COSATU Media Monitor, 16 May 2012

The DA marched to Cosatu House in Johannesburg to force the union to change its negative stance on the youth wage subsidy, arguing that the subsidy would create about 400,000 jobs.

The Democratic Alliance's youth wage subsidy march was dealt a major blow yesterday when its members were prevented from reaching Cosatu House in Braamfontein by the labour union federation members.

A handful of police officers at the march failed to control the crowd, resulting in several people, including a journalist, being injured when objects - including stones - were thrown at them.

Cosatu members spared no one, with DA leader Helen Zille, youth leader Makashule Gana, parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko and national spokesman Mmusi Maimane, who all led the protest, also targeted.

Police had to fire teargas and rubber bullets during the confrontation to control the crowd.

On Sunday, National Union of Mineworkers secretary Irvin Jim had warned Zille to stop the march ... "or else".

The DA marched to Cosatu House in Johannesburg to force the union to change its negative stance on the youth wage subsidy, arguing that the subsidy would create about 400,000 jobs.

In its fierce opposition, Cosatu is charging that employers would fire old workers to employ youngsters.

The matter is currently being discussed at the National Economic Development and Labour Council.

A DA member was seen lying on the ground in agony after he was hit by a rubber bullet in his private parts.

Another protester bled from one eye.

DA members were unable to hand over their memorandum to Cosatu leaders as union members forced them to turn back.

Neither Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini nor general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi condemned the violence.

Earlier, before the two leaders came out of the Cosatu building, a war of words erupted between Maimane and three other men who refused to identify themselves, only saying they were "Cosatu leaders".

Maimane had asked them to call Vavi to come and receive the memorandum.

But the request fell on deaf ears as the three repeatedly yelled: "You are provoking us! Voetsek, go and talk to the government, go to Parliament."

Dlamini later told Cosatu members: "... all we can say is, thank you for defending this house. No one will ever think of coming to piss here".

Vavi said: "(Zille) is stripped naked. Everywhere, everyone will know the difference between uncompromising principled positions of the working class and (those) of the DA.

"I don't need a wife, I have a very beautiful wife. I am already married, we are not up for the takers. We are married to the ANC. We are married to the SACP and we are married to the Freedom Charter."

A block away, Zille addressed her members who had retreated, accusing the African National Congress of not caring for the people.

Alternating between isiXhosa and English, she said: "You put us here (in government) and you gave us power. We proposed the youth wage subsidy, President (Jacob) Zuma said 'yes' and put aside R5-billion, and Cosatu says 'no'. Who elected Cosatu (into government?)."

During her address, stones and all sorts of objects continued to rain, forcing her to take cover.

Meanwhile, a Democratic Alliance T-shirt was torched by Cosatu members during the union's picket at the party's offices in Mount Edgecombe, north of Durban, yesterday.

A handful of Cosatu members, including the union's provincial secretary Zet Luzipho and South African Democratic Teachers' Union provincial secretary Mbuyiseni Mathonsi, gathered outside Fairways.

They sang anti-Zille songs.

Democratic Alliance provincial youth chairman Nathaniel Bricknell emerged, argued with the protesters and then threw a DA T-shirt at them. They tore it into pieces before burning it.

1.3 Stones, insults thrown as DA marches

Natasha Marrian & Khulekani Magubane, Business Day, 16 May 2012

It was the culmination of a recent war of words, as a march by the Democratic Alliance (DA) to the headquarters of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) turned violent yesterday.

The DA and Cosatu have of late been at loggerheads, with the party taking on the African National Congress (ANC) ally over its stance on labour broking and the youth wage subsidy. The implementation of the subsidy — announced by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan last year — was put on ice due to Cosatu’s opposition to it.

It was Cosatu’s opposition to the youth wage subsidy that pitted the DA’s blue T-shirts against the federation’s red, with rocks thrown by both sides and a stunned police force intervening with tear gas.

The march began at Beyers Naudé Square in central Johannesburg and was largely peaceful until DA members came face to face with Cosatu supporters.

Both groups sang songs and hurled insults at each other. A handful of policemen attempted to contain the situation as the groups faced off, with the DA eventually retreating and attempting to approach Cosatu House from another street.

They were met with the same response and eventually turned back. As they headed off, protesters from both sides came face to face again and began throwing stones. The police, whose numbers increased considerably towards the end of the march, intervened by firing tear gas canisters to disperse the angry crowd.

The DA was eventually forced to retreat, unable to deliver its memorandum to Cosatu House due to a barrage of federation supporters blocking the way.

As DA and Cosatu supporters uneasily eyed each other from opposite sides of the street, DA leader Helen Zille told the crowd of about 2000 young people that Cosatu had lied to South Africans. "Cosatu claims to stand for the poor. We see you. We will expose you, we will expose your lies. The DA stands on the side of the poor … no one elected Cosatu into government."

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi accused the DA of taking advantage of jobless young people. "The DA hopes to get into power on the backs of the unemployed youth, but she (Ms Zille) has nowhere to run to because Cosatu has stopped her in her tracks."

Mr Vavi, who recently said that Ms Zille had asked him to join the DA, told Cosatu supporters after the march that he already had a wife, and a beautiful one at that.

"I am already married. We are not up for the taking, we are married to the ANC, we are married to the South African Communist Party, We are married to the Freedom Charter," he said.

The tit-for-tat between Cosatu and the DA continued, with each side blaming the other for the violence.

None of the leaders present from either side condemned the violent exchanges, which saw four people injured. Instead, workers were congratulated for "defending" Cosatu.

DA spokesman Mmusi Maimane said the party would examine video footage of the march to help police to make arrests. It would also lay charges against those responsible.

Cosatu president Sdumo Dlamini said the federation wanted to know why the police shot at its members.

Ebrahim Fakir, head of governance at the Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa, said yesterday’s events were a "very bad indicator of growing intolerance (in) society". He agreed with Cosatu on its opposition to the wage subsidy, but said that the "tragedy of the day" was that it did not allow for any policy or ideological debate.

1.4 An insult to our democracy

Chandré Prince, Times, 16 May 2012

The DA's first real public attempt at a mass protest - campaigning for a youth subsidy - ended in near-tragedy yesterday.

What appeared to be part of the opposition party's increasingly aggressive grassroots campaign ended in a bruising street battle in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, yesterday when Cosatu members attacked DA supporters .

