Document(s) 13 of 15

Introduction

Trade union members truly work at the coalface—they are the first to experience the health, safety and environmental effects of industrial activities.¹ South African workers are exposed to a range of threats to their health and safety, and they are often members of the communities which experience industry’s broader environmental impacts most strongly. For these reasons, trade unions have a strong interest in health and safety issues, as well as in industry’s environmental impact. South African trade unions have a strong history of involvement in health and safety issues and, in recent years, there have been moves to incorporate a broader environmental agenda into union policies. Although not all environmental issues fall within the usual ambit of union activities, there is a strong potential for linkages between the activities of unions and those of environmental groupings, and there are some experiences of successful alliances between labour and environmental groupings in South Africa. This chapter explores the way in which South African trade unions have organised around health and safety issues, and their more recent initiatives on broader environmental questions. We argue that the trade union movement in South Africa has played a key role in the development of safer approaches to work and, while union perspectives on safety issues are best known, there have also been important interventions on health issues and, more recently, on environmental questions. However, we note that there is still an enormous amount of work to be done to change industrial practice in ways that will protect workers, their communities and the environment. There is also a great deal to be done to improve the ability of the union movement to intervene effectively in these matters. We therefore make a number of recommendations about ways in which the health, safety and environmental capacity of unions can be enhanced.

¹ Pelelo Magane and Shirley Miller conducted this research while on sabbatical from the Chemical Workers’ Industrial Union. The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily those of the union. The authors thank the members of the trade union reference group for their assistance with this project, and also Rod Crompton, Jabu Ncgobo and Paul Benjamin for providing information and comments.

The health, safety and environment continuum

It is widely accepted that the workplace environment can be seen as part of a continuum with the broader natural environment (Davies 1993). Many analysts have pointed out that workers are exposed to toxic industrial agents earlier and more directly than members of the general population (Baker and Landrigan 1993), and that workers’ health is, therefore, directly at stake. Industrial pollutants are also not limited to the workplace, as hazards are released from the workplace into the environment which pollute the air, water or biological systems. The Thor Chemicals case presents a stark South African example of the links between the effects of workplace management on health, safety and the environment (see Butler in this volume). There are also numerous other examples of the link between workplace health hazards and broader hazards both in South Africa and internationally. In fact, some of the milestones of the environmental movement—events that brought world attention to the environmental dangers of industrialisation—were of this nature. These events, including the disasters at Bhopal, Basel and Chernobyl, showed that industrial hazards—dangerous on the shop-floor—were also dangerous to surrounding communities and the natural environment. In 1984, a methyl-iscocyanate spill from a Union Carbide plant killed several thousand people at Bhopal, India; in 1986, an explosion and fire at a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union killed 20 people and forced the evacuation of 135 000 others; and in Basel, Switzerland, in 1986, a fire at a Sandoz warehouse caused 30 tonnes of agricultural chemicals and 200 kilograms of mercury to pour into the Rhine River, making the water unfit for human consumption over hundreds of miles in four countries (Dembo et al. 1988). While these are the incidents that grab the headlines, there are also more subtle links between the environmental and the occupational hazards of industry. This is evidenced by a long experience of occupational health problems being the first pointers to the hazardous and environmentally toxic nature of industrial chemicals (Thorpe 1993).

A zero-sum game? Jobs versus health, safety and environment

Health, safety and environmental issues are, therefore, of critical interest to trade unions and their members. But unions also face difficulties in taking up these concerns. One of the key difficulties is the relationship between jobs, on the one hand, and health, safety and environment, on the other. Indeed, one of the central concerns of this book is the relationship between the general development process and the protection of the environment. Nowhere is this debate clearer than in the debates about the relationship between job security and employment creation, on the one hand, and health and environmental protection, on the other. Too often employers have tried to present employment and environmental objectives as mutually exclusive. This has been evident internationally as well as in South Africa. Three recent events illustrate the potential difficulties posed to the union movement. The first was the St Lucia case in which Richards Bay Minerals planned to mine titanium in a sensitive wetland area. After a long and very public debate, government decided, in 1995, that mining would not be allowed to go ahead. This affected potential mining jobs as well as existing jobs in the nearby Richards Bay processing plant. The second example was the threatened suspension, in 1995, of the commissioning of Iscor’s R4,7 billion Saldanha Steel project. This was due to delays caused by environmental pressure because of its siting near a sensitive lagoon area, and because of potential requirements that the plant be sited a few kilometres inland from the lagoon. Iscor used the threat of foreign exchange losses and decreased job creation as arguments for downplaying the environmental problems raised by local activists (Koch 1995). The third example, in 1996, was the potential closure of the Grootvlei gold mine near Johannesburg, due to its inability to pump out its water at an acceptable quality. At one point in the controversy, the mine management argued that it would be forced to close the mine if the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry enforced its pumping ban, and said that this would lead to the loss of 2 000 jobs. In this case, the mine used the threat of job loss to argue for a reduction in environmental standards.

Without exploring these cases in detail, they are sufficient to demonstrate the fact that major industrial development decisions are having to include environmental criteria as never before in South Africa. They also illustrate that companies are well aware of the potential contradictions facing the labour movement, and are trying to polarise the environmental debate into a “jobs versus environment” choice. While internationally the debate around sustainable economic development has largely progressed beyond this crude polarisation, it appears as if South Africa is going to have to re-examine many of these questions for itself. Much like industrialists once used the threat of job losses to oppose improvements in health and safety conditions, some have shifted the same argument to environmental protection.

