Chapter 29. Policy and Tactics of The Union

The tremendous achievements of the union in all spheres since (928 were made possible largely by the rapid development of South African industry generally and more particularly by the Extraordinary growth and extension of the clothing industry. The policy and activities of the union, however, played a major role, not only in effecting a complete change in the standards of the workers, but also in raising the industry from its original primitive level to a position which is modern, not only by South African, but even by world, standards.

Until 1928, the South African trade union movement had been largely "British" in spirit and organisation, and its structure and methods were not suited to the changing conditions. What had been perfectly adequate for the workers of London, Glasgow and Birmingham, and for artisans with a long trade union tradition, had little to offer to the daughters of Senekal and Lichtenburg. An entirely different technique was needed to make union members of these young Afrikaner women, who had brought with them the traditions of the rural areas and to whom even the terms "trade unionism", "labour", "socialism", were completely alien. We had to look to the world trade union movement, its history, methods, tactics and struggles, for guidance in our own work. The newcomers, however, knew little or nothing of the workers' struggles abroad and only later did they learn of the international character of trade unionism.

We did not apply the accumulated experiences of the international trade union movement indiscriminately and always considered carefully the problems peculiar to our own country. From Britain, we learnt the basic principles of trade unionism; from America, modern technique; and from Central and Eastern Europe, how to tackle problems of workers in a country which was troubled by grave national and racial issues, in which the economy was unevenly developed, and which was only in the first stage of its industrial revolution.

The Witwatersrand Tailors' Association, the predecessor of the Garment Workers' Union, was an entirely different organisation from the present body. The men tailors, who controlled the union's affairs, had been brought up to follow the old-fashioned methods and, although proudly boasting a militant past and anxious to help the Afrikaner women, they knew little or nothing about their problems. Master craftsmen, deeply rooted in the British craft tradition, dominated the union. The women, who made up about seventy-five per cent of the membership, were engaged in mass production. They paid the same dues and had, theoretically, the same rights as the men, but in practice they had little or no say in the policy and management of the union. The older men, who were the "fathers" and who, like, treated them as "children"

Fathers thought they knew best. At general meetings, which hundreds of them attended, they remained silent. Even in many advanced countries, women workers have had to fight hard for equality with the men. How much more so in a backward country like South Africa.

The meetings and the affairs of the union were conducted in English, while the majority of the workers were Afrikaans-speaking, although they understood English. These farm girls had to listen to speeches and read documents in a language which was foreign to them. There was not, at that time, one single book or pamphlet explaining in Afrikaans the aims and functions of trade unionism.

We had to fight hard to overcome the stubbornness of the men in order to bring the masses of Afrikaner women into active trade union work, and it- was not until the middle of 1934, when the tailoring workers seceded from the union and formed an independent organisation, that the women began to play a leading role.

Many trade union leaders complain that their members take no interest in union affairs and blame the workers for apathy and poor attendance at meetings. Once these conservative, old-fashioned leaders learn to adopt modern methods, forget about their own importance and pay more attention to the needs and wishes of their members, they will soon get an enthusiastic response from them.

We realised that it was not enough to enrol the newcomers, collect their contributions and invite them occasionally to meetings. Very much more was needed if we were to build a strong union, which could successfully fight exploitation and poverty. We had to start right at the beginning; to give these workers a faith and an ideal and develop a spirit of unity and sacrifice among them. Above all, we had to make them trade union conscious, and get them to feel that the union was their own organisation and not just an alien body. A trade union, which really wants to serve its members and achieve something, must not only has efficient administrators and expert negotiators; it must also create a feeling of solidarity and inspire hope and confidence in its members. We always remembered this throughout the years; even when conditions had improved and we had become somewhat more respectable and well behaved. To create and maintain a spirit of militancy, speeches and pamphlets are not enough. The entire work of the union has to be planned and carried out in a manner which keeps that spirit alive. We encouraged the workers to strike when conditions were intolerable and, when they came out on strike without first consulting the union, we did not enquire whether the action was official or not. If it helped our struggle, it was accepted and we gave it our full support, for we knew that workers would not strike without a real grievance. We recognised that officials of the union were not impartial persons, whose task it was only to maintain peace in the industry. They were elected and paid by the workers to further and to protect the workers' interests. Their duty is similar to that of the barrister briefed by a client-to serve his client and not worry about anything else.

