About two months ago, I watched a boxing match between Riddick Bowe and Evander Holyfield. I do not like Holyfield because for some strange reason he had Mike Tyson’s number. As I watched I rooted for Riddick Bowe. After some time I realized how silly I was being, for the match had been fought in 1999. The result was already in the public domain but that had not stopped me from taking sides.
It is said that dialectics is a dialogue between two people holding different positions. They then try to establish the truth of the matter through reasoned arguments. Dialectics involves a proposal (theses) and a counter proposal (antitheses). The process of dialogue generates a synthesis or a new proposal.
Our fear of being labeled Marxists has blinded us from this process even though it predates Marxism, and was used by people like Plato and Socrates. I have read somewhere that it existed even in the old Indian societies. I think a person well versed in this method and Tswana dispute resolution processes will find that dialectics is very much part of our culture.
Those who have had the good fortune to study mathematics have heard of partial solutions to a problem. It is a method used widely by mathematicians, engineers and scientists. They know that it is not 100 percent accurate, but it works. It is an approach that we can borrow in trying to resolve the public sector strike. It is not a perfect solution to the strike but it can be a working solution that allows the parties time and space for tempers to cool.
The unions wanted 16% (the proposal) and government offered 5% in September 2011 if the economy improves (the counter proposal). The two parties have generated a new set of proposals. The government has proposed 3% across the board with application of the no work no pay rule, and the unions 3% on a pyramid structure, no application of the no work no pay rule and reinstatement of the dismissed essential services workers. This means that the unions have secured 60% of what government had conditionally offered.
I believe the government’s initial offer of 5% in September 2011 provides room for dealing with the dispute on the pyramid distribution of the 3%. The 3% can be applied across the board and the pyramid structure can be applied to the 2% should the economy show that government can afford this in September 2011. This allows both parties to achieve common ground on the 3%. It also accommodates parliament’s proposal that the distribution of the 3% should not unduly distort the existing pay structure.
Surely if government is prepared to look at a 5% increase in September 2011 there is no basis for it to object to tying proposals to the balance above the agreed 3%. I think the unions likewise should not have a problem with tying their pyramid demand to the 2%. There is after all not much difference between 3% and 2%.
As regards the no work no pay rule I believe there is room to work out an exit that will also buy time for both sides to sit down later. In the interim some of the days spent on strike can be looked at as unpaid leave. A strike is after all a situation where the employee withdraws his labour, it is the same as taking unpaid leave. Some of the days can be converted to paid leave days. The workers would then recoup some of their losses without being seen to be unfair to the employer. The lucky ones may even recoup their losses by working overtime where there is a backlog. This helps achieve a break between the 3% and the no work no pay rule, and is consistent with parliaments proposal that the workers return to work and negotiate this with the employer.
As for the reinstatement of the fired essential services workers again there is a need to buy time and breathing space. The government has indicated its readiness to accept applications for employment (the proposal). The unions on the one hand want reinstatement of the dismissed employees (the counter proposal).
The issue can be addressed by giving regard to the class structure of the workers. Within the essential service cadre there are doctors, nurses, cleaners and drivers. Doctors and nurses have a certain bargaining power whilst cleaners and drivers are easily replaceable. In a country with high unemployment and where people are therefore prepared to lower expectations in the job market, the employer has a very strong hand.
In the situation of doctors and nurses and other scarce skill professions there is a sense of balance whereby these professionals can negotiate a package. The suggestion of using unpaid leave and paid leave can work for these. The government can follow up with disciplinary proceedings if it is so inclined. This process creates time for tempers to cool. After all there is a mitigating factor, in that it seems both the employer and the unions were ill informed as to the correct position of the law. Government may in fact not go ahead with any disciplinary proceedings after tempers have cooled.
In terms of being informed as to the correct position of the law, the manual workers are the ones most likely to be ill informed. They rely on the union leaders and government for what constitutes the correct position of the law. Where the employer and the union leaders are mistaken as to the law, it is the employer and the union leaders who must take responsibility. Both sides have already expressed the view that they are now more knowledgeable about the law governing strikes. This suggests acknowledgement of mistakes on both sides.
A joint acknowledgement by the employer and the union leadership as regards the situation of the manual workers, that there have been errors of understanding of the law on both sides, is in my view enough to justify reinstatement of the manual workers. It is not a question of what the law says, but of the contribution to the situation by being ill informed on the law by both the employer and the union leadership.
It is said that the difference between debating and dialectics is that in a debate there is a judge. There is therefore a winner and a loser. Taking a debate approach to the strike allows the government, unionists, and politicians to score points against each other thereby fueling the egos. A dialectical approach places a burden on the adversaries to seek the truth through reasoned arguments.
I was shocked to hear one of the mediators, in one local private radio station, say that the government refused at the last minute, to append its signature to the agreed agreement. These kinds of statements are not helpful and are inflammatory. Either you have an agreement or you do not. If it takes a signature to signify agreement then before that signature is appended there is no agreement. It does not make sense for a mediator to claim that there was an agreement that one of the parties refused to sign.
I am not aware of a better formulation of dialectics than “mualebe a bue la gagwe, gore mona lentle a letswe.” Very often we use this Setswana saying to sustain freedom of expression. I submit that it is more than that. The reference to “mona lentle”, “the one who has a superior idea” suggests a reasoned assessment of ideas. There is no way that we can determine which is the better idea on the basis of a debate approach to issues.
Our union leaders must also appreciate that the solution to increases in the cost of living does not lie with increases in wages. There is a need to resolve the complex relationship between supply, profit, wages, and government income. It is a fact that 30% of any increase in public sector wages will be taken by a small minority of traders as profit. This profit is the wealth portion of the increase. The public sector employees may honestly believe that they are fighting for a living wage, but from a practical perspective, in the absence of a wealth retention strategy, they are fighting on behalf of the profit takers, the retailers.
The striking teachers should also brace themselves for a student revolt. There are some teachers who sit at the front and read passages in the textbook and call that teaching. They are in for a rude awakening, for the same students who are standing with them will march to the kgotla and the Ministry of Education to demand that they be taught properly. The same applies to the public and health services. Standards and expectations are being set, and anybody who sees this only as a strike, is missing the essence of what is happening. I feel sorry for whoever becomes president after Rre Khama, for he is going to inherit a very assertive people.