But let us look at the jobs versus environment debate more closely. In some cases, there is, in fact, an absolute conflict—we either choose to approve a new investment or to conserve an important area. Indeed, in the St Lucia case, government eventually argued that no mining could go ahead, given the sensitivity of the wetland. Other examples might occur as certain kinds of chemicals (such as certain organo-chlorines and asbestos) are phased out. But, at present, such cases are rare. Most often, creative solutions can be found that balance environmental and economic imperatives. In the Grootvlei case, for example, the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) argued that jobs must be preserved but that environmental solutions also need to found. When presented with the old jobs versus environment dilemma, the union argued that there was room for both. And, indeed, the resolution of that case so far indicates that acceptable solutions can be found without closing the mine. As the United Steelworkers of America argue, “In the long run, the real choice is not jobs or environment. It’s both or neither.” (United Steel Workers of America 1990).

Vic Thorpe, general secretary of the International Chemical Energy and Mining Federation, has argued that “jobs can be lost in any time of change—and the changes ahead are enormous—whether we fight for or against them. But protecting our own futures— whether in our present jobs or in a set of new, cleaner industries—will depend on our collective action.” (Thorpe in Lukey 1995).

In many situations, then, it is possible to be guided by a perspective which seeks to address environmental concerns in ways that also protect workers’ jobs. A similar debate exists over conflicts between jobs and workers’ health. Employers sometimes argue that higher health and safety standards would be a threat to employment. But South African unions have traditionally taken a more integrated approach. For example, despite the hundreds of deaths in the mining industry annually, union members have not opposed mining per se, but have argued that it be managed in a way that dangers are minimised. And, yet, mining exacts a bitter price from the workforce. Recent findings of research work on the health status of gold miners in the Libode district shows that a large proportion of career miners develop devastating lung diseases that tend to become acute only when the miners have retired or have been retrenched (Trapido 1996). Similar evidence has been found for ex-migrant mineworkers living in the Thamaga district of Botswana (Steen 1997). These diseases not only lead to a shorter life expectancy but also to extreme pain and discomfort, especially in the latter stages. In this sense, workers have paid a bitter price for their wages on the mines. The key question, however, is whether it is possible to create mining jobs that are safer and healthier, not whether those jobs should be created at all. Indeed, in the South African context, where a third of economically active people are unemployed, jobs are often a matter of life and death. Despite all the publicity about the deaths of workers at Thor Chemicals in the early 1990s, there was never a shortage of job recruits. For many unemployed workers, the value of life cannot easily be separated from the value of a livelihood.

But, as Vic Thorpe suggests, it may be that some industries, or parts of some industries, will not survive the very long-term restructuring that will come with higher levels of environmental awareness. This raises a fundamental question of the sustainability of the path of industrial development chosen by South Africa or any society. As Jacobs argues:

Economic activity is precisely about using resources (taken from the environment) to produce goods and services, with resulting wastes (deposited back into the environment). If environmental considerations are not more fully incorporated into economic policy, there is no hope of tackling the environmental crisis. (Jacobs in Crompton and Erwin 1991).

Part of the challenge for unions, therefore, is to be involved in industrial and macroeconomic management, as well as improved management of individual workplaces. This includes an investment strategy which seeks to promote investments in environmentally sustainable industries and production methods.

Looking back and looking forward

We have argued so far that health and safety issues are linked to environmental concerns. Nevertheless, health and safety issues are distinct from environmental issues and have, historically, been much closer to trade union agendas. Over the years, some South African unions have been closely involved in health and safety issues, and have contributed to important changes in health and safety policy. In general, safety issues have been highest on the agenda because they are so immediate. Safety forces itself onto the agenda, especially as a result of periodic and highly visible accidents in South Africa’s mines and factories. Health issues are less visible, and the health effects of various industrial activities, including mining, often take years to develop. Intervention on health issues also require higher levels of expertise and technical understanding. It is also true that health issues are difficult to track because there is very little record-keeping in industry. The long latency period of occupational disease compounds this problem. When workers present health problems in a particular workplace, they are often unaware of what they have been exposed to in the past, and this makes it difficult for unions to take up the issues.

Looking back over the last 20 years, it seems evident that trade union approaches to health, safety and environment have been initiated for the most part by concrete demands on the ground, rather than a uniform, structured approach. This is illustrated by the emergence of stronger interventions in those unions which operate in highly hazardous sectors, such as mining and chemicals. We will argue that this has sometimes led to an approach which is more reactive than proactive.

