1. INTRODUCTION

During 2006 the GWSSDF was approached by the Solidarity Trade Union which was seeking to participate in its activities. They had been referred by the Gauteng Department of Social Development. A discussion then took place at the Forum’s Annual Provincial Assembly as to whether to change the Forum’s constitution to allow for membership of trade unions and other employee organisations. It was decided that such membership should not be allowed but that the Forum should set up a labour desk to pursue issues relating to employees.

Early in 2007 the Forum was approached by the Johannesburg branch of NEHAWU, also referred by the Department. They wanted help in addressing conditions of employment in the “private welfare sector”. They were informed that the Forum was unable to provide them with its database or tell them whether specific organisations were our members, as requested. An exploratory meeting was, however, set up with NEHAWU representatives on 6 March 2007, and this was experienced positively on both sides (see report previously tabled). The Forum’s Exco then hosted an information-sharing meeting on 7 August 2007, to which NEHAWU, Solidarity, FEDUSA and SACCAWU were invited. Only NEHAWU and Solidarity attended. The GWSSDF approach at that stage was one of caution, as it was felt that attempts might be made to use the Forum as a means to recruit members and promote union agendas. In a climate where organisations were battling with inadequate funding this could be counterproductive and also run contrary to the Forum’s mandate from its members. But after the second meeting, the impression of the Exco members who attended was that there was potential for positive co-operation beyond merely the sharing of information.

2. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS AT THE INFORMATION-SHARING MEETING:

2.1 Sharing of information

The GWSSDF gave an account of how it had come to set up the meeting, as well as a description of the Forum and its history, vision, mission and activities. A description was also given of the financial predicament in which most welfare NPOs find themselves, and the need for improved state subsidies as a prerequisite for the improvement of salaries and working conditions. The gap between state and NPO salaries and benefits and the resulting problems were explained. It was further explained that Forum stakeholders might be reticent about contact with unions because some had negative experience of union activities in a context where they were unable to improve matters due to inadequate resources.

NEHAWU expressed appreciation for the scope and nature of the Forum’s activities, including its current involvement in capacity-building among emerging ECD organisations. They gave a presentation showing the very wide extent of their membership – some 285 000 drawn from sectors including public and private health, education and social development, as well as the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs, medical aid schemes, the CSIR and the various Parks Boards. They outlined their history in relation to the social welfare field. For example, they had campaigned for welfare organisations to be bound by the BCEA and the LRA from which they had historically been exempt.  They saw intervention by NEHAWU as having prevented the threatened 25% subsidy cut in Gauteng in 2005 (something for which the GWSSDF has claimed credit – neither party knew of the other’s involvement at the time!)

NEHAWU made it clear that its concern was not just for employees but also for the vulnerable people served by the sector. Challenges which they had identified included the following:

• Lack of a professional dimension in many services – e.g. a facility in Soweto which required a multi-disciplinary team did not have one; services which needed registered social workers in order to run properly were without them; many child and youth care workers were without professional training; there was a lack of probation officers amd therapists where these were required.
• Governance shortcomings on the part of some boards of management, including lack of accountability for funds and non-adherence to the PFMA.
• Non-adherence to legislation by some organisations – e.g. the Child Care Act.
• Non-alignment of organisational constitutions to the national Constitution – e.g. some still exclude people on the grounds of race.
• Failure of some institutions to put policies in place.

NEHAWU saw a number of possibilities for co-operation with the Forum, for example:

• The establishment of a centralised bargaining chamber in which the Forum together with unions could bargain with government regarding improvements to subsidies for purposes of improving salaries and service conditions.
• Joint promotion of transformation and transparency in services.
• Monitoring on compliance with relevant policies and legislation.
• Skills development – the Forum could for example propose a programme for implementation by government, and there could be joint negotiations with the Health and Welfare SETA.

Solidarity provided a brief history – the union in its present form had been established in 2002 but had its origins in a union that had existed since 1913. It had more than 140 000 members including employees of Eskom; Telkom; the chemical, mining and metal industries; and schools and small businesses as well as welfare. They had played a key role in the reopening of the Stilfontein mine. They experience some marginalisation due to perceptions that they are “too white” and have associations with the apartheid era. They assist members with the normal range of labour-related issues including job losses and injuries at work They run their own social welfare organisation, the Helping Hand Fund, supported by a monthly contribution of R1 by every member. They have more than 30 school feeding schemes, an orphan project, and their own training college for social welfare clients. They want to work with government structures and would like to know whether the Forum can help in this regard.

2.2.1 General discussion

A broad discussion followed as regards the possibilities for cooperation between the unions and the Forum. NEHAWU was keen to help employers and employees to come up with structural provision to assist workers to grow and develop rather than remaining at entry level. They had assisted with setting up such a programme, for example, at Wits University. The establishment of Adult Basic Literacy (ABET) opportunities for people in CBOs is another area with potential. Both unions showed understanding of the resource constraints in NPOs and saw themselves as being in a position to promote understanding among workers of the limitations posed by these constraints.  A Forum Exco member shared a recent experience in his organisation, which was fully unionised, in which a shop steward had played a very positive role by clarifying to workers the limits within which the employer had to operate. The Solidarity representative said that his union would fire him if he tried to promote a strike in the sector as that would simply lead to job losses. It was pointed out that the possibility also existed for NPOs to refer matters of concern to be taken up by the unions. NEHAWU would like to know whether organisations in which it has members belong to the Forum. The union could also encourage organisations to join us. They seemed to favour some restraint in the setting up of new organisations where there might be unnecessary overlap.

All present concluded that the meeting had been informative and worthwhile, and that there appeared to be good potential for future cooperation. Mamiki as Chairperson explained on behalf of the Forum that there would have to be a report-back to the NWSSDF and direction from them before proceeding with further engagement. The meeting closed in a positive spirit.

3. CONCLUDING REMARKS

There remains a need to ensure that the GWSSDF has clarity as to its mandate when entering into communication with trade unions and other employee organisations. However, the two meetings held to date have led those involved to believe that there are clear areas of common interest, and that co-operation on selected issues could benefit our stakeholders and those they serve. The GWSSDF would welcome the approval of the NWSSDF for further engagement, as well as guidance on how to proceed. The issue of a centralised bargaining chamber seems a particularly promising area for co-operation. Possibly the next step could be an exploration of this idea.

---

Bookmark this article: