Special Hearings — Business Hearings — 1997-11-13

MR GODSELL: Chairperson, the Chamber of Mines is indeed importantly a wage bargaining forum and as employers we obviously have very clear interest with regard to the settlement of wages and I say that not to be perverse, but simply to bring to the attention of the Commission that wages and the wage cost in the Mining Industry is an extremely important factor of production.
  The wage bill on the average gold mine is approximately 50 percent of the operating cost of that gold mine and accordingly very small movements in wages without corresponding improvements in productivity or performance, have very adverse effect on operational efficiency and performance.
 So, we are a wage sensitive industry.  Clearly, as an employers' organisation we want to secure the best possible wage effort bargain that we can.  Certainly since 1982 we've done that with fully representative unions in the Mining Industry and every year including, 1987, we did in the end reach an agreement as to what constituted fair wages in the Mining Industry in the context of its particular operations in exchange for particular performance by labour.
 With regard to your historical question.  I've heard the allegation that wages in 1960 were lower than at the turn of the century.  I have attempted to establish the authenticity, the veracity of those figures and have been unable to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Boraine.

DR BORAINE: Thank you, Chairperson.  Because of the strictures of time, I'm going to only ask one question and I want to base it on a comment on your presentation, Mr Du Plessis as well of course the written presentation which we have had time to study.
 I want to say that I appreciate very much the acknowledgements that have been made in your presentation.  I think it's important for me to identify these, you yourself have made them, before I proceed to my question.
 First you have highlighted the primacy of race in the work place.  Secondly, you've talked about the wages of Black employees and acknowledged that even though there's been an increase in real terms, it started from a very low base, which is a severe qualification.
 Thirdly, you have referred to the system of migration which caused hardship to employees in the industry and you could have gone on to talk about the break down of family life, you could have talked about the housing situation which existed for a very long time in the Mining Industry which even in the early '70's in some mines didn't even measure up to the very inadequate health regulations set down by the State.
 Fourthly, you've talked about labour relations which have been often fractures, racial as well ethnic division has aggravated industrial conflict.
 Finally, you talked about race frustrating the organisation of work and dividing employees, deepening conflicts and left a legacy of suffering that cannot be repeated.
 Now, apart from - this is the question - I don't think anyone can deny that this was a fact ... (tape ends)

DR BORAINE: ... and I do it against the back ground of what this Commission is set out to do, namely, reconciliation.  In your verbal presentation, Mr Du Plessis, you expressed your deep regrets.  That's not in your written presentation.   It may be implied, I think it probably is.  What I find missing is, against the back ground of what you have yourself acknowledged and it would take pictures and oral history to talk not only about the enormous good that the Chamber has done in providing jobs and creation of wealth, but also of the harm that the industry has done through the very points that you have raised and which I have underlined.
 I would - I must say - I have to say to you that I would have hoped that against the back ground of our situation in South Africa where we have deep, deep divisions, where there is enormous suspicion and distrust that an expression of remorse, of apology, of concern for the harm that has been done in terms of human suffering, I would have hoped for a bit more.
 I'm just wondering if you'd care to comment on that?

MR GODSELL: Dr Boraine, as this is a - you know it is a collective statement of an organisation and its executive leadership, let me respond.
 In looking at this legacy we try to honestly look at the impact of Apartheid.  We tried to describe that as emphatically and clearly as we could.
 I think it's quite appropriate that you observe the distinction between the apology in the written and the oral presentation and here's to express apologies and regret and remorse, is something we should do and we do do and we do it as we sit here.
 We're quite keen to go beyond that, because it is actually quite easy in a single session in a room in the Carlton Hotel, to offer apologies.  We are trying to actually indicate the legacy that we are left with and in that legacy we're trying to actually wrestle with the ways out of that legacy and really with our primary partners and that is the representatives of the work force.
 So, as we - it's very easy to actually say the migratory labour system has shattered family structures in South Africa.  It's done enormous harm to social structure.  It's cause misery to millions of millions of people.
 Now, the next issue is with and industry that has a high percentage of migrant workers, where do we go from here?  How do we open up options?  Do we, for example, tomorrow close our hostels?  That is an option.  Do we actually close recruitment to a 110 000 people from Lesotho, 40 000 form Mozambique?  Is that the right way forward?
 So, we were quite keen to sketch a context and I think as Adrian indicated, we must now be judged on our ability to seize every opportunity, not just to apologize.  Of course we must do that and we do it and if we should do it five times, we will do it five times.
 And if you would like remorse rather than regret, we'll do that.  But the real challenge of our readiness to play a role in the new South Africa is going to be the way we address this legacy and actually make some progress so that the damage that has been done, can perhaps be a little - can be undone.

DR BORAINE: Thank you, Mr Godsell.  In the note that I made on the last page of your submission, I really wanted to preface this, that I'm in total agreement with you;  that the best way to apologise, if you like, or to be concerned about the past, is to identify the areas and to address them logically, sensibly, economically and with passion and compassion.
 So, I have no quarrel with that at all.  What I would ask you to consider, and you don't even have to comment, is not to underestimate the power of a public apology.  Don't underestimate what that does to hundreds of thousands of people who are not in the Carlton Room, but are outside there waiting for some word.
 They can read all about the intentions that you have and I respect them and the changes that have already been made, but don't underestimate the - we're not asking for people to go on their knees or to ask for it five times or ten times, to use different words.  That's to cheapen it.
 Don't underestimate what you can do as a powerful organisation to release the goodwill which could lead to reconciliation in part in this country.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mkhize.