more experienced drivers and reduce the costs that occur when things go wrong.
Short-term thinking is what has put the capitalist system under threat. Managers who think no further than tomorrow's fast buck instead of a steady, but more modest income flow in the long term have brought the global economy to its knees.
But unions are part of the reason people are paid inappropriately. They are so powerful that wage increases in a modern economy are often awarded because of worker muscle and are not a reflection of the contribution that the particular workers make to the economy.
For this reason the game plan is for unions to be as aggressive as possible.
However, everyone pursues the same game plan and the end result is that not enough distinction is made between the contributions of nurses, police, security guards and truck drivers, on the one hand, and that of the people behind the tills in the retail chains, or refuse collectors, who have far less responsibility.
As for merit increases, they are anathema to unions. Above all, union leaders must convince their members they are powerless without a union.
And what could undermine a union more than the concept that individuals can progress on their own merits?
This raises issues about the attitude of people to their jobs and their lives. Many people think life is an escalator and that they are entitled to get on at the bottom and off at the top, without making any contribution to the journey.
We would be a more productive and richer economy if people were paid on effort and merit and not because their unions can stage the best song and dance routine.
|
|