It had been apparent since the DA made clear its intention to march on Cosatu House that the trade union federation would not take the action lightly.

At the centre of the standoff was the government's youth wage subsidy, discussion of which has deadlocked at the National Economic Development and Labour Council.

On Sunday, Numsa general secretary Irvin Jim warned of "open political warfare" at the march.

And yesterday about 1000 Cosatu members showed their character.

As they awaited the sea of blue moving towards Cosatu's headquarters, the union federation's supporters, waving crude posters, vowed that DA leader Helen Zille - the "white Madam" - "and her fools" would not be allowed anywhere near the building. An attack with stones and tazer guns followed.

About 1 000 DA members took to the streets to deliver a memorandum to Cosatu's headquarters after receiving permission from the Johannesburg metro police.

In a speech during the march, which was interrupted, Zille said her party was acting in solidarity with millions of South Africans looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

"Today we protest against the organisation that is keeping them unemployed, that is keeping them locked out of the economy and denying them the dream of a better future.

"Having a job is the most important way of achieving these dreams. It is the only real pathway out of poverty and to prosperity."

A fuming DA Gauteng leader John Moodey said Cosatu's members should have been dispersed when they started gathering because the gathering was illegal.

He accused the metro police of bias.

"It shows that they don't only want to govern the country, they want to rule it," he said.

DA national spokesman Mmusi Maimane, who had had a heated exchange with a man wearing an ANC beret, said the DA marchers would stick to their cause and would not be "intimidated by Cosatu's criminal behaviour".

"We note that the Cosatu leadership have not condemned the violence that was perpetrated by their members, who obviously took their cue from Irvin Jim, who declared that today would mark the beginning of 'open political warfare'."

But even as Maimane uttered these words, violence erupted in an adjacent street.

Again rocks were thrown. This time at the big truck transporting Zille and other party members.

Cosatu members were, meanwhile, shocking DA supporters with tazers and making further threats of violence if they dared to move further up the street.

A Mail & Guardian journalist, Nickolaus Bauer, sustained a gaping wound to his forehead after being hit by a large rock.

DA supporter Tian Kotze had to be rushed to hospital after being struck on the head by a brick.

Police and metro police had difficulty controlling the crowd, eventually firing teargas into it.

One outraged DA supporter shouted: "You're not educated, go to school again. You're exposing your leaders here."

"It was terrible," Zille said. "They [the Cosatu members] didn't have permission to march and they used violence to disperse our march."

Zille was met with a sea of posters attacking her and the DA's proposal for a youth wage subsidy.

"HIV-Aids is better than the DA", "Zille is trying to Verwoert-erise (sic) GP and SA" and "Labour brokering = to human trafficking".

One DA poster read: "Vavi is spitting cognac in the eyes of the youth."

Vavi, however, said the DA wanted the government to spend tax money on youth subsidies.

"These subsidies do nothing but ensure that there is enough money for all the bosses and shareholders of companies. There is no money left for us, the workers.

"This fight means nothing to the DA because it is not their children who are suffering; it is our children who are suffering."

Cosatu's Patrick Craven said the trade union federation unreservedly condemned the violence - but he claimed its members conducted themselves with "exemplary discipline and restraint".

"We recognise the DA's right to demonstrate but insist that Cosatu members have an equal right to counter-demonstrate," he said.

1.5 Cosatu’s counter-march to DA offices

Mpume Madlala, Daily News, 15 May 2012

In a move to counter the planned DA march against Cosatu in Joburg on Tuesday, members of the trade union federation’s KwaZulu-Natal branch are to march to the DA’s offices in Durban.

Cosatu KZN secretary Zet Luzipo said the aim of the march and picket was to convey the message that Cosatu would not allow itself to be used by the DA in its quest for “cheap political point-scoring”.

In an unprecedented move the DA announced its intention to march to Cosatu headquarters in Joburg, saying that the union federation was a stumbling block to the implementation of the youth wage subsidy.

On Monday, Joburg police said that the march would not be allowed to go to near Cosatu House because of security concerns.

But Cosatu’s KZN leaders said their march would continue on Tuesday.

“Workers know that the DA is the party of the bosses which seeks to erode workers’ rights and undermine their struggles. It is precisely for this reason that Cosatu KZN will march to the DA office,” Luzipo said.

He said this was to stop the DA from starting an “open confrontation” with workers.

“The DA is free to advocate and lobby for the youth wage subsidy. However, it has no right to impose such positions on workers, nor is there any basis for them to march to Cosatu House for such demands, as Cosatu does not formulate government policy.”

He said the only plausible explanation for what he called an absurd act was that the DA was seeking to gain popularity and hog the political limelight at the expense of Cosatu.

“As always, workers stand ready to defend themselves and their federation against the party of capital and give it a free lesson on mass political mobilisation,” he said.

The leader of the DA in KZN, Sizwe Mchunu, said his party was not aware of a march by Cosatu, and the police had not told the party of it.

“Even Cosatu themselves did not tell us they would be marching (to the DA offices),” said Mchunu.

“So in that case we will not be entertaining any illegal marchers. They are just trying to divert attention from the real issue, which is the youth wage subsidy that will benefit our youth. If they continue (with the march), shame on them.”

The ANC has lambasted the DA for its intention to march against Cosatu.

ANC spokesman Jackson Mthembu said the decision was “ill-informed, opportunistic and not adding value to the debate about labour brokers and the youth wage subsidy”.

“This action by the DA is not only confrontational, it is extremely provocative… It boggles the mind why the DA would march to a private institution that has no legal authority with regard to the implementation of government policy,” he said.

1.6 DA-Cosatu clashes ‘sign of growing intolerance’

Sam Mkokeli & Stephen Grootes, Business Day, 16 May 2012

Yesterday’s march will go down as the day the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) could not take its own medicine.

The labour federation displayed intolerance, which is a worrying development in a democracy that already faces other threats.

Cosatu marches on government offices at the slightest of irritations. Limpopo Premier Cassel Mathale is probably used to Cosatu marching on his office. Yet he has not lined up his bodyguards and his comrades to "defend" the government.

