Maravi

Don’t start another labour dispute

Don’t start another labour dispute
Written by Editor

It seems those who are most incapable of solving problems are the most eager to create them. It’s difficult to understand how a government that lamentably failed to address or solve the labour dispute that crippled our education and health services for weeks now wants to create new problems in the same sectors.

There is need for those in government to mull over things and listen to, and heed the advice of, the labour leaders. Trying to punish workers over last month’s strikes will simply result in new and bigger labour unrest.

It seems this government is good at nothing but creating conflicts without the ability to resolve them. What they must realise is that when we talk about good governance, in many ways we are talking about nothing more than a set of rules and practical actions for managing conflict. We say this because democracy, itself, is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict.

At the same time, these conflicts must be managed within certain limits and result in compromises, consensus or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If we perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which we can press for our demands, society can shatter from within. If those in government exert excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the wishes, desires and voices of others, society can be crushed from above.

In an open society, in a democratic nation – a nation where the rights and freedoms of individuals are respected – there will always be conflicts. And it is the duty or obligation of those in power to help manage these conflicts. There is no easy way to all this. It is said that democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted.

There is need for the commitment of citizens who should accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance. It is for this reason that a culture of negotiating, of seeking consensus is so important to develop. There is need to realise that there is no group that will be crushed and this being the case, there is need for tolerance and consensus seeking. There are various sides to any dispute. And there is need for all sides to meet in a spirit of compromise and seek a specific solution to their problems or differences.

There is need for the employers and the employed to learn to work together, to build coalitions. After all, coalition building is the essence of democratic action because it teaches interest groups to negotiate with others, to compromise and work within the legal framework. In this way, groups with differences can learn how to argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a peaceful manner and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity.

These principles we are talking about are not a set of revealed, unchanging truths. They are simply a mechanism by which, through the clash and compromise of ideas, individuals and groups can learn to work together and accommodate each other, however imperfectly.

To end any labour dispute, there is need for concessions from all sides whether explicitly or implicitly. Concessions are inherent in any negotiated settlements of disputes. And when people negotiate, they must be prepared to compromise. And when compromises are made, they must be respected and stuck to.

Trying to go back and punish those who went on strike will just reopen the wounds. And the government may start a bigger dispute than the previous one. Let bygones be bygones. We all know that, by and large, strikes are recognised and accepted the world over as an effective and powerful weapon in the hands of workers to get something from their employers. Unacceptable as some strikes may be, they should however not be criminalised.

There is need for the government to show some good will to the workers; to show that they can be trusted and turned into reliable partners by the workers and their leaders. If this trust completely goes, when new disputes erupt, no one will be able to intervene because intervention only works when people concerned seem to be keen to agree and reach some consensus.

Whatever the government may still not be happy about those strikes, it’s better to simply move on and start a new page. After all, this is the nature of compromising: when you compromise, you have to accept and tolerate certain undesirable behaviour or conduct. If you are not prepared to do so, then you must not enter or think about the process of a negotiated settlement at all because this involves giving and taking.

Those strikes caused a lot of damage. Many people lost their lives as a result of those strikes, clearly indicating that something serious was wrong in our country. Trying to revive those strikes through unnecessary retribution is unwise; it is senseless. Those who failed to find a solution to those strikes should not now try to exhibit themselves as champions of discipline.

We have no doubt that if one humble worker is punished for taking part in those strikes, there will be solidarity from the others. We don’t see how all those workers who went on strike will allow any one of them to be singled out for victimisation without offering them solidarity.

Moreover, solidarity is a direct requirement of human and supernatural brotherhood. The serious socioeconomic problems that occur today cannot be solved unless new fronts of solidarity are created: solidarity of the poor among themselves, solidarity among the workers, and with workers. All these will have to share in a general movement of solidarity.

Tolerance is required. How many times has the government failed in its contractual obligations towards the workers and the workers have been extremely understanding and tolerant? How many times have government workers gone with delayed pay but still turning up for work and without making government pay them interest for the delayed pay? We still have thousands of retired government workers who have not received their retirement benefits from the government.

They have been understanding and tolerant. They have not gone round confiscating or destroying government property. Workers have bent backwards to accommodate the government’s inadequacies. But how many times has the government done the same? When the government had problems increasing wages as a result of a wage freeze imposed by its financiers, the workers were understanding and accepted to forego their contractual rights. What would the government lose by ignoring everything that happened during the strike and start a new peaceful page?

There are times when it is necessary to yield even to things that may not seem acceptable. As we have stated before, yielding is legitimate and essential in two cases: when the yielder is convinced that those who are striving to make him yield are in the right – in which case honest political leaders frankly and openly admit their mistake – or when an irrational and harmful demand is yielded to in order to avoid a greater evil.

In this case, if the strike was illegal and those who were involved in it do not deserve to be paid, the government will be averting a greater evil, continued industrial unrest by simply turning a blind eye to all this and let bygones be bygones. What we are saying is not a novel idea. It’s actually common place wisdom that little annoyances should not be allowed to stand in the way of a big pleasure.

We hope those in government will listen to the advice of the labour leaders and avoid starting a new series of strikes.

Labels: LABOUR, LEONARD HIKAUMBA, STRIKE

posted by MrK @ 3:37 PM