### The compromised integrity of union structures

The erosion of the class integrity of NUM's structures has contributed to a decline in the trust union members have in their union, which has served to compound some of issues of members disengaging from the union discussed above. The end of apartheid offered unprecedented opportunities for the organisations that were formerly involved in the national liberation struggle to engage with the state, which has often led to the bureaucratisation of these organisations, notably with the creation of full-time positions for senior figures. Scholars have commented on how a ‘race to riches’ has affected the organisational dynamics within the various branches of the liberation movement, in both the ANC (Butler 2007, Cronin 2005, Lodge 2004, Motlanthe 2007, Southall 2008) and South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO) (Seekings 2000, Zuern 2001) as leading positions within these movements increasingly represent secure forms of employment and/or stepping stones into lucrative jobs in the private sector. In this respect, Buhlungu notes that this has also affected the trade unions because the opening up or deracialisation of society triggered class formation on a scale that has no precedent in black South African history. Activists of the struggle period were catapulted into new positions of power and high remuneration without the stigma that was associated with those positions in the days of apartheid. These processes of class formation were part of the context within which unions were operating and they shaped developments within the union movement. (Buhlungu 2002, p. 15)Labour analysts have highlighted how the pressures on the unions to engage within the institutional spaces available to them in the post-apartheid period has led to the ascendance of an elite ‘professional’ bureaucratic layer of union officials which has led to increasingly top-down decision-making and the gradual depoliticisation of union activity (Buhlungu 2002, p. 5, 2010, Lehulere 2003, p. 38, Maree 1998, p. 35). Buhlungu, for example, argues that ‘processes of organisational modernisation in a context of political transition and integration of South Africa into the global economy’ has led to a changing role for union officials ‘manifested by the disappearance of the activist organiser and the emergence of new types of union officials’ (Buhlungu 2002, p. 3). He argues that there has been a decline in the politically driven ‘activist organisers’ of old and a growth of ‘career unionists’, who want to make a lifetime career out of their union work, and the ‘entrepreneur unionists’ who want to use union positions as stepping stones to promotions within the company that they work (Buhlungu 2002).

It is also possible to witness similar processes of class formation within the unions at the workplace level. One of the more complex issues arising out of the opportunities created by affirmative action policies, for example, has been the phenomenon of NUM shop stewards being promoted into supervisory and management positions in Eskom. This is an issue affecting COSATU affiliates in other industries (see for example Von Holdt 2003) as well as NUM (see Bezuidenhout and Buhlungu 2007, pp. 250–259, 2008, p. 272). It has long been noted that shop stewards in the UK find themselves in a contradictory location between management and union members, and that they are usually required to take on a mediating role between the two (Lane 1974). In this respect, Webster notes how the post-apartheid era led to new pressures being exerted on shop stewards because they are no longer simply there to ‘stir up trouble’ and have increasingly been required to play a ‘managerial function settling grievances’ (Webster 2001, p. 197). As such, Webster contends that [the behaviour of shop stewards in South Africa cannot be fully understood without exploring how their identity in the workplace is shaped by the changing political context. The apartheid workplace nurtured strong, oppositional shop-floor structures and blocked the promotion of shop stewards; the abolition of political apartheid has led to a decline in shop-floor structures and the rapid promotion of key shop stewards. (Webster 2001, p. 197)The end of apartheid then, not only reconfigured the relationship between shop stewards and management, it also lifted any restrictions – whether legal or simply normative – on skilled (and usually charismatic) shop stewards taking up managerial positions.

The significance of shop steward promotions was brought to my attention by workers who would regularly raise the issue as a primary concern when given an open question about NUM's performance at the local level. During my research I witnessed first-hand, the promotion of one shop steward and one full-time shop steward. I also heard countless tales from branch leaders and union officials of shop stewards that had been promoted, with varying perspectives on the impact this was having on the union itself.

