2012 could arguably be characterised and dubbed as 'The Year of the Strike'. On my 10 fingers (my toes kept in in reserve) I've counted around 22 major industrial actions this year, covering and overlapping a number of crucial sectors. South Africa has in a sense become uncomfortably comfortable with the concept of strike action. It was a right violently denied under Apartheid. And like a fat child on a diet, being denied sweets and McDonald's burgers,trade unions, who were denied the right to legally call strikes in the past, seem to be stuffing themselves with industrial actions, making up for lost time and opportunities.
The PC thing to do and say is to sympathise with many workers. Many are truly downtrodden, they cheated and bitter, especially in the face of the feeding frenzy we see in government for money. Their grievances are almost always justified... except, my sympathy is waning.
As striking farm labourers in De Doorns in the Cape set fire to hectares of vineyard, torched houses and looted shops I ask: Has the right to strike, to vent and to show one's anger been taken too far? Will this rampant violence really achieve anything apart from damaging the legitimacy of strike? ON the latter question the answer is simple - No.
Maybe to a degree in the case of De Doorns it forced the hand of grape farmers in the region to revisit labour issues around a negotiating table. The strike revealed the agonisingly shameful conditions under which farm staffers have had to work, for decades. Mission accomplished. The industrial action hurried the relevant stakeholders to the table. But in real terms, it won't hurry a tangible solution.
It's common knowledge farm workers are among the lowest paid in the country and have historically been marginalised. But could it be these strikers are envious and crave attention? Could the actions of a few mindless individuals be viewed as a form of jealousy, where some are seen to be jostling for attention among the working class, given all the focus which has been trained on the likes of the mining sector? Was it a sad attempt to grab headlines? I struggle to sympathise with workers amid what I honestly regard as an idiotic, futile display of bestial, rabid violence, which is defacing a protected right to demand better wages, etc. If they can resort to anarchy, why can't I also then tip my desk over, stomp on my computer and toyi-toyi outside the bosses office? Does it not occur to those strikers, prone to violence, that perhaps the message they are sending is that they have become nothing more but glorified criminals, disguised as the stereotype of a desperate member of the proletariat and all it's romantic associations under Marxism? Probably not. The visual of man on a TV news broadcast haphazardly carrying a cash register after looting a shop during a wave of unrest that clinched De Doorns recently stands out in my mind like an unsightly pimple. Was he a shop owner, jealous of his competitors cash register? Again, probably not. In all likelihood he was just another fool who allowed himself to get caught up in a moment of madness, which entailed him grabbing whatever he could in the heat of the looting. Once the daftness lifted, I hope it occurred to him his actions amounted to little more than criminality and stupidity. Amid this madness, we are expected to sympathise because we have it better than them. Sorry. My sympathy has gone on strike.
Much like striking miners turning on each other, waging a war of sorts on their own in the mining sector, the act of striking now translates into real conflict, with weapons, bloodshed and peace talks. At the same time, the right to down tools is being degraded by wanton violence, which won't help ease the grip of poverty, but only worsen it. A lot like truck drivers who downed their keys earlier this year couldn't just limit their grievances and actions to pickets and protest marches. Many thought it necessary to torch trucks and attack non-striking colleagues. In at one such case, a man died in Cape Town. Where are trade unions and their officials in all this? Some are in boardrooms, exercising the right to negotiate with employers. No doubt some of these talks could be likened to peace negotiations. Others, however, are among the legions of the maddened strikers. They form part of the rank and file of asininity. Many of these so-called unionists seem content to simply witness to the carnage and rarely ever speaking out against it. Those who do speak opt to tow a tenuous line, absurdly defending union members, denying they are party to the mayhem. In such instances, the collective intelligence of the entire country is tested. Those who choose to believe these poorly constructed lines of defence should count themselves as part of the ongoing fatuity.
Let me put it this way - if setting fire to trucks, houses and farmland is to be justified by some (many of whom like to frame themselves as radicals) in the struggle for better wages, then surely torching the Union Buildings and Parliament would be another (even more radical) way to display workers' rage? Surely then tax payers would be within their rights to descend on Parliament, armed with knobkieries, spears and petrol bombs and take matters in our own hands every time news of President Jacob Zuma's spending habits emerges? As a quick disclaimer, let me assure you I don't condone this, even though much of the rage seen this year during strikes should actually be directed at Government, and at times all I want to do is take my anger over the flagrant abuse of our monies onto the streets.
