Getting Jobs Back
By: GWEN LISTERTHE UNIONS don't like media to talk about 'land invasions', because that sounds too much like what's been happening in Zimbabwe.
But it seems they're simply playing word games when they insist
that it's merely a matter of returning evicted farmworkers to their
places of work.
And if so, what's next: every disgruntled employee, fired for
even legitimate reasons, can just get a group of protestors
together to help return him/her to their former job?
THE whole saga actually angers me intensely, because as a person
who has always stood up for the rights of abused workers, and
argued the case for union involvement on their behalf as well as
all the protection the law can offer them, I now find myself
wondering who's exploiting whom?
In my view the role of the unions should be to intervene early
enough in labour disputes to effect some kind of conciliation or
settlement, failing which to get the best deal for workers, rather
than involve themselves at the eleventh hour only to ignite a
conflagration.
I'm not saying there is never reason for workers to take issue
seriously with farm employers, but there are at the same time
undoubtedly cases where matters are blown up out of all
proportion.
We may not have learned much from the Zimbabwe example, but I do
believe that many (by no means all) farmers are aware of the steps
that need to be taken before dismissing employees, and in some
recent cases where unions have become involved in trying to
reinstate workers, proper procedures were indeed followed by
farmers before workers were dismissed.
Unions should have ensured their presence at the times when
hearings took place, rather than after the fact and once court
orders were issued to evict farmworkers who would not comply.
It stands to reason that at this point, emotions are running
high - workers are enraged by evictions; farmers barricade
themselves for self-protection; police are called in, and the
unions seem to play no positive role to try and avert
confrontation.
If we're all honest with ourselves, we'd acknowlege that while
there is a clear need to deal with a redistribution of land in all
its ramifications, it would be best if this is resolved in the
spirit of what's in the best interests of the country and ALL its
people.
In the same way as the Labour Code prohibits arbitrary and
unfair dismissal of workers without disciplinary hearing and
appropriate steps being taken in any such process, so too should
the same processes be followed with farmworkers.
It is when such processes are underway that the unions should
ensure they have a role, and not, as they tend to do at present,
only step in once matters have run their course.
A bank employee, for example, who is 'fairly' dismissed after
appropriate procedures have been applied, surely cannot gather
together a support group to invade the said institution and demand
his job back! After all, he or she did not own the bank; and
neither, in most cases, do farmworkers own the land they have been
removed from.
There are also two clear issues here which should not be
confused: the one is the legitimate claim of Namibians to a share
of the land, a process which the Government is currently
undertaking, although certainly at a pace too slow for the liking
of the unions; and the other is the issue of workers who have been
dismissed, and which is a labour matter, not to be muddled with
land redistribution debates.
Unfortunately in the most recent of incidents, the issues have
been confused and entangled, even in cases where farmers have
genuinely done their best by the workers they have retrenched
and/dismissed through procedures upheld by the courts.
The onus is on the unions to really do their homework.
It is not in the interests of any one person in this country to
exploit sensitive issues for clearly political agendas.
Government has taken a fairly tough line, and the role of the
unions is to negotiate on behalf of the workforce of this country
(and there are many neglected areas in this regard that demand
their attention) and not to appoint themselves as judge, jury and
executioner in the land issue.
This is clearly not their mandate.
And if so, what's next: every disgruntled employee, fired for even
legitimate reasons, can just get a group of protestors together to
help return him/her to their former job? THE whole saga actually
angers me intensely, because as a person who has always stood up
for the rights of abused workers, and argued the case for union
involvement on their behalf as well as all the protection the law
can offer them, I now find myself wondering who's exploiting whom?
In my view the role of the unions should be to intervene early
enough in labour disputes to effect some kind of conciliation or
settlement, failing which to get the best deal for workers, rather
than involve themselves at the eleventh hour only to ignite a
conflagration. I'm not saying there is never reason for workers to
take issue seriously with farm employers, but there are at the same
time undoubtedly cases where matters are blown up out of all
proportion. We may not have learned much from the Zimbabwe example,
but I do believe that many (by no means all) farmers are aware of
the steps that need to be taken before dismissing employees, and in
some recent cases where unions have become involved in trying to
reinstate workers, proper procedures were indeed followed by
farmers before workers were dismissed. Unions should have ensured
their presence at the times when hearings took place, rather than
after the fact and once court orders were issued to evict
farmworkers who would not comply. It stands to reason that at this
point, emotions are running high - workers are enraged by
evictions; farmers barricade themselves for self-protection; police
are called in, and the unions seem to play no positive role to try
and avert confrontation. If we're all honest with ourselves, we'd
acknowlege that while there is a clear need to deal with a
redistribution of land in all its ramifications, it would be best
if this is resolved in the spirit of what's in the best interests
of the country and ALL its people. In the same way as the Labour
Code prohibits arbitrary and unfair dismissal of workers without
disciplinary hearing and appropriate steps being taken in any such
process, so too should the same processes be followed with
farmworkers. It is when such processes are underway that the unions
should ensure they have a role, and not, as they tend to do at
present, only step in once matters have run their course. A bank
employee, for example, who is 'fairly' dismissed after appropriate
procedures have been applied, surely cannot gather together a
support group to invade the said institution and demand his job
back! After all, he or she did not own the bank; and neither, in
most cases, do farmworkers own the land they have been removed
from. There are also two clear issues here which should not be
confused: the one is the legitimate claim of Namibians to a share
of the land, a process which the Government is currently
undertaking, although certainly at a pace too slow for the liking
of the unions; and the other is the issue of workers who have been
dismissed, and which is a labour matter, not to be muddled with
land redistribution debates. Unfortunately in the most recent of
incidents, the issues have been confused and entangled, even in
cases where farmers have genuinely done their best by the workers
they have retrenched and/dismissed through procedures upheld by the
courts. The onus is on the unions to really do their homework. It
is not in the interests of any one person in this country to
exploit sensitive issues for clearly political agendas. Government
has taken a fairly tough line, and the role of the unions is to
negotiate on behalf of the workforce of this country (and there are
many neglected areas in this regard that demand their attention)
and not to appoint themselves as judge, jury and executioner in the
land issue. This is clearly not their mandate.