Health, safety and environment campaigns have often been catalysed by a flow of information and solidarity from international trade unions and other organisations. For example, one of the pioneers in health, safety and environment, the National Union of Textile Workers (a forerunner of the Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers’ Unioxi), was alerted to the hazards of cotton dust by its American counterpart, the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Union of America, in the early 1980s. The National Union of Textile Workers was, at the time, engaged in a bitter fight for recognition with the Frame Group of textile manufacturers. At the time, black workers contracting byssinosis (or “brown lung”— the disease affecting the lungs of cotton textile workers) were not compensated by the Department of Manpower. Once alerted to the problem of “brown lung”, the union engaged in a huge campaign to test workers, and to organise them in the process. Unable to use company premises or hospital facilities for the testing process, the union set up a makeshift testing facility in a church in Clermont, a township close to the factory in KwaZulu-Natal. In the early hours of the morning, textile workers coming off night shift would stream into the church hall where lung functions and other medical tests were carried out by a full-time union doctor. The findings of this survey were repeated at other factories around the country, and eventually formed the basis for changes to compensation legislation as well as technological improvements in cotton factories throughout the country. An important aspect of this campaign is that the National Union of Textile Workers used the campaign to organise new union members. This shows that health and safety issues can also be an important organising tool.

Indeed, it has often been trade unions that have helped to challenge poor conditions, rather than statutory committees that have ostensibly been set up to do so. It was action taken by the Chemical Workers’ Industrial Union (CWIU) in 1986, for example, that exposed the poisoning of workers at a Port Elizabeth plant owned by a British multinational. Workers’ exposure to acrylamide, a known neurotoxin, was brought to the notice of a union organiser by an alert practitioner at the local hospital. A particular worker was suffering the chronic effects of acrylamide poisoning, but this had been continuously misdiagnosed. Once the disease was correctly diagnosed, the cwiu was able to negotiate access for an occupational medicine specialist who established the source of the poisoning. This led to changes in the production process to eliminate exposure. Workers who had been affected were appropriately treated and compensated.

Similarly, the conditions at the subsidiary of another British multinational, Thor Chemicals, (see Butler in this volume), galvanised the CWIU to organise and assist those workers. Again international assistance was evident. Information about the process carried out at Thor was brought to the attention of the CWIU and Earthlife Africa, a local environmental group, by Greenpeace and international union organisers. The union then actively recruited these workers and a long political and legal campaign was initiated. In the course of the campaign, the CWIU received considerable support from its international trade union secretariat, who provided technical assistance in the various court cases. The Thor case also illustrates the importance of local alliances. At a local level trade unions, local communities and environmental groups forged important links in the protection of their living and working environment. Thus began the cooperation between Earthlife Africa and the CWIU. The two organisations have continued to cooperate while maintaining their separate identities and specific focus areas.

Although these examples illustrate effective responses by unions to assaults on their members’ health and safety, they also illustrate an important weakness: in most cases, these gains have not been translated into long-term programmes of action. For example, the experience of exposure to toxic substances at a local level could have been translated into national campaigns for the right to know about the hazards that workers are exposed to. It has been this inability to move from reactive to proactive campaigns that has been the major weakness. We believe that this could largely be attributed to the fact that health, safety and environmental issues have been marginalised by being placed outside the collective bargaining process. We return to this point later.

One area, however, where unions have successfully taken the issues to the national level has been in the arena of challenging legislation. Trade unions saw health and safety legislation as an integral part of apartheid. This position was recently captured in comments made by union lawyer Paul Benjamin:

What... the system really meant was when workers got sick or injured they got sent back to the homelands with little or no money, and somebody was hired in their place. Nothing was done to prevent similar accidents happening again. The system meant that accidents were cheap for bosses and expensive for workers.

Trade union struggles led to a number of changes to legislation. For example, unions fought various provisions of the 1983 Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, which signified a significant shift in government policy from one of proscription to one of self-regulation.² A number of these provisions were changed with the passing of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1993. This Act extended the formal jurisdiction of the law to include industrial disease. It also made provision for workplace safety representatives to be elected rather than appointed by management. However, the Act still basically relies on a self-regulatory approach and is still being criticised by unions.

² The Machinery and Occupational Saftey Act’s approach to the management of hazards at the workplace effectively excluded trade unions. A system of shop-floor structures, safety representative and safety committees was established. These were largely ineffective in that safety representatives were appointed by management, were not accountable to workers and, thus, had little credibility. The committees often operated at low levels of the enterprise and were only advisory. Unions continued to act outside the framework of these structures, with the Metal and Allied Workers’ Union going as far as court to win the right to negotiate a health and safety agreement in one of its companies.

More recently, the Leon Commission of Inquiry into mining safety was appointed and legislation was amended in line with the Commission’s recommendations. The NUM played a key role in this process. The new Mines Health and Safety Act, which came into effect in January 1997, fundamentally changes the way in which mineworkers’ health and safety is addressed. Similarly, unions fought for the introduction of regulations governing workers’ exposure to hazardous chemicals. Before 1995, regulations for hazardous chemicals were restricted to lead and asbestos, despite evidence of the effects of a range of other chemicals. The hazardous chemical regulations of 1995 follow international trends and regulate previously uncontrolled hazardous chemicals in the workplace. There is still concern among unions, however, that the facilities to monitor compliance with the regulations are inadequate. In addition, a number of legislative challenges still remain. We return to these later in this chapter.