For many years, the value of strikes has been debated. Our union can claim some experience for, between 1928 and 1932, we led over a hundred strikes, two of which brought the entire industry to a standstill. From this long experience, followed by twenty years of highly efficient and successful conciliation, we contend that, as long as there are employers and workers, the strike weapon must be maintained. It must not be allowed to become blunt or rusty, for it is the only effective instrument the workers have in the struggle against the employers. Labour laws have helped in some instances, but only to an insignificant extent. We built up our conditions from the lowest possible level to one of the highest in the world only through strikes and threats of strikes. Strikes must never be called indiscriminately, merely to cause trouble. But this is certain: those who criticise, denounce or decry the strike weapon as obsolete are fighting on the employers' side, consciously or unconsciously, and are rendering a great disservice to the workers. For, in every country in the world where workers have secured better standards and conditions, these gains have been due almost entirely to strike action.

Individually, our employers are probably more generous and humane than most and yet rarely did we get concessions from them through reasoned arguments.

We also know from bur own experience that the workers learn far more from taking part in one strike than from years of propa­ganda. To us, a strike did not mean only a stoppage of work by a number of workers. It was class war, and wars have to be organised to attain victory. Morale is always a determining factor in wars and in strikes, and we evolved a technique which proved very effective. Whenever a small or large group of workers came out on strike, we immediately mobilised the maximum support for them from our own members, the other trade unions and the general public. To give an example: on one occasion, a very wealthy merchant tailor, who had been convicted of a breach of the agreement, dismissed two workers who had been the reluctant com­plainants in the case. We not only called the five other workers in the workshop out on strike, but promptly held a series of factory

Meetings to explain to our members the principle involved. Within forty-eight hours, a thousand workers with banners demonstrated outside the shop. We used this opportunity to denounce the guilty employer and also to expose sweating conditions generally. Demonstrations of this nature invariably taught a lesson to the employer directly concerned and to all other would-be transgressors. They also had tremendous educational value for our members and .the workers in general, and stimulated class-consciousness and a spirit of militancy and confidence.

In 1943, the employers declared a lockout without any valid reason. Before the trouble started, I warned the chairman of the employers' association that we intended to organise public demonstrations to expose their high-handed action. The chairman, a personal friend of mine, who had come into the industry long after the period of successive strikes, said to me: "Solly, if you are going to have street demonstrations, please come to my factory first".

I warned him that he would regret this invitation, but he insisted. On the day of the lockout, we marched six thousand workers to his factory in the middle of the Johannesburg commercial centre. A platform was improvised outside and I addressed the large audience, which was soon increased by thousands more passers-by. I explained that we had been "invited" and went on to denounce the unwarranted action of the employers.

In times of strife, the workers often showed a rough spirit of poetry, which found a quick expression in improvised composition. On this occasion, they soon made up some songs poking fun at the owner.

The press gave our activities great publicity. The lockout was duly called off and the workers received pay for time lost. My rash friend, who became the talk of Johannesburg, felt very sorry for himself. Never again did he invite us to stage demonstra­tions outside his premises.

The appearance of police at meetings, which is a regular feature of South African life and often led to the beating-up and arrest of workers, did not intimidate our members. On the contrary, it roused them to greater activity and gave us much valuable publicity. We missed no opportunity of denouncing the evil doings of the employers and the so-called protectors of law and order.

A thorough understanding of national and racial problems and their solution is indispensable when dealing with major social questions in South Africa. The Afrikaner workers, who flocked into the industry, had brought with them an intense nationalism and hatred of the English, who had fought their fathers in the Boer War and had put their mothers into concentration camps. National oppression makes peoples extremely suspicious and often over­sensitive. Further, the poverty-stricken Afrikaner workers felt embittered by the wealth and splendour surrounding them while they had to endure poverty and misery in the land of their birth. They saw the palatial homes of Johannesburg and had themselves to live in wretched slums. Not even their language was left to them. Many knew English, but it was not their mother tongue.

One of the union's first moves was to introduce absolute equality of the two languages, Afrikaans and English. At general meetings, in committee and at the union office, Afrikaans-speaking workers were invited and urged to express themselves in their mother tongue. Formerly, government letterheads had English wording at the top of the page, with Afrikaans underneath. Since the Nationalists have come into power, this process had been reversed. Our union was the first public body in South Africa to print English and Afrikaans letterheads side by side, without any favouritism. Speeches by members were recorded in the language in which they were delivered. Our magazine The Garment Worker/Klerewerker was published in English and Afrikaans with such perfect equality that a British Labour paper commented: "It was the only magazine in the world with two fronts and no back".