A prerequisite for such promotions was, of course, that the shop steward concerned had the skills required for such a promotion into supervisory or management roles. Workers and officials generally reported that it was shop stewards who already had relatively good skill levels that were being promoted, and that it was not just because he or she was a shop steward per se. Nonetheless, it was clear for some of these workers, becoming a shop steward did serve to enhance their prospects for promotion, and that becoming involved in union affairs was therefore potentially rewarding. This depended on individual circumstances, but it was widely held by workers and officials alike that being a shop steward benefited workers in two particular respects. First, it would improve their human capital in terms of giving them experience of negotiations, carrying out administrative functions, and also mediating potentially antagonistic relationships between workers and managers. Newly elected shop stewards also receive direct training from the union itself, giving them important skills in human resource management that could compliment their existing technical expertise and distinguish them from their peers.8 Second, being shop steward also increased their social capital understood as ‘the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 119) through personal interactions and increasing familiarity with management. Workers would often remark that shop stewards would use their position, for example, to ‘get in the eyes’ of managers and draw attention to their skills. As Piet Matosa, the regional chairperson for NUM, remarked: Unfortunately there is nobody that doesn't want promotion. Now once you are identified by an employer, that ‘no, this guy is trainable, we can take him for further training’ our members get absorbed by the employers and unfortunately there is no way that the union can stop anyone from progressing. (Interview with Piet Matosa, 22 May 2008)The scale of this phenomenon of shop stewards being promoted to management positions is, however, difficult to quantify. Workers, just like their officials, found it difficult to offer any accurate and verifiable account of the numbers of times this happened. The significance of this phenomenon – whatever its size – lies in the fact that it alters the manner in which the union, and its structures, are perceived by ordinary workers.

Survey evidence and analysis provided by the Society, Work and Development Institute (SWOP) team suggests that workers are remarkably ambivalent about the phenomenon of shop steward promotion, with half of the workers surveyed agreeing with the statement that ‘it is acceptable for shop stewards to be promoted into management positions’ (Southall and Tangri 2006, pp. 120–121). This kind of attitude was recognisable among Eskom workers who generally saw shop steward promotions as something of a double-edged sword: while they were mindful of the potentially debilitating effects this process would have on union organisation, they nonetheless often framed it as a natural process and one that could potentially improve their own lives. They were often sympathetic towards their shop stewards' aspirations of upward mobility. Trying to attain promotion through such means was broadly regarded as understandable, considering the material hardships that many black workers continued to face. One worker, Moses, for example, said that: ‘I've got 8 children and I'm earning [ZAR]1500 [per week], this is why a shop steward take management position if given’ (Interview with Eskom worker, 10 December 2007). It was often said that it was ‘natural’ for workers to want to ‘feed their families’ or ‘put bread on the table’. Workers would often say that they did not see anything wrong per se if a shop steward was promoted owing to his skills and ability and there were very few workers who begrudged their shop stewards being promoted simply because they were a shop steward. After all, as it was regularly pointed out to me, ‘shop stewards don't elect themselves’ and workers said that they would re-elect shop stewards who had demonstrably performed for them, even if in the process they had been promoted to management positions.9

Furthermore, the promotion of shop stewards into management positions and, indeed, the presence of supervisors and management in the union structures in general, was not necessarily framed in a negative light, or as being inherently contradictory. Ordinary workers argued that seeing their comrades promoted was, in itself, reflective of a broader ‘victory’ of the transition from apartheid consolidated through having ‘their own’ representatives in positions of management. It was commonly expressed that ‘comrades’ who pursued their personal ambitions would, in some way or another, be able to ‘assist’ the members they were ‘leaving behind’. At the very least, workers hoped that having their own leaders promoted would ensure a more sympathetic ‘ear’ in management. It was regularly expressed that an understanding management would treat them better and ‘understand’ their plight. It was often said by shop stewards and officials that it was better to have these personal links with management because ‘you know this guy’ and that ‘you know you can influence him’ or that he would ‘give us a platform’ to speak to him or her. Such a view was shared by the local shop steward branch executives as well as the regional and national leadership. According to this view, which was widely held among more senior shop stewards and union officials, having shop stewards promoted into management was a way of increasing the influence of NUM in all sections of power station management. The union's own policy in this regard, something that was regularly recounted by these leaders, was that there was ‘no contradiction’ in a shop steward being promoted into a position of management per se.