Yesterday, Cosatu organised people to defend it during a Democratic Alliance (DA) march on Cosatu House. Organising a crowd of unionists to be there was inviting trouble. It is difficult to manage marchers, and marches organised by Cosatu affiliates regularly veer out of control. Not everyone under the Cosatu banner demonstrates peacefully. It was always going to be difficult to get them to defend the federation peacefully.

Calling on the workers to "Defend Cosatu House" was a ploy to intimidate the DA. It was a tactical error that brought more attention to the DA march than it deserved.

Cosatu’s leaders could easily have allowed the DA to march then sent mid -level officials to receive its memorandum. Had they done that, today’s story would have been about how the DA marched, and how awkward they looked in a terrain only the unions, and lately the African National Congress Youth League (ANC), have mastered.

On its own, the DA would not have been able to convince many unemployed black youths that Cosatu is blocking their chances of getting jobs. That Cosatu’s positions on labour brokers and youth subsidies and its support for the rigid labour law regime in SA actually prevent rapid job creation, is simply "over the top" to many of those who cannot get jobs. They blame the ANC for their plight.

Cosatu should not have to worry about the DA exposing it to the unemployed masses since, as a labour representative, the federation serves only those who already have jobs. Its authority as a labour federation aligned to the liberation movement is too strong to be shaken by one march, anyway.

But the intolerance of what was meant to be a peaceful demonstration makes one wonder how Cosatu and its allies in the tripartite alliance would react should there be a real electoral threat.

Because of the nature of intra-alliance politics, the ANC cannot be seen to be criticising Cosatu for its opposition to the wage subsidy, despite the fact that it is clear that the subsidy is supported by both Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and President Jacob Zuma .

This has left the space open for the DA to make the point. It also helps with its broader political problem — trying to get the votes of the young unemployed.

There are historical parallels with 1980s Thatcherite Britain, ruled by the Conservative Party, for which working-class people voted because they believed the party’s economic message. If the DA can make the point that it is Cosatu that is preventing young people from getting jobs, then this march will be deemed a success.

For political analyst Nic Borain, the level of vitriol between the DA and Cosatu over this march is also because "they’re increasingly competing for the same niche, a niche of the middle class (in this case those Cosatu members with jobs) and the unemployed".

Mr Borain also suggests that this is a serious problem for the ANC, as the party is "fighting to keep Cosatu alongside, at the same time as the federation is drifting into being a club of the employed".

1.7 DA shot itself in foot

S'Thembiso Msomi, Times, 16 May 2012

Don't be fooled by meaningless slogans. The showdown between the DA and Cosatu supporters in downtown Johannesburg yesterday had nothing to do with much-needed job creation.

The DA would have us believe that it marched on the new headquarters of the trade union federation primarily to highlight Cosatu's role in hindering employment creation for the country's youth.

But now that the sea of blue T-shirts and flags has left Braamfontein, are we any closer to achieving the youth wage subsidy that DA leader Helen Zille is punting as a panacea to the country's exceedingly high youth unemployment?

All this march achieved was to harden organised labour's attitude and, in the process, destroy all possibilities of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and others in the government ever convincing Cosatu to accept the measure.

As Cosatu supporters blockaded Jorrisen Street in a bid to stop Zille and her crowd from getting closer to Zwelinzima Vavi's offices, one's heart sank at the thought of how futile the entire episode was.

But it highlighted one of the fundamental problems with the country's political establishment: its preference for grandstanding, for the spectacular - even when such acts stand in the way of solutions to serious problems facing the nation.

The debate on whether a youth wage subsidy could help stimulate jobs for South Africa's young, and especially black youth, as they are the most affected, is necessary. It is one that has been going on for some time, especially at the National Economic and Labour Council where organised business, labour and government meet to find a common approach to socioeconomic issues.

In recent months, despite angry statements from some of the more radical Cosatu leaders, there have been indications that the parties were moving closer to a solution that would encourage employers to hire new entrants to the jobs market while satisfying unions by ensuring that this does not result in a two-tier labour system.

However, after yesterday's confrontation on the streets of Braamfontein, expect unions to backtrack from the concessions they appeared willing to make out of fear that this would now be seen as a victory for the DA.

If the DA is indeed serious about wanting the subsidy implemented, it shot itself in the foot yesterday and further weakened the hand of those in the ANC-led tripartite alliance arguing for a more open-minded approach to solving the high unemployment crisis.

But the real motive for yesterday's action was purely political.

The DA is increasingly getting frustrated by what it sees as a stumbling block role being played by Cosatu, and Vavi in particular, to the official opposition's ambition to ascend to power over the next two elections.

Speeches by DA leaders after the march revealed as much yesterday.

In her speech, DA parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko, for instance, devoted much of her time to castigating Vavi for being a "hypocrite" who portrays himself as a champion of the poor and an anti-corruption activist while, in fact, he is "part and parcel of the rot at the heart" of President Jacob Zuma's government.

She tried, at great length, to discredit Cosatu's widely commended and largely successful campaigns against the Protection of State Information Bill and e-tolling.

It was clear from the speech that the DA realises it can't succeed in presenting itself to the majority of voters as the only effective voice against corruption and other excesses of the ANC government as long as Vavi and his organisation continue to play the "outsider/insider" roles they have been playing ever since the ANC came to power in 1994.

In a democratic society there is nothing wrong with a political party trying to expose its opponent's weaknesses and destroy a competitor's credibility.

The DA is within its rights to take on Vavi and present itself as the true champion of the poor.

But doing so in a manner that jeopardises possible creative solutions to the country's ticking bomb of youth unemployment is really foolhardy.

1.8 Cosatu thugs have trampled on pillars of our democracy

Editorial, Times, 16 May 2012

South Africans might wish to question why the Democratic Alliance embarked on a march to the headquarters of Cosatu in Johannesburg - they can do so for as much and as long as they can.

So, too, can we debate whether the march for the youth wage subsidy - proposed by the government and held up at the National Economic Development and Labour Council - was essentially part of the party's strategy to garner grassroots support.

This is, after all, the nature of South African politics.

But what does definitely matter - and what is utterly inexcusable - is the uncontrolled and violent manner in which Cosatu's members behaved.

DA members, wearing their blue T-shirts, had marched from Beyers Naude Square in Johannesburg's city centre with discipline.

But when the crowd outside Cosatu House saw them approaching - even though it was ordered that a 50m no-go area be maintained - the union members ran amok.

Throwing stones and attacking DA marchers and journalists speaks of an utter disrespect for democratic processes in this country.

It also speaks of a lack of understanding that uncouth, crass and violent opposition should have no place in South Africa.

The DA's right to march was approved by the correct authorities, but Cosatu did not seek permission to venture from its office.

Clearly this is not the message that Cosatu relayed to its membership, resulting in several people being injured, including a photographer from The Times.

Personalising its opposition to the DA's march - by brandishing posters with extremely crude messages directed at party leader Helen Zille - also shows an innate disrespect.

Cosatu did itself no favours yesterday, particularly having played such an effective role in campaigning against e-tolling and the implementation of the Protection of State Information Bill.

1.9 Cosatu’s pretence exposed

Editorial, Business Day, 16 May 2012

This newspaper has often disagreed with the Congress of South African Trade Unions’s (Cosatu’s) approach to politics, and especially its antifree-market, interventionist economic philosophy. But it has always steadfastly supported the federation’s right to hold its socialist views, which although in our opinion are archaic and misguided, fall within the bounds set by the constitution.

And we have never hesitated to support Cosatu when it has taken a stance on matters of principle, such as when the Thabo Mbeki administration lost the plot on HIV/AIDS treatment and SA’s policy towards Zimbabwe, and when it became clear that the African National Congress leadership was treating state institutions as weapons with which to fight its internecine wars.

The essence of a democracy is the right to agree to disagree, and to be allowed to express those contrary opinions without having to fear censorship or oppression.

But yesterday’s events on the streets of Johannesburg, when Democratic Alliance (DA) members sought to exercise their constitutional freedoms only to be met with violence and extreme intolerance by Cosatu members and some of their leaders, places the federation in the same camp as those in the government and the previous regime that it correctly condemned.

Cosatu is free to disagree with the youth wage subsidy concept, and it has some credible arguments in its arsenal, such as the fear that providing incentives for employers to take on more young people might result in older workers being displaced. As a member of the tripartite alliance, the federation has had more than reasonable access to the executive to make this argument.

But the government’s responsibilities are to all South Africans, not just the employed minority who belong to Cosatu, and it has a constitutional duty to be particularly mindful of the plight of the poor and unemployed. Hence its resistance to Cosatu’s demand that labour brokers be banned, and its hesitant support for a youth wage subsidy.

The DA was, therefore, marching in support of a tool that has been endorsed by the government, the same government Cosatu helped bring to power. The party was perfectly entitled to do so, and should arguably have taken to the streets to highlight its concerns over such matters more often in the past.

The federation’s response makes a mockery of its pretence to have the interests of the poor and disenfranchised at heart. It needs to decide whether it wants to be part of a democracy or not.

1.10 Media biased, Cosatu claims

SAPA, 16 May 2012

Cosatu's actions outside its headquarters during a DA march in Johannesburg were inaccurately portrayed by the media, the trade union federation's president said today.

"Cosatu was portrayed as beating the DA, which was not the case. Bricks were loaded into a truck and used against our members," Sidumo Dlamini claimed at Cosatu's International Policy Conference in Kempton Park.

Democratic Alliance and Congress of SA Trade Unions members clashed in Braamfontein yesterday, during the opposition party's march in support of a youth wage subsidy.

The DA had a right to air its views, but Cosatu had the right to defend its own views, he said.

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi was expected to address the meeting later.

2. Workers

2.1 Protesting CWU members attack van

SAPA, 16 May 2012

Protesting Communication Workers' Union (CWU) members attacked a Post Office van in central Johannesburg on Wednesday morning.

The pelted it with stones in Jorissen Street, forcing the driver to reverse around a corner.

About 100 of the union's members, employed by the SA Post Office (Sapo) in Gauteng, converged on Cosatu House in Braamfontein to protest against an unresolved labour broking agreement. Most of them were dressed in Sapo uniforms. The CWU is affiliated to the Congress of SA Trade Unions.

CWU spokesman Matankana Mothapo said all Post Office depots and mail centres in Gauteng would be closed on Wednesday.

“The protest is as a result of the unresolved 2005 agreement entered into by both CWU and Sapo to covert labour brokers to permanent positions in the company.”

He said the CWU wanted the dismissals of Pieter Swart, senior general manager of mail delivery, as well as Janras Kotsi, the group's mail business executive.

“Both of them are the culprits of sabotaging the 2005 agreement,” he claimed.

Protesters would march to Sapo's regional office to hand over a first memorandum, and then to the premier's office to hand over another.

2.2 Labour amendments ‘seek to find balance’

Ann Crotty, Business Report, 16 May 2012

Even if organised business undertook to employ every available worker it would not be possible to guarantee businesses total flexibility in employment conditions, Phambinkosi Mkalipi, the deputy director-general of the Department of Labour, told Business Report yesterday.

Mkalipi said that total flexibility was likely to create a situation that would contravene the constitutional rights of many employees.

Mkalipi was speaking after a briefing to the portfolio committee on labour on the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the Employment Equity Act and the Employment Services Act.

A key objective of the amendments is the attempt to address the increased informalisation of the labour market, which is essentially a bid to deal with the proliferation of labour brokers in a way that is acceptable to both Cosatu and business.

“What we’re doing with regard to informalisation is nothing new,” Mkalipi said.

“Most countries have introduced legislation to protect vulnerable workers… we must maintain a balance between protection (for workers) and flexibility (for employers), there’s no way we can let things go to the dogs.”

Sej Motau, a DA member of the committee, asked Mkalipi what research the department had undertaken ahead of the drafting of the labour law amendments.

When told that a regulatory impact assessment undertaken in 2010 had provided input, Motau said he would “feel better” if the department updated that research to take into consideration changes in the labour market environment.

Motau also said that it was critical that Nedlac, the negotiating chamber for the government, business and labour, reached a consensus on the proposals before they were presented in draft form.

To date business and labour representatives have agreed to disagree on key aspects of the amendments.

“This (high unemployment) is one of the greatest challenges facing South Africa. If business, labour and government are not singing from the same hymn sheet it will be very difficult to address the situation,” Motau told the committee.

The committee was told that “technical changes” were being made to the draft legislation and that the final bill would be with the committee within a few weeks.

The proposed amendments dealing with employees of “temporary employment services”, or labour brokers, limits temporary work to six months and requires that all employees who perform the same or similar work are treated equally.

Seasonal workers and fixed-term contractors are exempt from the six-month limit.

There is also relief for employers employing fewer than 10 employees and employers with fewer than 50 employees that have been in operation for less than two years.

2.3 Unemployment is a serious problem – Gordhan

Sowetan, 16 May 2012

The subsidy compensates employers for taking on young employees and can act to offset the costs of training or risk incurred by employers - especially those running small enterprises.

Gordhan said unemployment is a serious problem in South Africa, with 41% or only two out of five people of working age in South Africa have a job.

The National Treasury believes that the subsidy will encourage youth, who believe they may more easily find work, to search for jobs more actively.

The idea is that the subsidy will run through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) tax system operated by the South African Revenue Service (Sars).

To qualify, workers must be aged between 18 and 29 and their wages must fall below the personal income tax threshold - which for the coming tax year (2011) is set at R59750.

The subsidy is expected to cover 423,000 young workers and given that some of these workers are likely to be hired anyway, the number of new jobs is estimated at 178,000 - at a cost of R28,000.

The plan is that as Sars already uses its PAYE system to reconcile the records on employees and employers twice a year, the system will allow for Sars to corroborate information on employers and employees claiming the subsidy.

The subsidy is yet to be implemented as the proposal is being debated at National Economic Development and Labour Council where Cosatu is opposing it.

2.4 Numsa's Jim calls for Gordhan's resignation

Paul Vecchiatto, BusinessLive, 16 May 2012

National Union of Mineworkers of SA (Numsa) leader Irvin Jim has indirectly called for Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan to be removed from office.

Speaking on e.tv on Tuesday afternoon Jim said: "We call on the ANC to help us to remove that minister in the National Treasury who has been unilaterally pushing through the youth wage subsidy."

Gordhan first proposed the youth wage subsidy two years ago and R5 billion was allocated to it in the Medium Term Expenditure Framework - National Treasury's three-year spending plan.

The youth wage subsidy is supposed to encourage employers to hire more numbers of inexperienced young people and was scheduled to have come into operation in April 1.

However, labour movement Cosatu has opposed the subsidy on the grounds that it would prejudice older workers. It has consistently blocked the subsidy in bargaining forum the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).

Parliamentary opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA) has been supportive of the subsidy and staged a march to Cosatu house in Johannesburg on Tuesday to hand over a memorandum to the labour movement. The march was blocked by Cosatu supporters and at least one DA member and one journalist were injured due to rocks being thrown.

Cosatu, along with the SA Communist Party are key allies of the ruling ANC in the tripartite alliance.

3. South Africa

3.1 Mthethwa receives Mdluli papers

News24, 16 May 2012

Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa has received legal papers from Freedom Under Law (FUL) applying for the removal of Lieutenant General Richard Mdluli from the police, his spokesperson said on Wednesday.

"We can confirm that we received the court papers and that our legal team are currently studying [them]," Zweli Mnisi said.

He said that as the urgent application would be heard in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on June 5, there was time to deliberate and decide on the way forward.

FUL, which describes itself as a "not-for-profit organisation in order to promote democracy under law", applied for an urgent interdict on Tuesday to prevent the former crime intelligence head from serving in the police. FUL also applied for an interdict against Mthethwa, preventing him from moving Mdluli to a new position before a review into his reinstatement could be heard.

Mistrust in police

Anti-apartheid activist and FUL member Mamphela Ramphele said in the organisation's founding affidavit that Mthethwa suspended former police commissioners Jackie Selebi and Bheki Cele for "less serious criminal charges" than Mdluli.

"The way... Mdluli had been dealt with by the respondents reflects an extraordinary degree of a lack of accountability and a breach of a culture of justification," said Ramphele.

She said Mdluli's letter, which detailed a conspiracy against him, had generated mistrust and instability in the police.

The letter, written by Mdluli in November, was addressed to President Jacob Zuma, Mthethwa and acting national police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.

In it, Mdluli reportedly wrote that Cele, Hawks head Lieutenant General Anwa Dramat, operational services head Lieutenant General Godfrey Lebeya and Gauteng police commissioner Lieutenant General Mzwandile Petros, were ganging up against him.

Ramphele said the task team, appointed by Mthethwa to investigate the allegations in the letter, would not resolve the problem caused by Mdluli's reinstatement.

On Friday, the presidency denied ever having received such a letter from Mdluli.

Said Ramphele: "By his conduct, the minister accepted that there was a need to act, but has not initiated suspension proceedings, or any other measure which would remove... Mdluli from active daily service in SAPS."

Mthethwa announced on May 9 that Mdluli would be shifted from his position to another division in the police.

Mdluli charges

Last year, Mdluli faced fraud and corruption charges relating to alleged misuse of a crime intelligence fund, the purchase of luxury vehicles and the hiring of family members. He also faced a murder charge following the murder of a former lover's boyfriend, Oupa Ramogibe.

Both sets of charges were withdrawn and Mdluli was reinstated as head of crime intelligence.

The murder investigation became an inquest.

In the meantime, Mthethwa appointed a task team led by chief state law adviser Enver Daniels to investigate the claims made in the letter. It would consist of Lieutenant General Abel Mxolisi Shilubane from the defence force, Stan Noosi from state security and SAPS head of legal services Lieutenant General Julius Molefe. – SAPA

3.2 Big business moves to cut bosses’ pay, boost jobs

Carol Paton, Business Day, 16 May 2012

Business Leadership SA — whose members include the CEOs and chairmen of SA’s largest corporations and multinationals — says it is committed to devising a code of conduct on remuneration and labour practices for its members that will include "sacrifices by management".

This undertaking is in line with international concern about high executive remuneration, even when performance is below par, and may address the trade unions' objection to wage restraint as a tool for job creation.

Business Leadership SA yesterday published its response to the national development plan produced by the National Planning Commission.

It broadly embraced the plan and outlined several areas where the government and business, working in partnership, could achieve "quick successes" and "build confidence" in the plan.

On executive remuneration, Business Leadership SA acknowledged that "improvements to the labour market will need to involve give and take".

"Wage moderation should be pursued at all levels, including some sacrifices by management".

The CEO of Business Leadership SA, Thero Setiloane, said the group acknowledged the need to examine the issue of executive compensation. "We are working on broad principles. One thing we agree is that people cannot be rewarded for failure," he said.

Mr Setiloane said shareholders needed to be empowered to deal with issues related to management and director compensation. "This is not just an issue for SA, it’s a global issue. It is coming, whether we like it or not."

The Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) has repeatedly raised the issue of high executive pay, arguing that this is excessive, has risen disproportionately, and cannot be justified. It is a key argument for Cosatu’s refusal to countenance its members considering wage restraint.

Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel has called for pay restraint from workers and executives to contain inflation.

Other suggestions calculated to open the door to a more fruitful interaction and partnership between business and government are contained in Business Leadership SA’s response to the national development plan.

The group proposed that it be involved in preparing "a national proposal" to facilitate investment by retirement and savings funds in infrastructure projects.

While the idea of prescribed asset classes — which would make investments in government infrastructure or bonds obligatory — has been mooted by the African National Congress (ANC), the business group said "voluntary participation in infrastructure finance" was preferable.

"We suggest a task team of industry and government be set up to explore the private sector’s role in the financing of infrastructure. This team will look at all the options, including modified versions of the development bond, and investments which generate financial returns on the ‘user pays’ model," the document reads.

The group’s biggest criticism of the plan was the lack of attention to the role of the private sector as an enabler and partner in economic growth.

In a significant proposal aimed at building bridges with the government, Business Leadership SA proposed a "warts and all" analysis of SA’s public-private partnerships to date. This should be done by a committee involving the business group, the government and a neutral third party.

Mr Patel recently expressed unhappiness that public-private partnerships had the government taking all the risk, while business reaped the benefits. The Business Leadership SA document acknowledges "there have been significant failures in this area".

Mr Setiloane said he hoped for a dialogue with the government before the ANC’s December conference in Mangaung, where a number of key policy issues are expected to be settled.

3.3 Government launches R5,75bn manufacturing programme

Carol Paton, Business Day, 15 May 2012

Minister of Trade and Industry Rob Davies on Tuesday outlined the details of a R5,75bn grant and loan programme aimed at growing and expanding South Africa’s manufacturing enterprises over the next three years.

The Manufacturing Competitiveness Enhancement Programme has six dimensions, which will allow firms to choose solutions that address their biggest problems, says Department of Trade and Industry deputy director-general Tumelo Chipfupa. The dimensions include:

A cost-sharing grant for new investment of between 30% and 50%, up to a maximum of R50m

A cost-sharing grant for investment in green technology of between 30% and 50%, up to a maximum of R50m

A cost-sharing grant of up to 70% of the cost of programmes to improve enterprise competitiveness

A cost-sharing grant of up to 70% to conduct a feasibility study for a new enterprise

A cost-sharing grant of up to 80% for "cluster activities" among firms, such as collaborative marketing; and

A working capital loan at a fixed rate of 6% to fund firms in the period of pre-dispatch and post-dispatch of goods until payment.

Stewart Jennings, chairman of the Manufacturing Circle, said that although the incentive was "relatively small" it was nonetheless important.

"It is a step in the right direction. Most important, though, is government’s recognition of the importance of manufacturing," said Mr Jennings.

Mr Davies said that the scheme was aimed at reviving South African manufacturing, which "has been in decline since 1977" and helping firms withstand the "second wave of the recession" which the global economy is moving towards.

4. Comment

4.1 Cosatu finds a way through the tricky political minefield

Carol Paton, 16 May 2012

If there was ever any doubt about the power of mass protest action in SA, the Congress of South African Trade Unions’s (Cosatu’s) performance over the past two months has laid it to rest.

Since Cosatu’s stunning mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of people on March 7 against labour brokers and e-tolling, things have been falling neatly into place for the federation. It has won the withdrawal of proposed labour law amendments, which sought to tighten regulations around strikes, and an agreement to postpone e-tolling.

The victories came not because the government caved in to Cosatu’s demands, but because the African National Congress (ANC) was so shaken by the March action. The extent of the mobilisation — Cosatu reckons 2-million people stayed away from work — and interest shown by workers, who thronged to marches, surprised even Cosatu.

By comparison, the ANC enjoys no such mobilising power. Local protests, in which its own members are participants, are increasingly hard to manage. While in the past, protestors symbolically burned public property, targets are now the homes, cars and persons of ANC councilors. ANC branch and regional politics has become dirty and violent, with some members carrying firearms to meetings and attacks and shootings of local leaders are not infrequent. Cosatu’s mobilisation, on the other hand, can be turned on and off: it is disciplined, targeted, channels social anger and is beautifully orchestrated.

Before the strike, Cosatu lobbied the government to prevent the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act from going ahead. Although it had already won agreement on changes to the law that would curtail the exploitative power of labour brokers, it strongly opposed the introduction of new picketing and balloting rules for strikes in the proposals. These were raised in a meeting with Labour Minister Mildred Oliphant, who agreed they would be withdrawn. But to Cosatu’s annoyance, Oliphant failed to successfully make the case to the Cabinet and the amendment bill was approved containing the provisions on strike rules.

However, what Cosatu failed to get out of the government before its mass action, the ANC conceded after the strike. The ANC agreed to postpone e-tolling, even while the government was arguing the dangers of such a delay in court. It also agreed to withdraw amendments to the law that would have made strike balloting compulsory; would have limited picket lines to workers only (no supporters); and would have made it illegal for all workers "exercising authority in the name of the state" — for example, teachers and health-workers — to strike. Since the amendment bill has already passed through the Cabinet, the changes will have to be made in the parliamentary process.

There is lots to draw from these events. First, it is highly significant that the quantum of labour law amendments that now stand to be passed by Parliament is completely in labour’s favour. Although labour brokers have not been "banned", this is not really material as the most abusive practices and worst effects for workers will have been eliminated in law. Second, the strike and ensuing success in discussions with the ANC has been very good for Cosatu’s unity.

The gains that Cosatu has made during the administration of President Jacob Zuma are now demonstrable to workers and everyone in Cosatu, no matter their political stance. At its most recent central executive committee meeting last month, the political discussion paper — typically a highly critical and hard-hitting document — stated that Cosatu’s mobilisation had "shifted the political terrain" and said the federation needed "to acknowledge that the balance in government is slowly tilting in favour of working class priorities".