Environment: an emerging issue

We have looked at a number of examples of trade union work in health and safety, and we have noted that environmental issues have been taken up increasingly in the 1990s. This can be seen in union involvement in certain local environmental issues, such as the struggle over the closure of the Chloorkop waste site, the Grootvlei mine incident, the controversies over industrial projects at St Lucia and Saldanha, as well as the Thor case. In addition, union federations (and especially COSATU) have been involved in criticising and formulating environmental policy at the national level. In 1993, the African National Congress-led (ANC) Alliance arranged an environmental policy mission with the assistance of the Canadian International Development Research Centre. The mission included representatives of the ANC, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the South African Communist Party and the South African National Civics’ Organisation, as well as local and international environmental experts. The Alliance mission produced a report on environmental policy in South Africa which was far-reaching and has influenced the content of subsequent policy documents, such as the environment Green Paper. Thereafter, the trade union movement became more centrally involved in environmental policy through the Consultative National Environmental Policy Process (CONNEPP), which became the key mechanism for consultation and formulation of environmental policy. A COSATU representative served on the steering committee of CONNEPP.

During this period, COSATU held a landmark health, safety and environment policy conference, and followed this up with a national environmental policy workshop in 1996. The 1995 conference was in itself a recognition of the importance of health, safety and environmental issues and of the need to strengthen COSATU’s capacity in this area. The conference began with a recognition that, while the union movement has had an impact on health and safety and environment, there is still much to be done. During the conference, COSATU general secretary Sam Shilowa argued that:

In our 10 years as COSATU we have given enough attention to politics and to economic policy but not enough to social issues such as health, safety and the environment.... Our lives as workers were cheap under apartheid. Bosses had it easy and they could get away with murder. Even government policies were designed to undermine our health and safety and our environment. Now we say we must struggle on this issue. We must make the price too high for the bosses and government to continue in this way.

Similarly, COSATU president John Gomomo argued that despite 10 years of struggle as a federation, COSATU still needed to give more attention to health, safety and environmental issues:

We remain with a long agenda of issues that we will still have to tackle.... Key in this agenda is the need to struggle for a fundamental change in policies related to occupational health, safety and the environment.

The conference made a number of resolutions, including that COSATU should:

• support the “polluter-pays” principle;
  
  
• support a cradle-to-grave approach to waste management, and should campaign to ensure that companies take this approach;
  
  
• take up campaigns in heavily polluted industrial areas and encourage companies to take collective responsibility for their areas; and
  
  
• expose and resist the dumping of toxic waste.

The conference also resolved that:

• communities should be consulted before waste disposal sites are established in their areas;
  
  
• South Africa’s environmental advisory councils should be restructured, and COSATU should be represented on all structures dealing with environmental policy; and
  
  
• South Africa should adopt the relevant International Labour Organisation and other international conventions, including the Bamako Convention on the trade and transportation of toxic waste.

In addition, the conference resolved that COSATU should develop more detailed policy in the following areas:

• coastal and marine management;
  
• forestry;
  
• pollution control;
  
• zoning;
  
• recycling;
  
• control of mine dumps; and
  
• toxic waste.

These resolutions signal that, while COSATU does not yet have very detailed environmental policy, the issue is firmly on the agenda, and the federation intends to participate actively in this area.

After the conference, a COSATU representative was appointed to the committee charged with drafting the Green Paper on environment. COSATU, therefore, became a key player in the environmental policy debate. Much of the content of the Green Paper reflects the centrality of the labour movement and its concerns in protecting the environment and workers’ rights as part of that environment. This is evident in the way in which the concept of environment was defined in the Green Paper, and the developmental approach that was taken. Unions and allied community organisations approached environment as a developmental issu e that centres on the quality of life. In this sense, “brown” environmental issues are emphasised, rather than a narrow emphasis on conservation.

But what is the proper role for trade unions in environmental work? We have noted that there is a strong connection between the effects of industrial activities on workers and on the broader environment. Unions, therefore, have a strong interest (or potential interest) in issues of industry and the environment. This includes waste management, accident prevention, production and transportation of hazardous materials and industrial emissions to air, water and land. To the extent that environmental questions also have a bearing on industrial and economic development, they are also of critical importance to unions. It is in this context that issues such as climate change and international environmental questions become important. Indeed, the relationship between trade and the environment, and the inclusion of environmental issues in international trade agreements, are also critical. However, it is also true that trade unions will need to focus their environmental campaigns and concerns where they are most able to effect change and are unlikely to become deeply involved in environmental issues that fall outside workplace and economic concerns.

Structures and policies: are unions adequately equipped?

We have seen that unions have taken up health, safety and environment issues in recent years. However, their ability to take up these issues in an ongoing and proactive way requires established union capacity. In order to gauge unions’ present capacity, we conducted a brief survey of unions’ health, safety and environment structures. This survey concentrated on the COSATU unions.

The interviews we conducted explored the health, safety and environment structures and policies of the unions. One of the questions we asked was whether unions have distinct health, safety and environment structures, or whether these issues are handled in general structures. We found that in most cases health, safety and environment issues were handled by union officials who also had a range of other responsibilities. However, two affiliates—the NUM and the CWIU—had separate, full-time health, safety and environment officials in their head offices. In both cases, the health and safety officials were located in the collective bargaining divisions of the union. Since the interviews were conducted, two more unions—the South African Municipal Workers’ Union and the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa—decided to appoint dedicated officials.

Along with dedicated organisers, some unions, such as the CWIU, have distinct health, safety and environment committees at branch, region and national level. Apart from these unions, coordination of health and safety issues is generally located within unions’ education departments. Only two out of 16 COSATU affiliates had no national official responsible for health, safety and environment issues.

