Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-13

MR SHILOWA: Thank you very much, Ngwobo.  That was the way in which the federation was sustained over many years of brutality in the hands of both employers on the one hand and the State.
 So we are here today, not as victims of Apartheid to lament only about what happened under a Apartheid.  We will say what happened.  But we are here, because as revolutionaries we conquered;  that those who supported Apartheid, those who thought that there will never be days when our people will be liberated, their dream have been shattered.
 The key challenge that they face, is not to today come here and say, we did not know.  So which means they're only seen is ignorance.  Or to come here and say, but we are changing.  It's not to come and do that.
 It's to come and truly say this is what happened in our country over a particular period.  For the past three days the TRC have heard how all South Africans, Black and Whites, big business and workers, were all freedom fighters for liberation.
 We have also heard about the fact that business were victims of Apartheid and have never benefitted from it.  Furthermore, that they are not a homogeneous mass group.
 It would be very nice if we were all revolutionaries.  Oppression, exploitation, humiliation, discrimination, starvation wages, the migrant labour system, child labour, dismissal of strikers, particularly those who went on legal strikes, or engaging in political strikes, would never have happened, because we would all have been revolutionaries.
 Why would Anglo dismiss mine workers in 1987 for going on strike if they believed in worker rights?  Why would Impala Platinum mine say to NUM, we will recognise you here at Impala, because you are registered in South Africa, yet accept our (indistinct) factory in the Bantu staat and they come here and tell us they were revolutionaries.
 I'm saying that that's the situation.  Let me give you an example of humiliation that workers suffered.  A worker find the job and having find a job, this worker then pitches up the following at his new employment.  Now, of course when he have your job, this worker believed that he's got to put the best of his available dress.
 He had one, only one long trouser.  He put on that long trouser and went to work and as he arrived was told to go and see his boss and the boss said to him;  in my employ boys don't wear long pants.  Only I do.  I don't know if you know what happened to that worker.  He had a choice, to go back and starve or to cut off - to cut down into a short his only long pants in order to feed his children, his family.   To himself, to clothe himself, he cut his shorts.  That's how we were humiliated as workers by these revolutionaries and freedom fighters.
 In the - in the discussions and the beginning of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Bishop Tutu had something fundamental to say which I would just want to remind ourselves about.  He said:
"There are millions of people whose tears have not always been recorded.  We hope that you will do in depth account of those in the shadows so people know the price of freedom in South Africa."
That's what the Arch Bishop said.  Now, for us to document the daily experience of ordinary workers in South Africa, is to record a chronical of tears.  Often these tears are seen simply as reflections of the pain of Apartheid and workers seen simply as its victims.  Of course there is truth in that, but the tears are more innumerous in that the pain of daily life does not come and go with Apartheid.  No, followed the definitional boundaries of human rights lawyers.  They are more complex in that they're tears also of anger, of hatred and opposition from actors involved in the defiance and resistance of making history, not just victims.
 The people who shed the tears already had a great deal of knowledge and brought it in popular consciousness about the price of freedom, because it was merely of ordinary people cast by others into the shadows who were paying the price and constituting the core of the struggle for freedom.
 Not our new found revolutionaries and freedom fighters.  It is those workers in that situation.  Now, just to really go very briefly in terms of the various discussions without wasting your time, I think what we are going to say therefore to you, is that firstly, that most of the submissions that claim that business did not know that they were following, that even though they really swore that they will tell the truth, I would argue they were lying.
 I would argue they're lying, because indeed, we know that there was no law that in itself prohibited them from recognising Black trade unions, but SACTO as Leon Lubbe would tell you, if we had the time, because he was the president of SACTO at one point;  was precisely prosecuted, because it dared to challenge the White baas and dared to want to organise Black workers into a non-racial institution.
 Prof Nic Wiehahn said so yesterday;  that forget about the law.  The law was there indeed, but nothing prevented them from doing so and they come here today to say, but we did recognise them in 1983.
 We did recognise them after the Wiehahn Commission.  Now, I don't know what that means.  They did not recognise us.  Just as the ANC and the communist party were unbanned, because the people had unbanned them, they had to follow in 1973, because workers have themselves decided that enough is enough.  We will, ourselves organise into trade unions.
 If we are recognised, that's fine.  We'll negotiate with yourself.  If we are not recognised we will go on strike until you recognise us.  So what came with the Wiehahn commission was an acknowledgement of that which we, the struggling workers, had done, not what this new found freedom fighters and revolutionaries say here today.
 Indeed it will be very easy to assume that it's Apartheid in 1948 that began to deal with this, but I think history tells otherwise.  It's very easy for us to focus on Afrikaner business, because it was after 1948 that their Government came into power and began to do certain things.
 But the struggle and the exploitation and oppression of workers in this country and denial of worker rights and political rights, is as owed as the conquest of Africans in our country.
 So, even though in the depth and height of industrialisation, unions were recognised.  I think we must not make the mistake of saying employers did not recognise unions.  They did from the 18-whatever on, but they recognises only White unions.
 So it is not they did not know about trade unionism.  It is not that they did not support trade unionism.  They chose a particular trade union choice to follow.  Yesterday you were told by Rupert that indeed we had no choice, but to do this and that, but I'm Braam Fisher, an Afrikaner, a member of the communist party, chose a different route than that which followed by his Afrikaner friends.
