Share

For the record: Labour’s lead negotiator responds to article on minimum wage

accreditation
(File, Cosatu)
(File, Cosatu)

Your article “Deal or no deal” on February 12 claims that Cosatu felt “swindled” in the National Minimum Wage (NMW) negotiations.

Finalisation of a deal on the NMW is a highly charged matter. Therefore inaccurate representation of Cosatu’s position has serious implications for the unfolding discussions, and could generate unnecessary mistrust between the parties.

As Labour’s lead negotiator, I have the responsibility to correctly portray our position. I was therefore alarmed to read the story which attributes statements to me incorrectly, or confuses important details of the negotiations.

I categorically deny having said that we felt “swindled” by provisions in the agreement. Indeed the article quotes me as saying “the basic architecture is not in question…” Our concerns related to ambiguous wording of specific provisions, or issues that had not been settled in the negotiations.

Your story reveals that parties interpret aspects of the agreement differently. This reinforces the point I made: there are ambiguous formulations which, if not corrected, will cause problems down the line. Thus I indicated the need for some “tweaking”. It is not about being “swindled”, but about ensuring that the agreement has integrity, and is understood by all parties.

The story confuses a number of facts, and previous versions of the agreement are selectively leaked or cited. This leads to errors in the story:

» It states that a proposal to engage more on crucial issues of payment for minimum hours is watered down to apply only when “acts of God” cut short a working day. However this reference was removed in the final version of the agreement (http://new.nedlac.org.za/) precisely because stipulation of minimum hours goes way beyond problems of bad weather. The contract cleaning sectoral determination provides that workers must be paid for a minimum of six hours a day. This has nothing to do with acts of God, but seeks to protect workers against employers reducing hours in response to improved wages.

» It suggests that Labour’s demand for at least an inflation linked annual increase is undermined because the NMW Commission will have the right to decide on a “zero increase”, as a provision giving “business and labour the right to veto the commissions decisions” was removed from the agreement. Your informants failed to inform you that this proposed consensus in the Commission resting on business and labour, was removed at labours request: we don’t want to paralyse the Commission because one party blocks adjustment of the NMW.

» The implication we may reject the clause that there should be “no erosion of the value of the NMW” is confusing. We had proposed the wording in the first place, to ensure that the NMW at least keeps pace with inflation. The problem we raised was not with this wording, but the late inclusion of business’ qualification that this would be subject to a whole host of other factors. You quote business as saying this may mean zero increases. This reinforces our point that the wording is confusing and needs correction.

» Contrary to the story’s suggestion, we compromised some time ago on our demand that a medium term target be set upfront for the Commission. We accepted that the Commission should itself establish the target, but were unhappy with removal of benchmarks to guide the Commission which have been subject of extensive discussion in negotiations over the last eighteen months – such as the minimum living level; internationally accepted ratios of the NMW: average wage; and average minimums in collective agreements. Nevertheless its an advance that Labour’s proposal for a medium term target is contained in the agreement.

» The final draft wasn’t “hammered out at a meeting of the union buildings on Thursday night”. Rather, the matter was referred to a one-a-side structure which proposed wording, and continued to interact with the deputy president’s office until Monday February 6, when Cosatu leaders decided, looking at the proposed package, to refer it to the executive for final mandating.

I trust this corrects the impression of a capricious approach by Labour to the negotiations, which doesn’t do justice to many months of hard work we put in to keep the negotiations on track, despite many attempts to frustrate them. The NMW is Labour’s brainchild. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that millions of ultra-exploited workers are protected by its provisions. This includes ensuring the final deal, and legislation, clearly spell out the rights of vulnerable low paid workers, to avoid snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

We live in a world where facts and fiction get blurred
Who we choose to trust can have a profound impact on our lives. Join thousands of devoted South Africans who look to News24 to bring them news they can trust every day. As we celebrate 25 years, become a News24 subscriber as we strive to keep you informed, inspired and empowered.
Join News24 today
heading
description
username
Show Comments ()
Voting Booth
Do you believe that the various planned marches against load shedding will prompt government to bring solutions and resolve the power crisis?
Please select an option Oops! Something went wrong, please try again later.
Results
Yes
21% - 103 votes
No
79% - 395 votes
Vote