The unions which do have full-time health, safety and environment officials have been able to work with members at the level of the enterprise, as well as in the policy arena. The NUM and CWIU, in particular, have been able to coordinate campaigns, assist workers in negotiating health and safety agreements, manage the aftermath of industrial accidents and advise workers about their participation in health and safety committees. Both unions have also played a strong role in contesting legislation and policy.

It is clear, then, that some unions have dedicated structures and officials for health, safety and environment, while others integrate the issues with other areas. The success of a health, safety and environment programme in a particular union, however, cannot be judged simply by whether or not the union has established dedicated structures and officials. Indeed, there is a debate among unions about which is the better strategy. On the one hand, separating health, safety and environment from collective bargaining—the heart of trade unionism—can serve to marginalise the issue; on the other hand, there is a danger that where the health, safety and environment issue is added to a list of other responsibilities, the issue may receive insufficient attention. Much depends on whether the unionists who are dealing with health, safety and environment as part of a broader portfolio are sufficiently conscious of, and knowledgeable about, health, safety and environmental issues. We conclude, therefore, that while unions do not necessarily require separate officials and structures, they do need people who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about health, safety and environment, and who can devote time to the issue. The separateness or otherwise of structures is not the key debate—the key is whether the issue receives sufficient attention and resources. Each union needs to design the organisational structures that suit them.

At the level of the national union federations there is also some debate about structures and the role of the federations in facilitating affiliate organisation of health, safety and environment. Until recently within COSATU, health, safety and environment issues were coordinated by the education department at the federation’s head office. Recently, however, the responsibility for the function was shifted to the negotiations department. There has been a recognition, however, that the health, safety and environment issue has to form part of all areas of the federation’s work, including organisation, campaigns and education. There are also calls from COSATU affiliates for the federation to facilitate additional aspects of health, safety and environment. The 1995 conference grappled with some of these debates. In the course of our survey, four suggestions emerged for further work at the level of the federation. Firstly, there is a need for centralised training courses for shop stewards and union officials on various aspects of health, safety and environment. In particular, organisers need skills which will assist them to negotiate these issues at the work place level. We return to this point later. Secondly, there is a need for better liaison between union affiliates in a particular area. For example, in a highly industrialised area like Gauteng, it is useful for unions from different industries to get together to tackle environmental problems in the area as a whole. Companies often argue that they are not responsible for a particular problem (say, air emissions) in an area, but rather that it is the company down the street. A COSATU structure coordinating the efforts of workers from different companies could play a useful role in these circumstances. Thirdly, there is a need for cooperation between unions across a value chain. It has been pointed out that, for example, in the chemical chain, CWIU members produce certain chemicals which are then transported by Transport and General Workers’ Union members, used by South African Agricultural, Plantation and Allied Workers’ Union members, and then disposed of by South African Municipal Workers’ Union members! There should, therefore, be cooperation between these workers—for example, in handling the effects of a hazardous chemical. Fourthly, some unions have argued for a common COSATU position on the joint employee-employer committees that are supposed to be set up at every work place according to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. In reality it seems that few work places have them. Should the unions encourage these structures, even though they are not union-based? Or should they rather argue for a new set of structures which would operate between the employer and the union structures, along the lines of the Mines Health and Safety Act? It may be useful for COSATU and other union federations to develop a common position on this question.

It is also worth noting that COSATU and its affiliates have historically been concentrated in manufacturing, services and mining. But, recently, COSATU launched a new trade union for the agricultural sector. The union, the South African Agricultural, Plantation and Allied Workers’ Union, organises workers on commercial farms and in various types of agricultural companies, including forestry and tea plantations. There is a myriad of health and safety (to say nothing of environmental) issues in the agricultural sector. Although these have not been well explored thus far, they are critical to this sector and represent an important organising issue for this new trade union.

Challenges for the future: priority issues in health, safety and environment

Developing a stronger capacity to organise around health, safety and environment issues is no easy task. It is one thing to talk of balancing health, safety and environment concerns with jobs and economic development, but what does this mean in day-to-day terms? Similarly, what do unions need to deal effectively with issues that arise at workplaces and in the policy environment in which they operate? Do South African unions have the necessary strategic, organisational and technical resources?

In the following section we make recommendations that will address these questions. In addition, we highlight areas for union intervention in public policy. We argue that there are a number of critical areas in which the trade union movement should intervene in the coming years.

Priorities for internal union organisation: entrenching a collective bargaining approach. We have argued that health, safety and environment are best understood as relating to workers’ rights, and should, therefore, be seen as part of the process of negotiation rather than as a technical issue to be handled by “experts”. When health and safety issues are simply handed over to experts, they become separated from the process of organisation and bargaining, that is, the basis of trade union power.³ At the same time, effective interventions in health and safety rely on a degree of understanding of work place conditions and potential remedies. Without such an understanding, it is difficult for workers and their representatives to interrogate management views and proposals.

³ This, of course, does not imply that unions do not require the assistance of specialists but, rather, that technical services should be part of a broader strategy that is based on a process of negotiation.

Similar points can be made for environmental issues which, at the work place, are often linked to health and safety. It is important to note, however, that work place environmental issues are not always directly linked to health and safety, and that workers and their representatives need to have a grip on the broader environmental issues, as well as health and safety, to enable them to integrate these issues with the collective bargaining process.