When we dealt with the tragic memories of the Boer War, we never made the all-too-common mistake of thinking that the past can be wiped out merely by appealing to people to forget it. I know from experience how greatly such an approach angers the Afrikaners. We would tell the workers, both Afrikaners and English, that the Boer War had been a crime which could never be forgotten. But we always added that the British labour movement and the best among the British people had also fought against Rhodes, Chamber­lain and the other imperialists, who alone had been responsible for the war. And we explained that the English-speaking workers in the South Africa of today were not "empire builders", but brick­layers, artisans, miners and clerks and, like themselves, were fighting for a better life. We also stressed the great service which the British workers, who had built the South African trade union movement, had rendered the South African workers, and we missed no oppor­tunity of telling the Afrikaners that those who had deprived the two Boer Republics of their independence had been responsible for the exploitation of millions of workers in Britain as well. The Afrikaner workers listened eagerly to accounts of the long and bitter struggles of their British comrades against economic slavery and the tyranny of the Conspiracy Laws.

We did not confine our appeals and activities to narrow trade unionism, pure and simple. The workers urgently needed a faith, something worth living for, fighting for and, if necessary, dying for, and to these thousands who suffered national oppression and economic misery we held out the prospects of a new and changed world, a world where men and women would be free and equal, where national and racial oppression would be unknown, a world free from want and poverty, where the workers and their children would at last enjoy happiness, security and prosperity. This vision of a fuller, richer and better life held a tremendous appeal for them, but we taught them always to combine the dreams of a brighter future with present-day realities. The new world could not be achieved by wishes alone. It had to be fought for. Hard struggles and great sacrifices would be necessary, but every fight in which we engaged today, every sacrifice we made, every victory we scored, would be a step forward towards the future happiness of all working people. As long as we fought with courage and determination, even our defeats would be a source of inspiration to others. Throughout the years, we told the workers that we were fighting not only for higher wages and shorter hours, but also for a happier life. They should not be considered merely as factory hands, suffering poverty and hardship from the cradle to the grave. We were fighting for their right to live as free citizens in their own land, assured of decent living conditions, security and social justice.

The farm girls responded magnificently. They were militant, courageous rebels, unshackled by middle-class traditions and upbringing. Generous, friendly and still full of youthful exuberance, they had not yet become corrupted by highly paid jobs, bureaucracy and respectability. They truly had nothing to lose but the chains of their poverty and the whole world to gain. They had not yet any clear idea of what this new world would be, or how it could be achieved. They had never heard of socialism and, even today, few are acquainted with socialist theory and principles. In 1934, when Johanna Cornelius, the most illustrious of the Voortrekkers' daughters, was sent as a workers' delegate to the Soviet Union, she did not know who Lenin was. But they soon learnt. The world they lived in was cruel and unbearable. A better world could be won and it was up to them to fight for it and to win it.

In 1935 Johanna Cornelius was elected president of the union and nearly all the members of the new central executive committee were Afrikaner women. Seven years of struggle had transformed scores of simple farm girls into organisers and leaders. A man Peter Scheepers succeeded Johanna, but he lasted only one year and was succeeded in turn by Anna Elizabeth Scheepers (no relative), who has been repeatedly re-elected by the members and still holds the position of president.

A trade union must have the greatest measure of efficiency and democracy to attain maximum success in its work. How to combine the two, how to act effectively and with promptness and, at the same time, carry out the wishes of the members, is a problem which even many old-established trade unions have failed to solve. Some unions have a most efficient machine and a very high standard of business administration, but the mass of membership is not consulted on important matters and, in the course of time, such unions inevitably become bureaucratic and soulless and lose the confidence of their members. On the other hand, there are trade unions with very democratic constitutions, where every question of importance has to be decided by a cumbersome process of ballots and con­ferences. In many trade unions, leading officials become entrenched in their positions and exercise dictatorial powers. These officials and the coteries which they build up around them argue that trade union leaders need greater security, as they will find it extremely difficult to obtain employment with private employers once they have to give up their positions. There is some logic in that argument, but experience has shown that workers and trade unions may, in their turn, require protection against their own officials, when the latter become too dictatorial. In framing the constitution of the Garment Workers' Union, the leaders, in consultation with the rank and file, succeeded in combining democracy with efficiency. The central executive committee had full control over the affairs of the union, but the general membership had the power, not only to control and direct the work of the committee, but to remove any member, or even the entire committee, as well as the general secretary, from office.

