Power and Voting Structure
The FEDUSA is divided into a three leveled hierarchy of power. The three governing committees are The National Congress, The National Executive Committee, and The Management Committee. The most powerful committee, The National Congress, meets biennially, while the National Executive Committee meets one every two months, and the Management Committee meets every month. The positions in these committees are decided by votes from the leaders of each of the Federation’s affiliates, who are selected internally to the individual unions. FEDUSA also has Provincial Executive committees which are made up of the leaders of the affiliated unions are divided regionally by province bhz 1 The Union Federation has a substantial number of layers between it's leaders an the actual workers. The FEDUSA Federation's, like the other South African Federations', primary purpose is to address the major political issues of the workers as a unified ideological force. The changes in Union leadership affect the tactics more that the policies and beliefs of the Union Federation, which are fairly concrete. The insulation of the leaders also functions to make it more difficult for dissenting workers to threaten the jobs of the Union leaders. The Unions exercise their power in yet another somewhat controlling institution, The National Economic Development and Labor Council (NEDLAC) under which the countries business and labor leaders to discuss policy issues. bhz 4
Competition Between Labor Federations, Competition within FEDUSA
Although there are three major labor federations in South Africa, they tend to exhibit more solidarity than opposition. The labor movement's primary focus is the need for more jobs to combat the unemployment figures in South Africa (approximately 20 to 25%). Until very recently South Africa has no social welfare safety net so the unemployed have generally been, and still are without any substantial source of income. The unemployment issue almost led to a merger of all three Labor Federations at the end of 2001. The major stumbling block in the deal was COSATU's refusal to break their alliance with the ANC and the SA. FEDUSA was, and is still determined to remain politically unaffiliated. bhz 2 FEDUSA's objection in the debate was the fact of political affiliation rather than the politics of the affiliated groups. FEDUSA's ideology is based around their political independence. They are also slightly further to the right of COSATU. The union has become the primary haven for South Africa's white workers. Fifty percent of FEDUSA' membership is now white. Even with this demographic change over the last five years the union has remained only moderately conservative, and remained near the center of the political spectrum. bhz 3 Even so, the competition between the federation and its rivals is mild. The Federations stand together on most issues and competition for membership is not a big struggle. When the Federations do split, it is usually due to FEDUSA's occasional gravitation toward 'trickle-down' theories that lead them to sympathize with capital in hopes that they will voluntarily pass wealth and benefits to the workers. Internal struggles in the FEDUSA spring mostly from its racial split. Racial loyally between Federations has sometimes overridden loyalty to the federation itself. Because of this FEDUSA rhetoric continually reiterates their commitment to a diverse constituency, and their lack of prejudice against any ethnic group.
FEDUSA and Neoliberalism
In the spectrum of the South African labor federations, FEDUSA is the most conducive towards neo-liberalism. While all of the federations profess a deep hatred for the anti-worker implications of neo-liberalism, FEDUSA's reform methods actually cater towards the wished of big business far more than their leadership would probably admit. This is shown in a number of recent cases. In 2002 COSATU pushed a bill through parliament that introduced monetary grants to the impoverished and unemployed population of South Africa. While FEDUSA supported the idea of creating a safety net for the unemployed of South Africa, they wanted to use the money job training and placement programs in order to get more people employed and in the labor market. bhz 5 Their hesitance towards granting 'money for nothing' surfaced again when the issue of expanding grants to children arose. COSATU supported the grants up to the age of 18 while the more fiscally responsible FEDUSA wanted the age limit to cut off at 14. bhz 6 Both of these decisions stem from their overall platform of betterment through increased employment as opposed to the founding of a welfare state. This platform is much more business friendly that COSATU's. FEDUSA has reached out to big business in other ways as well. They are consistent supporters of foreign investment and of opening the country up to globalization. The federation advocates business and labor working together to "sell the country overseas markets." bhz 7 FEDUSA came out staunchly against an increase in Food Freighting Tariffs in March 2002, bhz 8 a position supportive of global businesses looking for low importation prices. Part FEDUSA's tendency toward pro-business stems from their dual concern over the laborer and the consumer. Rather than only supporting increasing wages as a method of economic betterment, the union also tries to appease business into keeping prices down.
FEDUSA is also conducive to neo-liberalism in their reluctance to support extreme forms of protest. They have a for more diplomatic, 'talk not action', approach to resolving labor disputes. They tend to disown movements that become too radial or violent. In July 2002, the Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU), an affiliate of COSATU, went on strike in Louis Trichardt. During an unauthorized march one marcher was killed and two were wounded by a senior employee of the company. Despite the fact that FEDUSA workers stood to benefit from the strike and from the publicity of the killing they turned on the strikers saying: "We believe that these 'gains' do not, and never will outweigh the losses suffered by the families of those breadwinners who lost their lives as a result of the anarchy in the strike" and adding the objection to the "exorbitant cost of gain." SAMWU accused FEDUSA of being scabs and implied that their Federation was privileged by the remaining legacy of apartheid and was helping to break their strike. bhz 9 Incidences like these have been emblematic of FEDUSA's moderate policy. When put to the test by the government, they have consistently been the first Federation to bargain as an alternative to striking. In 2001 they went behind the back of the other two Federations and signed a wage agreement with the government as the Federations prepared to strike for more money. bhz 10 Despite these incidences, it is important to emphasize that FEDUSA is only pro-business on a scale relative to South Africa's other Labor Federations. On issues of unemployment, monetary policy, minimum wage, and other traditional labor battles, they stand staunchly in opposition to big-business and for their workers. Still, the conservatism implicit in their methods of opposition and their sympathy toward employers tends to facilitate the project of neo-liberalism.
Articles Cited
1 FEDUSA Constitution http://www.fedusa.org.za/constitutional/constitution.html
3 "White Workers Discovering Unions." Africa News. March 9, 2001. Lexis Nexis
4 FEDUSA website http://www.fedusa.org.za
5 "Survey Paints a Bleak SA Picture." Financial Times. March 8, 2002. Lexis Nexis
7 "Managers Also Require Training: FEDUSA." Financial Times. October 24, 2000. Lexis Nexis.
8 "New Freight Tariffs "Not Mind-Boggling": Spoornet." Financial Times. March 26, 2002. Lexis Nexis.
9 "IMATU, FEDUSA Says Strike a Loss to Workers." Financial Times. July 18, 2002. Lexis Nexis.
10 "Federation of Unions Breaks Ranks." Africa News. October 2 2001. Lexis Nexis.