 So Afrikaners can't come here today and say that they had no choice.  They made choices and Braam Fisher made a different choice.  Very briefly to say that in stead of going through the whole submission, I would want to really say that my focus, because you can read our submission, is going to give you some brief historical and personal experiences of workers, which we think we should take away with you as you work the way forward.
 The assistant general secretary of COSATU is sitting there, (indistinct).  Now, employers from Anglo are here and they know that after there had been that much dismissal that included Zwele, they distributed to all mines, that he is persona non grata.
 So they were vindictive.  They would follow him.  So in their mind he would never earn a living again.  He had to go, even though he as an official of the NUM, in going to organise for the NUM to negotiate, he had to go as (indistinct) sitting somewhere there.
 So he had to lie to represent workers and say he was Sinko Mawase.  They accepted him, because they did not know Zwele Simbawawe.  They had been told that the Zwele Simbawawe in the NUM persona non grata.
 So in pure we thank you for allowing him to use your name in that situation, but those are the experiences that we've gone through.  So, when they come here and say, we did not do this and that and with hind sight begin to say, but you know, we did not do enough, it's actually just not true and I will come to some of those areas.
 But that's the one example I though we should give you.  The other example I thought we should give you is that in 1988, the State effectively restricted COSATU.  They banned 17 organisations, restricted COSATU and we thought there are progressive business in our country and led by Jay and other leaders at that time, we mocked with this so-called progressive business.  Right.  
 We're really asking two things.  Our fellow Africans, our fellow South Africans, we are under siege.  There's a clam down on COSATU.  Are you able to come up in our defence and together with us say that clam down is wrong.  They said no, we're not able to do that and I think if you look into our submission, it is summed up in a theoretical question that COSATU asks and it was captured in the weekly mail in its time of need, can COSATU rely on employers.
 We said the answer was a categoric no, but that experience we have had from the progressive business community.  We have not met with all business.  We met with them, because we had really been told that these are your - the top of the progressive, but that's what we got.
 In the same year, in the same meeting, one of the point that we raised, was support.  On our position around the LRA, which we said was going to take out our rights.  Bobby Godsell said at that time and I hope Bobby is still here so at least, you know, he can know that I'm not just sort of attributing something to him;  that as business they don't see anything wrong with such a legislation even though we were saying it will roll back.
 I'm sure if he's honest he will confirm later that he did see employers using that law to sue unions - to sue unions.  They know that at one time, the workers from Lascon, organised by NUMSA had to themselves all go to court, because shop stewards refused to represent them, because those shop stewards were themselves be liable to such situation.  So this is a day in the life of a trade union, if I may just connect like that.
 Workers went on strikes - went on strikes.  Legal strikes.  We tried to promote legal strikes, but they were dismissed.  I would leave that to Jay to later deal with that.
 So, but I thought I must give you some of those experiences.  Another experience I thought I should give you, is that the Chamber here have said something about the, you know this current period, because some of these change, the NUM is pushing.
 But the Chamber, if they're honest, they will tell you that they opposed the NUM's insistence on the establishment of a commission of enquiry, Matamala is there, he knows, he had been noting time and time.  It was still very late that they agreed to the establishment and this is documented history.
 So the fact that the Leon Commission sat in the end, is not because mine bosses wanted a commission of enquiry.  It's because workers had persistently done that situation.
 Now, just by the way in terms of migrant labour system which you have just been (indistinct).  Let me give you a quotation about somebody called Archie Gamal, I hope - I'm being - I'm doing justice to his name.  He was the chief medical officer of the Chamber.  He argued that such (indistinct) were beneficial to the physics of the natives.  He was talking about beds, you know bunkers, because we used to sleep on concrete banks and he said, but for the physics of a native, these things are necessary.
 Then he went over to say any change from the migratory labour system to established urban communities, would have a catastrophic on the natives themselves.
 Today they say to you it was the law.  This is what they say.  I'm sure they won't deny him, because I'm sure the know him and they can find what he said in that situation.  By the way, he was responding to the African Mine Workers Union in that situation.  I thought it was important that you take note of that.
 Of course we argue in our representation that business engaged in various ways that made the whole issue of Apartheid profitable to them in terms of their participation in the war - in the war machinery.  It's something that is there and we know that even the FINANCIAL MAIL listed is one of (indistinct) achievement, I quote:
"They have the private sector involvement bought at board and production level in armour (indistinct) production."
Yet, today they would say and I'm sure they were speaking to you earlier, they didn't know.  Of course there was a link, in terms of the production of those arms.
 I want to give you an example of a situation where employers say, but we did support reform and I want to concede upfront, they did support reform.  The question is not whether they supported reform, it's what type of reform they supported and under what conditions?
 Now, let's listen to Sir Michael Edwards, a former chairman of British Leyland and subsequently head of the Anglo American Corporation of Offshore Operation Monaco.  He says:
"South Africa could regain internationally acceptability by sensible representation, but without the trauma of one man one vote.  Before the issue becomes some what of a choice between isolation and total franchise and nothing less, for God's sake, get discrimination of all sectors sorted out and (indistinct) out of the system."
Now, he would argue he did support it, but the key word is that he says, do it for all to see, to pre-end the trauma of total franchise.  So he's not talking about total franchise.  He's not talking about that, but he wants some symbolic gesture that will make the world think about something else in that situation.