We argue that if unions are to successfully impact on workplace health, safety and environment, they need to incorporate these issues into collective bargaining from a position of strength and knowledge. In order to achieve this, shop stewards and organisers need both consciousness and knowledge of these issues, as well as the backup of resource people both inside and outside union structures.

This raises two requirements: firstly, training for shop stewards and organisers (and workers in general) and secondly, union structures that facilitate collective bargaining. We have seen that some unions choose to appoint dedicated health, safety and environment coordinators, while others incorporate this function under organisational and/or educational responsibilities. While we do not wish to prescribe either route, we do argue that every union needs to ensure that its officials can take the lead on health, safety and environment issues, and that they can offer real services to workers struggling with these issues at the workplace level. At the same time, if education programmes are to succeed in this arena, the educators must have an adequate level of consciousness and knowledge of the issues.

How is this to be achieved? Training for union officials and shop stewards can usefully be achieved through centralised training programmes and institutions such as Ditsela, the new trade union training organisation. These courses need not be purely technical in nature, but could rather empower workers to take up a range of health, safety and environment issues which relate to the process of union organisation. At the same time, workers need to be better trained in all industries. This can hopefully take place more effectively once government’s new human resource development strategy has been put into place. It is important that in the new human resource development system health, safety and environment are identified as core training issues for all workers, and that training is offered by providers that have a degree of legitimacy with the union movement.

Union approaches to policy: the debate about self-regulation

In recent policy debates, industry representatives have often argued for a self-regulatory approach to health, safety and the environment. However, this approach may not be helpful in the South African context. Indeed, the Leon Commission of Inquiry into mining health and safety had been critical of the operation of self-regulatory policies in the mining industry. It concluded that these policies had failed and had contributed significantly to the poor health and safety record of the mining industry. The new Mines Health and Safety Act provides for active state regulation and enforcement, while providing for the social partners to negotiate further mechanisms, especially at the local level.

Unfortunately, self-regulation in South Africa has largely been interpreted as deregulation rather than the development of appropriate mechanisms at the work place to promote occupational health and safety. Local mechanisms are critical since the law and state institutions cannot anticipate every local situation. Indeed, there is no substitute for determined, knowledgeable and innovative local management. However, local initiatives must take place within the strict framework of nationally set standards.

The union movement has traditionally called for stricter regulation and enforcement, while, at the same time, promoting the negotiation of health and safety at the plant level. Although health and safety must be considered a collective bargaining issue, the state needs to lay down minimum standards which are in line with international best practice.

There are several reasons why we argue that the concept of self-regulation, while popular in Europe, may have limited application in the South African context. The notion of self-regulation assumes a high degree of competence and consensus between the social partners. In South Africa both of these ingredients are in short supply at the workplace level. As Dawson et al (1988:239) suggest:

It is thought that inspectors in the United States need to use the law to a greater extent than for example in Sweden where there is a good deal more consensus in the political culture, and all those concerned are prepared to seek agreement without recourse to external constraintSouth Africa is probably closer to the USA than Sweden in this comparison.

Dawson et al, who conducted a study of self-regulation of health and safety in the UK, make other points that are relevant to South Africa. Firstly, they argue that line managers often do not have the training, sophistication or interest to manage a self-regulatory approach to health and safety:

It emerged that the most important ingredient in effective self regulation of safety at work is the role and commitment of line managers. Without such commitment, formal provisions such as the writing of a safety policy or the establishment of a safety committee need have not positive effect on the level of risk” (1988:246).

We believe that in South Africa a minority of line managers have the expertise to manage this area effectively. Secondly, Dawson et al argue that effective self-regulation requires strong access to information:

Other commentators have indicated that the effective operation of a deregulated market for health and safety at work is dependent on freedom of information so that all parties have access to expert knowledge. The argument here is that if employers are to be free to make their judgement on the costs and benefits of any particular action then employees must surely have the same right to make their own judgement about their participation. In order to make such a judgement, employees need access to the same information about hazards at work as their employers (1988:256).

In the South African context union officials and shop stewards often have too little access to information and expertise, and sometimes lack the skills to interpret technical information. If these factors make effective self-regulation difficult in the UK, how much more so for South Africa?

In addition, although access to power and information are unequal in many sectors, they are particularly so in sectors like agriculture, forestry, construction and domestic work, where unions are weak and workers extremely marginalised. In these sectors, in particular, self-regulation has very limited potential.

Although the unions have been less active in the debate over self-regulation in environmental management than in health and safety, many of the same points hold. Indeed, it is clear that where workers’ health and safety is in danger, the environment is in danger too. Regulatory and managerial mechanisms are needed at work places in the interests of both workers and the broader environment.

In light of these points, we argue that unions need to take a double-pronged approach in the debate over legislation, policy and practice. Unions need to fight for minimum standards to be set and enforced by the state. At the same time it is clear that whatever standards are set at the national level, there needs to be a process of implementation and continuous improvement at the local level. This involves negotiation between unions and management. In order to ensure that such negotiation is effective, unions need to have a consistent approach at the workplace level. Importantly, shop stewards and organisers need to be trained and need to have access to resources and expertise.