In terms of the constitution, the general secretary was merely a glorified clerk. In practice, he played a very important part. A competent technical staff of secretaries and bookkeepers under his supervision, as defined in the constitution, frequently carried out his duties. Many trade union secretaries spend far too much time on purely administrative matters, which can be done more quickly and more efficiently by others, who are specially trained for these tasks. A trade union secretary must be a leader and a teacher. He must help to make policy, but never try to become the master of the members. He must remain their servant. And that was what I always tried to be. We rarely, if ever, deliberately transgressed any provision of the constitution, but we paid little or no attention to it in our daily work. We insisted that the members must scrupulously honour agreements entered into with employers. They had every right to refuse to make agreements, but once they were made, there must be no transgression on our part. We demanded that the employers observed all the provisions of agree­ments and the employers had the right to expect the same from us.

Real trade union democracy means more than merely inserting a provision in the constitution that members shall decide questions by majority vote. The closest and most effective contact must be maintained between the officials and the members to ascertain the real wishes of the workers. And it is necessary to inform members fully of the issues on which they have to make decisions and to arouse their interest. Printed circulars, however attractively drafted and designed, are inadequate.

It was easy to establish personal contact between officials and members of our union. Everybody could call at the head office at any time and interview the general secretary, the president, or any organiser. Hundreds of individual members, and often-entire factories, would call at the union office and invariably receive prompt attention. Most people hate waiting in queues and we always took great care to make the workers feel at home. If tea was served to the staff, the callers were invited to have a cup as well. We never missed an opportunity of telling our members that the offices were theirs and that the officials were paid by them to look after their interests. This informality and friendliness was deeply appre­ciated by the workers and helped to stimulate their faith in the union and their respect for the officials.

The central executive committee, the supreme body of the union, consisted of thirty-two members, and we always tried to make it representative of all sections, co-opting members if any section failed to secure representation at elections. The committee met weekly and business was conducted efficiently. Meetings seldom lasted longer than two hours and special, all-day meetings were c alled to deal with problems which required lengthy discussion.

The central executive committee was too small to speak for all the workers and general meetings, which were often attended by three to four thousand members, were too large for a full exchange of views. Shop stewards were elected in all factories by secret ballot and their meetings, which were generally held on Saturday mornings, had attendances ranging from three hundred to six hundred. Agendas were sent out in advance and, at these meetings, their elected representatives clearly and correctly expressed the true feelings of the mass of workers. The meetings usually lasted about three hours and as many as fifty, speakers could take part in discussions.

Our general meetings were the envy of the trade union movement. Weeks in advance, union officials would visit factories, hold meetings and discuss items on the agenda with members and distribute leaflets in which the business of the meeting was explained. The industrial agreements for the industry contained a provision compelling employers to admit union officials to their factories on union business. Often open-air meetings in factory areas would be held, which the workers readily attended.

We had learnt from experience that our members never showed the slightest interest in administrative matters. The constitution provided that audited balance sheets had to be submitted to general meetings half-yearly and, later, yearly. I have read and explained balance sheets at more than forty general meetings; invariably the workers sat there bored stiff, never once asking a question about the finances of the union but waiting impatiently for the economic and political discussion to begin. Once the balance sheet and profit and loss account were disposed of the meeting would really come to life. Many trade unions kill their meetings by spending too much time on these routine matters. We also learnt that general meetings had to finish within an hour and a half or the members would start walking out, so we kept our agendas as short as possible.

In spite of the modern technique we applied in calling meetings and the huge attendances we attracted, there were large numbers who failed to turn up and a little prodding became necessary. The members who came regularly were annoyed with those who did not and passed resolutions that fines be imposed on those who failed to attend unless they had a reasonable excuse which they had sent in writing before the meeting began. We were amazed to find that there was little resentment at this drastic measure, and hundreds of workers brought their fines of half-crowns or five shillings to the office for not attending without an excuse. We got hundreds-often as many as fifteen hundred-written excuses. The reasons, given were sometimes very funny. We had members who attended their aunt or grandmother's funerals as often as six times. But most excuses were genuine and often the writers expressed deep loyalty to the union and a pledge to abide by any decision taken. Every letter was answered.

