CWAO IN THE NEWS

The Secretary General

Attention: Godrich Gardee

Economic Freedom Fighters

12 December 2018

We acknowledge your letter dated 8 December 2018 regarding the ‘use of EFF name of social media platforms’. The tone and content came as an unpleasant surprise, given our recent history of co-operation with EFF members and structures. Some background might be helpful here.

Background: our relationship with the EFF

As you may be aware, CWAO works mainly with labour broker workers who are among the most exploited and marginalised sections of the working class. They are almost exclusively Black, and the most exploited among them are Black women. Companies like Heineken use labour broking as a tool to continue the institutionalised racism and sexism that formed the basis of the Apartheid system. The struggle against labour broking is therefore a crucial part of the struggle against the continued dominance of white monopoly capital.

The trade unions have generally been co-opted in the marginalisation of labour broker workers, obliging workers to develop different tactics and new allies, the EFF in particular, to take on these huge companies. The CWAO experience of EFF involvement has been twofold: members of the Simunye Workers Forum who are also EFF members have been in the forefront of involving the EFF in their workplace struggles, especially during strikes. At the same time, EFF branch activists, responding to generalised workers’ requests for EFF support, have regularly contacted the CWAO to assist  workers. These workers had had no prior CWAO contact and were introduced to us by the EFF branch activists. We have at all times encouraged workers to build their alliances and have worked alongside the EFF in a principled, comradely manner.

Process issues: demands and implied threats

Given this background it comes as a surprise to receive a demand from you with the threat of legal action implied by the fact that you copied in your lawyers. Why could you not just ask us to explain the incidents you refer to?

If you had done so we could have explained that there is actually no reference to the EFF assisting in strikes on our website as you claim in your letter. There are references to three activities involving the EFF on our Facebook page. None of these activities are unlawful:

-       On 3 December 2018 our Facebook page mentions that the EFF Ivory Park showed solidarity with labour broker workers at Heineken by attending an arbitration hearing of a case involving these workers at the CCMA in Vereeniging. The EFF members are shown in a video joining a short demonstration of the workers outside the CCMA. Arbitration hearings are public and demonstrations are legal.

-       Another post on 3 December 2018 shows the same EFF Ivory Park members in a Shoprite liquor outlet promoting a boycott of Heineken products. Again, there is nothing unlawful about this, and nothing unlawful happened off camera in that incident.

-       A post on 20 November 2018 mentions the EFF as one of the organisers of a march the next day to the gate of the Heineken Sedibeng brewery in support of the demands of Heineken labour broker workers and the residents of an informal settlement next to the brewery. This march fully complied with the stipulations of the Regulations of Gatherings Act, which was actually shortly after found to be unconstitutional in its restrictions of the right to protest.

This brings us to the issue of your authority. As you can see, we simply reported the above actions on our Facebook page. At the time we did not know that the EFF national leadership did not give authority to EFF members to support the struggles of labour broker workers and residents of informal settlements. By adopting this stance the EFF places itself in a position where it strengthening the position of the bosses rather than strengthening the struggles of the black working class.

‘Unlawfulness’ as a cover for police violence

The issue of ‘unlawful strikes’ raised in your letter is an important one. The bosses and the mainstream media have succeeded in creating an impression that unlawful strikes are common in South Africa. This is a lie. Strikes are only unlawful if it involves members of the armed forces, state intelligence officers or workers who have been interdicted by a court from engaging in that particular strike. For all other workers, strikes are lawful, although they may be unprotected. This means there are hardly any unlawful strikes in South Africa.

Heineken and their lawyers have created the impression that the workers are involved in unlawful strikes. The company have been very clear about its purpose – it wants the strike to be interdicted because it wants stronger police action. This kind of line is symbolised by the Marikana massacre. Workers on a perfectly legal strike were criminalised and set up to be targets for violent attacks.

The EFF, by repeating this lie of ‘unlawful strikes’, is playing into the hands of the bosses and police. The workers are being criminalised for the specific purpose of legitimising police and private security violence against them.

The class politics of the EFF

The struggle at Heineken is complex, but the forces confronting each other from opposite poles of the class, race and gender spectrum are very clear. On the one extreme we have labour broker workers and informal settlement residents. On the other side we have the owners and top management of Heineken.

Each side has their supporters. The government, the courts, the labour brokers and the union FAWU have all come out in support of Heineken’s owners and managers. CWAO is on the side of the workers and communities. Where does the EFF stand?

It is clear that some members and structures on the ground want to stand with workers and communities. But the statement from the national leadership distances itself from supporting the struggles of workers and communities.  We would like to engage the EFF in a discussion about this stance.

Where to now?

Labour broker workers at Heineken have been intensifying their struggle over the last few months. They have made their demands more radical as well as their methods. They have done everything, everything within their power to keep their actions within the bounds of the law. Now they have reached the point where many are questioning the law. Workers are beginning to say that the law is there to protect the power of the bosses, that they can use the law to mobilise but if they want fundamental changes to their lives they cannot commit to stay within the law, especially not when the bosses routinely flout it through their class power.

The pressure on all involved in this battle will increase. CWAO’s attitude is clear:

-       We will continue to support the struggles of the workers and their communities.

-       We will continue to work with anyone who supports this struggle..

-       We will continue to oppose the bosses and their supporters, whoever these may be.

Regards

Ighsaan Schroeder

On behalf of the Casual Workers Advice Office

Category: PRESS RELEASE | DISPUTES