|
Back to Index
Productive unionism needed in Zimbabwe
Rejoice
Ngwenya
March 09, 2009
Free market sympathisers
of the partially ruling Movement for Democratic Change [MDC] in
Zimbabwe must be wondering where to draw the line between constructive
trade unionism and the destructive model of populist representation.
By its very nature, trade
and industrial unionism is part of working life in most free economies.
In other words, it is a by-product of political freedom. And yet
for MDC, being able to accurately draw this line is a matter of
life and death.
There are two
simple reasons to this paradox: the genealogy of MDC can be traced
back to the Zimbabwe
Congress of Trade Unions [ZCTU] and secondly, unions tend to
portray this irritating characteristic of being anti-free market.
Therefore, it will be interesting to see how the MDC, caught between
the constitutional principle of free association and the desire
to respect rights of sustainable corporate existence will pacify
the appetite of 'good wages- for ZCTU while at the same
time reinvigorating the paralysed productive sector.
Even liberals like me
who passionately believe in the doctrine of free association, become
sceptical on the contribution of unionism to the productivity. I
may have support from western compatriots that the American Motorcar
Industry is on the brink of collapse mainly due to years of conceding
to 'irrational- union demands. Hollywood scriptwriters
and actors have on several occasions flexed their union muscles
to push for better deals, but I still remain unconvinced that this
has increased film ratings.
If anything,
Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirayi has ensnared himself by promising
all and sundry wages in a currency manufactured only in Washington.
The paradox is award-winning, yet for the new Government of National
Unity [GNU] in Zimbabwe, the challenge is more than just a loss
in ratings. Raymond Majongwe of the Progressive
Teachers Union [PTUZ] insists on a USD2000 minimum wage since
he sees this as compensation for years of abusive neglect by successive
generations of ZANUpf education ministers. Herein lays my point:
the question of viability and sustainability that pales in significance
in the game of populist unionism. Perhaps Majongwe has a point.
When liberal elements in the MDC and market sympathisers urge him
to conform to conventional wisdom, he points to the bloated GNU
cabinet and demands thriftiness at the highest echelons of governance
first.
On my part,
this is not another case of rabid sarcasm towards THE right to progressive
industrial representation. Matthew Takaona of the Zimbabwe
Union of Journalists [ZUJ] understands better the nature of
level-headed holistic representation I have in mind. He is quoted
to have told the new minister of information that he "should
work to restore the integrity of the journalism profession by helping
to diffuse polarisation and help bring down hate speech that has
become the hallmark of our media". This is testimony to the
fact that effective unionism is not only about food baskets and
minimum wages. We Zimbabweans are all too familiar with the Congress
of South African Trade Unions [COSATU] who have persistently argued
for more political rights in Zimbabwe. They have been at the helm
of knocking holes into Mugabe-s illusion of dynastical life
presidency.
My argument against the Majongwe-type unionism is that it is placed
wrongly in the context of the post-Mugabe reconstruction era. There
must be acceptance, even by those radicals in the MDC that as the
economy grows, only then will Government revenues improve significantly
to allow for greater investment in social programs. In the long-term,
it is more value-adding for workers to support policies that stimulate
production and in particular production for exports by avoiding
populist minimum wage-related demands.
Some practitioners argue
that minimum wages must be based on the expected price impacts rather
that an attempt at mitigating effects of hyperinflation. Progressive
unionism is not about today, but the future of industry. I see it
more in the context of access to wealth, rather than mercenary-type
bargaining over wages, hours and working conditions. ZANUpf sowed
the seed of antagonism between labour and employers for political
gain. It would be such a tragedy for the MDC to perpetuate this
counterproductive stone-age mentality.
Zimbabwe-s industrial
capacity has been decimated, currently operating at below twenty
percent, with a 95% unemployment rate to match. Thus, the Samuel
Gompers type of unionism under American Federation of Labour is
a better model as it was said to be 'businesslike and pragmatic,
adopting the motto, "A fair day-s wage for a fair day-s
work".- What I advocate is a sensible balance between
what employers can afford and what the few workers at work would
require to remain barely above water, since everyone is under the
same hyperinflation scourge.
Revolutionary unionism
that peddles perishable theories that all employers are heartless
capitalists who would kill to protect supernormal profits margins
is outdated. I am arguing for a case of partnership, not antagonism,
pragmatism, not exaggerated fantasies that play to the gallery of
self-serving populism. Labour-employer relations must be borne
of mutual benefit and respect. Of course in the process of re-construction,
we will get isolated cases of slave-driver mentality. There are
numerous reports of abusive labour practices by newly resettled
commercial farmers and Chinese investors - a matter for the
justice system. Yet such cases should not be allowed to contaminate
what could be business-friendly models of labour legislation. After
all, if trade unionism is allowed to choke industry, Wellington
Chibhebhe-s ZCTU will remain with a stunted and paralysed
constituency.
Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.
TOP
|