Amending legislation

At the 1995 Cosatu health, safety and environment congress, Paul Benjamin argued that “the health and safety system is really one of the last surviving bastions of apartheid”. He was drawing attention to the fact that the legislation and institutions that governed health and safety under apartheid are still in place. As with environmental legislation (see Currie et al in this volume), health and safety law is fragmented. Several statutes and government departments regulate the protection of workers’ health and safety and the compensation for accidents and disease. The preventative laws are the Mines Health and Safety Act of 1996 and the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1993, while the compensatory legislation is similarly split between mining⁴ and other economic activity by means of the Occupational Disease in Mines and Works Act of 1973 and the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act of 1993.

Recent changes in the areas of mines health and safety have led to a situation where the laws governing mining are fundamentally different in their philosophy to those governing the rest of industry. One of the most important differences is that the Mines Health and Safety Act gives trade unions a strong role, whereas the Occupational Health and Safety Act relies on non-union health and safety committees. While taking some steps towards acknowledging the role of trade unions by enforcing consultation with representative unions about the election of safety representatives, the Act largely downplays the role of unions. In contrast to this, the new Mines Health and Safety Act gives prominence to trade unions by giving a representative trade union the right to negotiate collective bargaining agreements around health and safety.

⁴ The Occupational Disease in Mines and Works Act only covers lung deseases in the mining industry. Other occupational diseases in mining are covered under the Compensation for Industrial Injuries and Diseases Act.

Not only is the legislation fragmented, but so is the responsibility for its implementation. The key government departments are the departments of Mineral Affairs and Energy and Labour. However, the Department of Health plays a crucial role in facilitating the recognition and treatment of ill health and injury through health services. Although the Department of Health has no direct responsibility for the enforcement of health and safety laws, the department is the key repository of expertise, and also runs the National Centre for Occupational Health. According to Benjamin (1995), the lack of coordination between departments has resulted in “absolute chaos and ultimately and more importantly, no-one takes final responsibility for health and safety”. As long ago as 1975, the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry made a recommendation for a unified approach to occupational health. However, more than 20 years later there is still no overall body with responsibility for the development and implementation of health and safety law.

There is a myriad of other problems in relation to compensation, some of which have to do with poor laws, and others with the poor implementation of the law. The low level of claims for occupational disease (as opposed to accidents) reflects the degree to which occupational illnesses go undetected; this is largely because there are few mechanisms to assist workers in identifying and claiming for occupational disease. In addition, mineworkers and other workers have differential access to services from the state. Mineworkers have greater access to compensation-linked medical examinations and advice than other workers. Another difficulty is that hospital-based and private doctors are too often uninformed of occupational disease or of health and safety compensation. They often lack the expertise to diagnose diseases that are specific to certain kinds of jobs, and often fail to make links to workers’ employment or refer workers to compensation channels. Trapido’s (1996) work shows that rural migrant workers were completely ignorant about their rights to compensation for mining-related diseases, and suggested that if workers were informed of compensation and assisted to apply, many more black workers would have to be compensated.

There are also problems related to the low levels of reporting and compensation. Given that by accepting compensation workers effectively give up their right to a civil claim, compensation levels should be adequate to make up for their loss of any potential civil claim.

The areas of health and safety legislation and compensation, therefore, present critical challenges to the union movement and should be seen as a priority area for intervention.

Statistics and information

One of the factors that makes it difficult for unions to engage effectively in health and safety policy is the lack of reliable information. Information is generally only available in relation to those incidents which must be reported under law, or which, for some other reason, are investigated by the Department of Labour. Given the limited nature of company reporting requirements (and the link between reporting and compensation), these statistics probably reflect only a small proportion of the incidents affecting workers’ health and safety. Indeed, it seems clear that health issues, in particular, are endemically under-reported since industrial diseases often take a long time to develop, and since it is sometimes difficult to prove that the worker has contracted the disease as a direct result of his/her work.

According to official statistics, in 1995 a total of 942 workers died in South African industry and a further 533 died in the mining sector. Of those who died in industry, 492 worked in the transport sector, 114 in building, 89 worked for local authorities, 59 in iron and steel companies and 14 in the chemical sector. The Department of Labour investigated 10 556 occupational health and safety incidents in industry alone. The vast majority of these incidents and deaths occurred as a result of accidents rather than disease. It is likely that this figure would multiply if deaths resulting from long-term exposure to occupational hazards were known.

It should be noted that these figures do not include shipping, and also do not include sectors such as agriculture and domestic work, where very little information is available. Similarly, as Goldblatt argues in this volume, very little information exists in the public arena on industry’s emissions to the environment. One of the consequences of this is that workers and communities have no way of knowing what they are being exposed to in their living and working environments.

It is difficult to contest policy and propose changes without reliable information on what the problems are. Unions, therefore, need to push for better data collection and for better monitoring of workers’ health, especially in those industries where there is evidence of long-term disease.

Union involvement in national and international restructuring

At the beginning of this paper we noted that environmental, health and safety issues arise partly in the course of the restructuring of industry. This restructuring is taking place at a rapid rate in South Africa today, due to the various pressures of trade liberalisation, globalisation, political shifts and technological change. The process of restructuring is also catalysed by changes in environmental management and practice. Such changes have implications for the number of jobs available, as well as their quality. If trade unions are to influence the path of restructuring (and especially the way that environmental questions are handled), their presence will have to be felt in sectoral, national and international initiatives.