Until the Nationalists started their disruptive activities, we were one large, happy family, with the most cordial relations between the members and officials. The workers, especially the women, were very easy to get along with. They were pleasant, extremely well-behaved and always anxious to avoid trouble. They came to us with their problems and appreciated civility and a sympathetic hearing far more than practical service. Once they got their troubles off their chests, they were quite happy and did not worry any more whether we took action or not. It was a common practice for working mothers to bring their children to shop stewards' meetings. The youngsters were fascinated. They watched the proceedings with rapt interest and frequently joined in applauding the speakers. I often told the mothers that it was our duty to build a happy South Africa, free from poverty and hatred, if not for ourselves, at least for the coming generations, and the presence of the young ones gave added weight to my appeal.

Two of the most popular organisers of the union were Margaret Malan and Sannie van Wyk. Both were women of the motherly type, who had them experienced years of hardship. The workers came to them with all their troubles, even personal ones. Both women would chat, laugh, scold, advise, and the members loved them. Their written reports were "strange", but what they lacked in secretarial efficiency was more than balanced by their human qualities.

Members could also bring their personal problems to the head office of the union and, over the years, I listened to thousands of tales of woe from hard-working, decent women, whose lives were full of troubles. Members were entitled to free legal advice from the solicitors engaged by the union and this service proved of great benefit to workers, many of whom were constantly involved with the law.

The training of leaders from the ranks of the workers presented great difficulties. Many had fairly good schooling in Afrikaans, but the business side of the union, such as preparing memoranda, negotiating with employers, drafting press statements, had to be conducted in English. There were no books in Afrikaans dealing with the problems of workers. The working day was long and tiring and, when it ended, the workers were too worn out to study in the little time they had left after their household work was done. In 1934 Johanna Cornelius showed the most promise among the rank-and-file workers of becoming a leader, but when I suggested that she should be taken out of the factory and engaged as a full-time official of the union, there was little enthusiasm among the committee for my suggestion. Johanna herself was not keen and felt that her place was in the factory, or on the picket line. She was a first-rate speaker and not afraid to go to prison in the cause of her fellow- workers, but she was not interested in office routine, and even afraid of it. Finally I persuaded her to try, but before she would agree she laid down her own conditions: firstly, her salary must not exceed the £2 10s. a week which she earned in the factory, and secondly, she wanted to be free to give up her job as union organiser and return to the factory at any time she chose.

Johanna and the other rank-and-file women who were later appointed or elected to full-time positions in the union had to prepare memoranda, write letters, issue press statements, study the clumsily-drafted labour laws of South Africa, take minutes, issue reports-in short, do all the union work. Their devotion to the cause of labour and their integrity helped them to overcome all obstacles and made them understand that, only by learning and hard work, could they become real leaders. Today women like Johanna Cornelius, Anna Scheepers, Katie Viljoen and Dulcie Hartwell are amongst the best-known and most respected trade union leaders in South Africa.

This shows the admiration, and even affection, which some employers have for the leaders of the union incident. When I was in New York in 1946, I called on the managing director of one of the largest shipping companies with offices in South Africa, who had substantial interests in the South African clothing industry. His first question to me, in Afrikaans-he was born in the Free State and spoke English with a marked Afrikaans accent-was: "How goes it with my old friend, Johanna Cornelius? She led many strikes in my factory and gave me many headaches, but she is a real fine woman of character and courage". He then took out a box of nylon stockings from his desk and asked me to give them to her on my return "as a token of esteem".

In many countries, trade unions are divided between "left" and "right" and much time and energy are spent on witch-hunts. Many trade union leaders, some of international repute, are more interested in denouncing militants than in fighting for their members. By and large, our union was spared the strife arising from this division. Before 1928, the union, like many others, had been affiliated to the South African Labour Party. Between 1928 and 1947, our attitude to the Labour Party, while in the main sympa­thetic, yet varied according to the policy pursued by the leaders. We usually supported the party financially and organisationally during elections, but when the leaders pursued an anti-working class policy, we did not hesitate to fight openly and vigorously against them. Thus, in 1941, when Walter Madeley, then leader of the party and Minister of Labour in Smuts's Government, introduced a new Factories Bill, which gave the workers no protection, our union led a national campaign against him and his new measure and received widespread support.

