Eskom Strike

Andrew Layman:  PCB CEO

As I write, the nation is not quite sure whether Eskom workers will go on strike or not.   They are appealing to government, apparently, to intervene on their behalf.   Government, however, has already described the demand of R4 000 as a housing subsidy for each worker as “unaffordable”.    This whole situation reflects one of those ironies that seem to characterise our country.    COSATU is contemplating a nation-wide strike to protest against excessive electricity tariffs; its members are demanding increases and allowances, the consequences of which will be increased tariffs.    It is perfectly clear to everybody (except the unions), that in this country at this time, double-digit wage increases are quite unreasonable and not affordable unless the economy, in its precarious state, is to be undermined, if not sabotaged.    However, in all conscience, one cannot dismiss the underlying concern of workers that they, rather than the executives, are being expected to make sacrifices necessitated by the recession.    Why in a company such as Eskom should executive personnel enjoy housing subsidies while lower-paid workers do not?    The former CEO has evaluated his loss of income as a result of his dismissal to be R85 million.   It is quite reasonable to suggest that if the company could pay one person so much, it could afford to give workers an increase better than the 8% that has been offered.     While COSATU maintains that this is the wage negotiating season, there is no doubt that the World Cup has been used cynically as the lever to move employers more easily.    This raises a question about the true nature of patriotism.   The benchmark has become the Bafana shirt worn on Fridays and flags on motor cars.    On the other hand, threatening to jeopardise the country’s image as it hosts the soccer spectacle is acceptable, and, should the strike go ahead, some of the marchers will be wearing yellow shirts and blowing vuvuzelas to demonstrate their patriotic spirit.    If it comes to this, government will be in a fix.   Apparently, municipalities (that have control over these) have been told not to permit any public demonstrations during the tournament.    I doubt that angry union members will heed any attempt on the part of a municipality to prevent their action.    It is a right to demonstrate, we are told - but not during the World Cup.

We have been informed recently of the achievements of the special World Cup courts.    They have dealt decisively and expeditiously with a number of cases, including the one involving the wayward fellow who wandered into the England dressing room.    Now, while one understands that this is a special occasion that warrants special effort, the disparity between this level of efficiency and commitment on the part of the justice system and that to which we are normally accustomed when we are not bound by FIFA edicts, is extremely disconcerting.    Boasting about current efficiencies simply highlights the shortfall in the norm.   In many other areas, too, the country’s people have excelled, raising their efficiencies and competencies to high levels.  Do we not deserve this standard all the time?   I suppose we must wait and see whether this raised level of public service also proves to be a legacy of the World Cup.   

I am reminded of something I read recently (in the magazine called Business Brief and written by Mandy Munro-Smith) in an article about grease payments.   In the US, these are only illegal if they are given to induce someone to affect an outcome as opposed to the timing of an action.    What this means is that it is permissible to pay someone to “speed along an administrative process …. which the official is ordinarily obliged to perform.”   This seems to be a common practice in Africa, whether it is governed by law or not.   The writer suggested that South African law is not completely clear as to whether this practice constitutes corruption or not.   Personally, I am in no doubt that it is corrupt, since the essence of public service is fairness.    It is not a terrain in which officials should expect to enrich themselves by assisting some people more than others.    The reason I have referred to this is to reinforce the point that there is something unsavoury about obeisance to FIFA and indifference to our own people.  

By the way, the success of this World Cup is attributable more to the people of South Africa than any of the infrastructural icons of which we are so proud. 

Leave a Comment