The successes have helped to build a united perspective within Cosatu on the biggest stumbling block to its unity: its posture towards the ANC. In its May Day statement and other internal documents, its stance on the ANC is neatly summed up as being neither purely oppositional nor uncritically supportive. Cosatu will, it says, "advance a progressive agenda together with and in support of our alliance partners" but will also be "outspoken and firm on issues of principle … and will militantly mobilise our members". As obvious as this position might seem in retrospect, it has plagued Cosatu for much of the past year. Much has been written about its internal divisions, which have seen those of its key leaders who support another term for Zuma — for example, the general secretaries of the National Union of Mineworkers, the National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union and the South African Democratic Teachers Union — lining up against those who oppose it, Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi and the president and general secretary of National Union of Metalworkers of SA (Numsa).

Now, there is even peace over this. An old agreement with the ANC — made in May 2008, in which Cosatu agreed to no longer publicly pronounce on its preferences for ANC leadership — has been revived. Everyone agrees Cosatu will not be going to the ANC’s national conference at Manguang with a slate and that at most it might publish criteria for leadership "as a recommendation to delegates".

Alongside this agreement is the adoption of a protocol for Cosatu leaders on the articulation of political questions related to the ANC, Zuma and the succession. It is agreed that everyone will do two things: defend the ANC leadership collective that was elected at Polokwane; and defend the ANC against corrupt elements intent on capturing state resources for their own benefit.

It is important to note that this means it is fine to speak up in support for Zuma but this shouldn’t be taken to mean that he is being endorsed for Manguang. It also means that the ambiguous flirtations with expelled ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema, that Numsa has at times pursued, are off.

The six points in the protocol are all open to wide interpretation. But differences will be solved by debate, says Vavi.

The biggest reason for the truce is the real fear and danger of a split in the federation. The emerging tensions in its relationship to the ANC and the South African Communist Party had the potential to become real political and ideological differences and ultimately "to rapidly escalate into full-blown splits", says the federation in a succession of official documents.

So having stared into the abyss of a split, Cosatu’s protagonists have pulled back.

Unity has also been helped by events in the ANC. No real challenger to Zuma has emerged and the assessment among several individual leaders in the affiliates is that Kgalema Motlanthe isn’t serious about contesting for the ANC presidency in December. Since Motlanthe’s candidacy has been pushed by only one faction in the ANC — fronted by Malema — it lacks both weight and credibility. It’s not likely then, they surmise, that Motlanthe will really vie for the presidency.

The combination of events has calmed tempers in Cosatu. It has also left it and its public face — Vavi, who significantly has opted to stay in the federation for another term — more powerful.

Better conditions for unity and astute consensus building should help Cosatu find a path through the treacherous political minefield of ANC alliance politics. As a result, in the coming few years, Cosatu can be expected to have a growing rather than diminishing role in national politics.

• Paton is writer at large.

4.2 The nobel price for (South African) peace

Terry Bell, Star, 15 May 2012

The latest furore about statements made by former apartheid president FW de Klerk has raised one very pertinent point: the political considerations that go into the decisions regarding the award of the Nobel Peace Prize. It also raises again the circumstances in which that prize was jointly awarded to De Klerk and to Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and seems to highlight the underlying prejudices of De Klerk.

For, in the words of Mandela, just a month before the award of the prize, De Klerk was guilty of “an act of thuggery” and was “a man with blood on his hands”. Such comments were made and recorded, but little attention was paid to them as uncomfortable evidence was, by then, being swamped by a feel-good wave of rainbow nation euphoria. Fact was fast becoming embedded in fantasy and a simplistic promotion of reconciliation was the dominant theme.

As moves toward a negotiated settlement in South Africa got solidly underway, it became clear that the Nobel committee was in favour of the award to Mandela. But, as myth took the place of calm, critical analysis, political considerations took the place of principle. Would not a joint award help to promote reconciliation and peace in South Africa? Broad agreement was canvassed from several leading anti-apartheid figures including, apparently, the 1984 recipient of the prize, then Anglican archbishop, Desmond Mpilo Tutu.

So it was the the Nobel committee decided on the joint award to Mandela and De Klerk. The two men were scheduled to travel separately to Oslo in December 1993 to have the honour conferred on them. De Klerk, as the last apartheid president, would fly in the presidential aircraft, NAN, calling in on various heads of state along the way; Mandela would make his own way to the Norwegian capital.

Then, on October 8, one of the apartheid state’s hit squads, with the authorisation of De Klerk and his top ministers, crossed the border into the then still nominally independent Transkei, and murdered five school children. That massacre at 47 JC Jordan Street in the Mthatha suburb of North Crest is now part of the apartheid claims case scheduled to be heard in the United States.

In that October De Klerk became the first South African — and perhaps only — head of state, let alone Nobel Peace Prize nominee, publicly to claim credit for a massacre. While the gunmen and their immediate superiors remained a mystery, De Klerk announced that he had ordered the destruction of “an Apla facility” in the Transkei. The house in North Crest, he said, was a base used by the military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress “to launch attacks on South Africa”.

This appeared to be a public relations exercise calculated to reassure the restive Rightwing elements within the still ruling National Party that De Klerk was not “going soft”. And De Klerk duly announced that he had been “fully informed” of every aspect of the raid.

There was also no doubt of the lethal success of the venture, for there were even colour photographs of the bodies that De Klerk displayed. The police followed up with a statement in which they said that the raid on the North Crest house had been a “27-minute operation” and that the “five terrorists” who had died had “offered resistance”.

These were lies. And they were quickly exploded, largely through the work of Dumisa Ntsebeza who was then still a human rights lawyer based in Mthatha.

There was no evidence of any resistance and the dead, shot on mattrasses on the floor as they slept before the television, were Samora and Sadat, the 16-year-old twin sons of local butcher Sigqipo Mpendulo and their friends, Thando Mthembu, 17, and Mzwandile Mfeya and Sandiso Yose, both just 12 years old. An independent post mortem later established that 16 bullets had been fired into the body of Sadat Mpendulo 11 into his twin, Samora and that, between them, Sandiso Yose and Mzwandile Mfeya had been shot 37 times. Six bullets ended the life of Thando Mtembu.

Mandela was briefed about the killings and, two weeks later, in a televised interview, stated: “For a president to authorise the killing of children is a blatant act of terrorism.” He went on to note that De Klerk had not apologised and “did not have the decency to apologise”.