At a general meeting of the union, held at the City Hall, Johannesburg, on Tuesday, July 22nd, 1947, it was resolved to-affiliate to the South African Labour Party. Only two out of about four thousand voted against. I disagreed with the Labour Party on many fundamental issues, but I whole-heartedly supported affiliation. A political home had to be found for the thousands of Afrikaner workers who, although Nationalists at heart, became increasingly convinced that the leaders of the Nationalist Party were their enemies. Today South African workers are paying a terrible price for the stupid and cowardly attitude of many trade union leaders, who have failed to educate the workers, especially the Afrikaner workers, politically. Over the years, the majority of the trade union leaders obstinately pursued a policy of "no politics in the trade union movement". This would be wrong in any country, but in South Africa it was disastrous and played right into the hands of the Nationalist Party which, for the last twenty years, has been plotting the destruction of the trade union movement. Hundreds of thousands of Afrikaner workers, loyal trade unionists and potential supporters of the Labour Party, receive their political education almost exclusively from the Nationalists. Every attempt we of the Garment Workers' Union made to bring the Afrikaner workers into the Labour Party was bitterly opposed by the Nationalists and the conservative trade union leaders. It will probably take many years to free the white workers of South Africa from their racial intolerance, but the majority of them, whose votes are decisive in any general election, could be weaned away from the Nationalist Party. The rest of the South African trade unions should follow the example of the Garment Workers' Union, educate the workers politically and, like the trade unions of Britain, build a strong Labour Party, which large numbers of Afrikaner workers could be persuaded to join. Such a policy will not solve all of South Africa's problems, but could play a decisive part in ousting the reactionary, fascist Nationalist Government.

Although officials of the union actively worked for the Labour Party, and Johanna Cornelius and Anna Scheepers and I fought elections as party candidates, we never attempted to interfere with members whose political views differed from ours. In twenty-five years, we took disciplinary measures against few members and expelled only eight for disruptive activities, but we never dis­criminated against those who supported the Nationalist Party, the Communist Party (which was proscribed in 1950), or the United Party. On the other hand, except when prompted by outsiders, our members did not raise any objections to our affiliation to the Labour Party or to the support we gave that party.

In our relations with trade union and labour organisations abroad, we pursued a similar policy of "friendship with all". We gladly accepted invitations from the Soviet trade unions and about six of our workers visited the U.S.S.R. We later reciprocated the kindness and hospitality of the Russian workers by raising over £6,000 towards medical aid for Russia during the Second World War. We would have been happy to accept invitations from the trade unions of other countries, with which we always maintained cordial relations. I personally was shown much kindness by the International Ladies' Garment Workers of the United States, the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the garment workers of France, Italy, Switzerland and Canada. The garment workers of Holland received some of our leaders with great hospitality.

It is with regret that I must record that the leaders of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers of Britain proved the exception and showed no friendliness either towards me or any other officials of our union. Hundreds of British tailors and garment workers came to South Africa after the war. We welcomed them with open arms but also found them jobs, helped them to get accommodation, and looked after them in every way. I spent many long hours advising those whose contracts of employment were not properly drawn up and I can assure British workers, who intend emigrating to South Africa, that our union officials and staff will always be glad to be of help to them.

During the past three years, I have visited almost every industrial centre in Britain to lecture on South African problems. Everywhere I was received with the utmost friendliness and hospitality. I shall never forget the warmth and comradeship of the miners of South Wales and Scotland, of the textile workers of Yorkshire, of the leaders of the Union of Shop and Distributive Workers, of the Association of Engineers and Draughtsmen, the engineers of Sheffield and of scores of other trade union, Labour Party and Fabian and women's organisations, and of students and Church bodies. I shall always remember with gratitude the sympathy shown to me by British Labour Members of Parliament and the friendliness of the British press.

I have seen a good deal of the activities and methods of work of the British trade union movement and of the trade union movement in other countries and, without arrogance; I can say that I feel proud of the Garment Workers' Union of South Africa. I sincerely hope that the union will always remain faithful to its great tradition of militancy and common sense, will continue to combine efficiency with warm-heartedness, and will never lose its spirit of international solidarity.