For example, I asked the full-time shop steward, Joe Skosana, about Xolani, one of the shop stewards on a branch executive that I had interviewed who had been promoted into a management position during my time researching. I enquired whether Xolani was still an NUM member and, somewhat surprised, Joe replied that he was still active and was still visiting the regional offices on a regular basis. He explained that this was part of a broader strategy on the part of NUM to recruit new members and retain existing ones from management positions. He explained: We have members who are very senior management, those who are even three job grades higher than Xolani. I think it's a policy of COSATU that we support managers being union members because then you have a manager who goes into the power station and he understands the workers issues and where we are coming from. So if you've got them there you can try to engage them in the forums.Interviewer. It is strategic?You see that is what we think; you might be able to get the company to start implementing policies that are biased towards workers rather than trying to build from outside all of the time. It takes a lot to convince a company not to implement a policy that they agreed on if you are engaged only as an outsider. It is like the policy of the intelligence community – you plant your person in there, not to report everything back to you or anything but just to represent you in there as a mole. (Personal communication with Joe Skosana, 21 April 2009, original emphasis.)It short, it was argued that the union's relationship with Eskom should not, and could not, be characterised simply by antagonism alone. What this reflects is the wider strategy taken by COSATU and its affiliates in the post-apartheid period. Instead of readopting a militant strategy of resistance towards management or the ANC government, trade union strategy instead appears to be focused primarily on seeking reformist accommodations with management through a combination of continued mobilisation and complementing this with new strategies of infiltrating management structures that were previously off limits to the unions and their members. This strategy appears to be aimed at navigating, as best they can, the contours of capitalism within the post-apartheid setting, rather than pursuing their radical overhaul.

However, there were some profoundly negative consequences of shop steward promotions. Several commentators have pointed to the sizeable ‘brain drain’ which COSATU experienced during and after the political transition as its national leaders took up high-level positions in the ANC, the government or in business (Buhlungu 2006a, p. 12, Wood 2001). At the workplace level, the promotion of shop stewards into management positions has been regarded as a potential threat to collective solidarity and organisational strength in South Africa (Harcourt and Wood 2003, p. 96). Indeed, the process of shop stewards being promoted into positions of management is usually treated as a ‘problem’ for the unions, one which undermines their working-class ethos, bonds of solidarity, and practically incapacitates the union through the flight of vital skills into management positions (NALEDI 2006, p. 29, see also Buhlungu 2002, Bramble 2003, Von Holdt 2002, 2003).

At a local and a national level it was felt that affirmative action, and the promotion of shop stewards in particular, had had some unintended negative consequences. Frans Baleni, the NUM's general secretary, remarked that this reflected one of the largest problems facing the union because they were now encountering senior managers – who had formerly been NUM members – that were more hostile towards the unions than their white counterparts because they have crossed the floor, and they are on the other side with management. For example the chief [wage] negotiator of Eskom was a branch chairperson of NUM. Now they tend to be more negative towards the union because they fear that they must be seen from management side to have really crossed the bridge, that they are not still linked with the union and so on and they become more difficult than the people who had no relationship with unions [before]. (Interview with Frans Baleni, 6 November 2007)Such a perception was shared among ordinary members. Sizwe, for example, had worked in the power station for over 25 years, expressed how grateful he was to the union and what it had done for him. He said that in his 20 years as an NUM member he was very happy with the way it was organised and recognised what it had done for him saying that ‘If they were not there maybe I could have been fired a long time ago’ (Interview with Eskom worker, 20 December 2007). However, Sizwe was wary of what he perceived to be the ‘biggest’ problem facing the union at present, one that was seriously disempowering the union in an organisational sense. He, like many of his comrades, identified what he perceived to be the ‘buying’ or ‘poaching’ of the best shop stewards by management: The problem with the unions, what I can say is that the union must be very much clever to the management because they are trying to recruit some of those active guys you see. They must be very much careful of that because that's not good. They just say ‘that guy's the best, let's take that guy to an HR [human resources] position then we are going to hammer the employees’. As I said the HR and the management they are forming a pact to get those strong guys to their side you see? If the union do not wake up they are going to be like Mathla power station where the union has just been demolished [by this]. (Interview with Eskom worker, 20 December 2007)Such a strategy might not be surprising, considering that trade unions around the world have encountered the dangers of their shop stewards being lured into supervisory or management roles, which Beynon describes as the ‘oldest trick in the book’ and as a management method of dividing shop stewards' loyalties (quoted in Webster 2001, p. 206). Therefore, while workers were not necessarily resentful of their shop stewards having ambitions, many workers were nonetheless resentful and hostile to those shop stewards that were seen to have ‘forgotten their roots’ and been ‘turned against us’. A further problem that shop steward promotions raised, however, was that this phenomenon was seen to be symptomatic of a broader change in the culture of trade union leadership. It is to this that I will turn to now.