Union involvement in restructuring is all the more urgent given the enormous changes taking place in industry, and in manufacturing in particular. Unions are increasingly having to deal with trends such as subcontracting, new forms of work organisation, new technologies and the promotion of small business. Some of these trends have consequences for health and safety and the environment.

Many South African trade unions are already involved in a programme of “cluster studies”—investigations into the competitive prospects of South African industries, under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry. Unions can help to ensure that environmental restructuring questions are put on the agenda. In addition, unions can involve themselves in international environmental initiatives and, perhaps most importantly, international conventions and agreements, including those on climate change, trade in chemicals and in waste and biodiversity. These conventions may well have serious implications for industrial development and employment.

Improved state services

One of the most glaring areas of inadequacy in health, safety and environmental administration is the poor level of services available to workers. This is especially true for workers and ex-workers who are suffering from an occupational disease which has taken many years to develop. Trade unions have a limited ability to assist with compensation, facilitate medical examinations and process claims. Unions, therefore, need to pressure the state to offer “one-stop-shop” compensation services to workers. In many areas workers have existing legal rights—for example, free medical examinations at specified centres—but do not know about them or how to access the facilities. Strong union pressure could encourage the state to offer these services around the country.

Improvements to government’s occupational health and safety inspection services are also needed. Not only are more inspectors required, but they need to be trained to work effectively with workers and unions at the factory level. Too often inspectors visit a factory without discussing problems with the workers themselves. Trade unions could usefully pressure the Department of Labour in this regard.

Conclusion

We have argued that the South African trade union movement has had considerable influence over health and safety policy at a national and workplace level. We have also pointed out certain weaknesses in the trade union programme and made some suggestions in this regard. We have also seen that, in recent years, the unions have started becoming involved in environmental policy and have argued that there is a strong link between the health and safety of workers and the integrity of the environment. At a policy level much needs to be done, both in relation to health and safety and environment. In order to influence such policies, and in order to participate meaningfully at the workplace level, unions require an ongoing process of capacity-building and coordination.

References

Baker, D., and Landrigan, E, “Occupational exposures and human health”, in Chivian, E., McCally, M., Hu, H. and Haines, A. (eds), Critical condition: human health and the environment, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1993.

Benjamin, E, speech delivered to the Health, Safety and Environment Policy Conference of Cosatu, Johannesburg, 1995.

Bhalla, A., “Conclusions and future perspectives”, in Bhalla, A. (ed.), Environment, employment and development, World Employment Programme, International Labour Office, Geneva, 1992.

Bennett, D., “The Canadian labour congress pollution prevention strategy, unpublished document, Ottawa, Canada, 1995.

Crompton, R. and Erwin, A., “Reds and greens: labour and the environment”, in Cock, J. and Koch, E. (eds) Going green: people, politics and the environment in South Africa, Oxford University Press Cape Town, 1991.

Davies, A., “The workplace environment continuum”, in Hallowes, D. (ed.), Hidden faces: environment, development, justice: South Africa and the global context, Earthlife Africa, Scottsville, South Africa, 1993.

Dawson, S., Willman, P., Clinton, A., and Bamford, M., Safety at work: the limits of self-regulation Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.

Dembo, D., Dias, D., Kadwani, A., and Morehouse, W, Nothing to lose but our lives- empowerment to oppose industrial hazards in a transnational world, New Horizons Press, New York, 1988.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, An environmental policy for South Africa - Green Paper for public discussion, Pretoria, 1996.

Gomomo, J., Speech delivered to the Health, Safety and Environment Policy Conference of Cosatu, Johannesburg, 1995.

Green, R., Environmental agreements at the workplace: future perspectives, unpublished document, Director of Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs, International Chemical and Energy Federation, 1994.

Koch, E., “Greens versus the rainbow nation”, Mail & Guardian, 22 December 1996/1995

Loeweson, R., Health Social Welfare Issues in Southern Africa: Progress and Priorities, South African Trade Union Coordinating Council workshop, July 1995.

Lukey, P, Health before profits: an access guide to trade unions and environmental justice in South Africa, Environmental Justice Networking Forum and Frederich Ebert Stiftung, Johannesburg, 1995.

Munnik, V, “The beginning of the end of business as usual”, New Ground, 1994 (Winter).

Organisation of African Trade Unions, “African charter on occupational health and safety”, Health, Safety and Environment Programme, Harare, 1993.

Penney, J., “Draft proposals for a Canadian labor congress policy - a comprehensive approach to regulating hazardous substances, New Solutions, 1992 (Summer).

Robinson, J., Toil and toxics: workplace struggles and political strategies for occupational health, University of California Press, Los Angeles, 1991.

Shilowa, S., speech delivered to the health, safety and environment policy conference of Cosatu, Johannesburg, 1995.

The Star,”New policy to improve work safety”, Monday, 30 October 1995.

Steen, T. W, “Prevalence of occupational lung diseases among miners formally employed in the South African mining industry”, in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Volume 54,1997.

Thorpe, V,“Solidarity first - environmental priorities for labour internationalism”, in Hallowes, D. (ed.), Hidden faces: environment, development, justice: South Africa and the global context, Earthlife Africa, Scottsville, South Africa, 1993.

Trapido, A., South African Medical journal, Vol. 86 No. 5,1996.

United Steelworkers of America, “Our children’s world: steelworkers and the environment”, report of the committee on future directions for the union - task force on environment, 1990.

Document(s) 13 of 15