In this extract from his book A Paradox of VictorySakhela Buhlungu describes how the trade union federation has changed
On its own, Cosatu’s spectacular membership growth is not an adequate explanation of some of the weaknesses in the labour movement today. The expanded political and representational role of the federation has, perhaps inadvertently, produced some counterproductive forces that contribute to the decline of organisational power.
One of these is a form of democratic rupture whereby key union leaders become alienated from union members, such that in the long term their outlook changes as they begin to think and act like members of the power elite that the movement is seeking to displace — business people, politicians, bureaucrats and other layers of the middle classes. When this occurs we witness what C Wright Mills noted in his discussion of American union leaders in the 1940s: “The labour leader is a powerful man: he accumulates power and he exerts it over the union member and over property.”
The democratic transition in South Africa has created conditions that are conducive for the emergence of union leaders who believe that in undertaking the political and representational role of their unions and federations they have to be seen to be respectable and reasonable by their interlocutors in business and the state. After all, they spend longer hours in meetings with employers and state bureaucrats than they do with blue-collar members of their unions.
For Cosatu leaders and even for certain echelons of shop stewards, interactions with employers and state officials occur in bargaining councils, Nedlac, the governing boards of bodies such as the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), task teams and other such ad hoc bodies, bosberade and numerous other institutions and organisations that have become common in post-apartheid South Africa.
To this list I should add a whole array of international trade union bodies in which the federation and its affiliates have representation. During social occasions at such events, the conversation is seldom, if at all, about building a workers’ paradise and is more often about the latest trends in consumption — cars, houses, food and expensive drinks, golf club memberships, and free tickets to watch sports matches from corporate suites at sports stadiums.
All this means that leadership positions have become inscribed with power and privilege; hence the often acrimonious leadership contests for power and resources that have occurred within the unions in recent years. Furthermore, being a representative of the federation or of its affiliates in political and other forums means more than just conveying union views and mandates. Very importantly, it often also means access to new networks, opportunities to “profile” oneself, and the benefits of perks such as air travel, hired cars, paid time off work, per diems and so on.
The political and representational role of the federation and its unions has had the effect of widening the horizons of its members — and particularly its leaders, from shop stewards upwards — in terms of what opportunities are available for upward social mobility. Unlike in the past, when the best a shop steward could aspire to become was a supervisor on the shop floor, today the range of options is almost endless, including becoming a local government councillor, a member of the provincial or even the national Parliament, and numerous other career possibilities.
Since 1994 these options have presented Cosatu and its unions with a serious challenge as generations of leaders and activists have continued to seek greener pastures elsewhere. Often these activists and leaders develop new contacts and networks in the course of performing their representational roles, and in this way their skills and capabilities get noticed by others.
It is no wonder, then, that when they exit the unions, union leaders and activists mostly find employment in organisations with which they have had the most sustained contact and interactions. These include government departments such as the department of labour and the department of trade and industry; labour market and industrial relations institutions such as bargaining councils and the CCMA; other institutions such as Nedlac; state corporations; and private business organisations.
The dramatic increase in opportunities for upward mobility for union leaders, officials and members has had a generally de-radicalising effect on the unions. Unlike in the past, when government and business organisations were regarded by radical unionists as part of a putative enemy, today these and other organisations are regarded as legitimate and coveted avenues for upward mobility. In this regard the radical rhetoric of unions, particularly those in Cosatu, obscures the fact that the practice among individual union members and leaders concerning upward mobility is one of realpolitik, where any organisation and institution is good enough if it can provide employment opportunities. In other words, if one examines the practice of these officials and leaders, radical notions of smashing the state and capitalism ring very hollow.
At the level of union members on the shop floor, a related phenomenon is demobilisation, which is a result of a deep sense of cynicism. This is symptomatic of the gradual but inexorable erosion of forms of solidarity built during the era of resistance, when there was greater alignment between the rhetoric and practice of the unions and their leadership.
Although research in recent years shows that Cosatu members are satisfied with the general direction and policy positions taken by their leaders, there are also strong indications that membership participation in union activities such as general meetings and union rallies has declined. This suggests that union membership is now increasingly motivated by a sort of instrumental pragmatism, where support for the union is driven more by material benefits that members can extract from the union than by a genuine support for the policy positions that the union espouses.