These statements tended to be buried in the local media amid all the speculation about a negotiated settlement and the prospect of the joint Peace Prize award. Mandela too, did not again raise the issue even when, just days before the award ceremony in Oslo, a civil action demanding compensation for murder from De Klerk, his foreign minister, Roelof “Pik” Botha, law and order minister Hernus Kriel, as well as defence minister Kobie Coetsee was lodged with the Transkei supreme court.

But no major newspaper, radio or television station took up the issue. As Fergal Keane, then the BBC correspondent in South Africa noted: “Who wants to bugger up a fairy tale?” However, Mandela did state, on his way to Oslo, that De Klerk was a man with “blood on his hands”.

A year later, De Klerk was to complain bitterly to American author and journalist Patti Waldmeir about the accusation. He said he was horrified to be labelled in this manner. It was unfair. Mandela had failed to understand “the complexity of the situation”.

Later, and again without attendant publicity, Mandela intervened and De Klerk was persuaded to offer compensation to the families of the murdered students in exchange for the civil murder case being dropped. State money was allocated to pay for the funerals and the legal costs of the families and to compensate them for their loss. In the name of reconciliation, a convenient blanket of silence fell over the massacre.

But Sigqibo Mpendulo, father of the twin boys who were butchered by the death squad, would not let the matter rest; he wanted to know who had actually pulled the triggers, what was the chain of command, from De Klerk down — and how erroneous information came to be acted on. As a result, he was one of the first claimants in the series of class action lawsuits lodged in New York in 2002 against banks and companies that profited from the apartheid system. He made clear that he wanted the murder of his children to be seen not as an isolated or aberrant act, but as a logical extension of a system that made victims of millions of people.

That is the very point De Klerk dismissed in his recent controversial interview in which he excused the concept of apartheid as the recognition of historically justified ethnic homelands that had, unfortunately, resulted in hurt and harm. It provided evidence — if ever more was needed — that De Klerk persists in promoting the apartheid mythology of a virtually empty land of South Africa, colonised by the “Afrikaners”. It also seems that Mandela was correct when he stated in 1993 that “when it comes the blacks he (De Klerk) is absolutely insensitive”.

* Terry Bell is the author of Unfinished Business — South Africa, apartheid & truth (Verso, 2003)

4.3 We must free ourselves from our mental shackles

Steven Friedman, Business Day, 16 May 2012

If our society is to progress, we badly need a prison break. The prison out of which we — or those who wield influence — need to break is the one in our minds that prevents us seeing any reality except that of ourselves and others like us.

The reaction to FW de Klerk’s comments on Bantustans and the uproar about racism in social media highlight the degree to which our society is still divided. They are symptoms of a deeper malaise in which credibility in public debate seems reserved for those who trash those from whom they differ while failing to find any fault with anyone like them.

Among business people and professionals, saying anything vaguely positive about the government in public is to invite abuse. Bashing trade unions is now increasingly popular and there is a growth in "labour research and analysis", which somehow always finds, after objective study, that unions and their members are problems and that letting employers do whatever they want is the solution.

Elsewhere in society, credibility now depends on claiming that all whites — and sometimes all racial minorities — are racist and that the compromise that produced democracy in 1994 was a trick to deprive black people of their birthright. The governing party joins in by blaming the media and judges for some of our ills. These divisions are reflected in our media, which often seem more like pamphlets for a section of society than vehicles to convey news.

What is achieved when public conversation consists largely of voices confirming the prejudices of those like them by yelling at those who differ? Those who yell no doubt feel better but no-one’s mind is changed and no problems are solved when dialogue is replaced by yelling.

The problem is not that we express our differences loudly and forcefully. That is part of what democracy is about. There will always be substantial differences between us, and calls to unite behind a common vision generally mean that everyone should see the future the way those peddling the vision do. We are better off differing, as long as we do so within democratic rules, than being corralled into a unity based on forcing us to see the world the way others do.

But an important part of our reality is that no actor in our society can get what it wants without other key actors. Which is why we make progress through compromises — not by blurring our divisions but by conceding some ground to those who differ, while receiving concessions in return.

The negotiations that ended apartheid are the obvious example. A more current one is e-tolling. Yelling across the divide might have stopped the tolling — if it has, we still have to find a way of paying for Gauteng’s roads.

This can be found only through compromises between the key actors whose interests will be affected.

Many other examples illustrate the reality that no actor or interest in this society can simply impose itself on the others.

If we accept that reality, it follows that we need to ask whether a conversation as polarised as ours can possibly move us forward. While there will always be strong differences between us that will be expressed loudly, if that is all we have to say to each other, the problems about which we yell will deepen.

And so, at the same time as we continue to express our differences, we need also to find common ground. And we can do that only by acknowledging that those like us are not always right and those who differ are not always wrong.

Is it, for example, plausible to insist that everything business people do here is healthy and everything labour and the government do threatens our wellbeing? Is there nothing businesses should be doing to contribute more to building a fairer society? Does it really make sense to denounce the government as autocratic when it ignores citizens and to deride its weakness when it listens? Would business really be better off without trade unions, which continue to ensure, amid all their real and presumed flaws, that workplace conflicts can be resolved?

These questions are posed to business not because it is the only interest that needs to reflect — similar questions could be put to all other interests. Business is singled out here because most of the people reading this are likely to be in business and it is impossible to find common ground by pointing an accusing finger outward at those who differ — it needs a finger pointed inward at the mental shackles that prevent our group making constructive deals with the others.

The type of national debate this would entail is not an impossible Utopia — it was precisely this sort of conversation in the 1990s that saved us from perpetual conflict. If we are to rescue ourselves from the problems that beset us now, social actors need to find the voice of compromise again. And they can do that only if they look, not only outward at the faults of others, but inward at the flaws in their own group’s approach.

· Friedman is director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy.

Patrick Craven (National Spokesperson)

Congress of South African Trade Unions

110 Jorissen Cnr Simmonds Street

Braamfontein

2017

P.O.Box 1019

Johannesburg

2000

South Africa

Tel: +27 11 339-4911 or 010 219-1339

Mobile: +27 82 821 7456

E-Mail: pat...@cosatu.org.za

image001.gif

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages