Published date
Related Collections from the Archive
When I returned to South Africa in March 1933, I found the stillness of the grave in the union office. The mass of workers in the factory section had lost interest in the union and were comÂpletely demoralised. The few hundred members who had borne the brunt of the struggle were exhausted. In the bespoke section, the majority of the workers continued paying the union contributions, but there was widespread apathy. The prolonged and bitter struggle, however, had thrown up a small group of Afrikaner women workers, at the head of whom stood Johanna Cornelius, who were prepared to do all they could to rebuild the union. For a few weeks, hardly any members called at the office, and it was almost impossible to address workers in the factories. The employers were bitterly hostile and active trade unionists suffered badly from victimisation.
The union resolved on two lines of action. First, we started injecting life and activity into the bespoke section, which had not taken any direct part in the strike, and undertook an energetic campaign to enforce the provisions of the agreement. This led to several successful prosecutions, whilst substantial amounts of back pay were also collected without court action. Every little victory helped to re-establish confidence and inspire hope.
In the factory section, a lengthy appeal was addressed to individual workers at their homes, and this was followed by numerous home visits. Officials and volunteers visited over four hundred workers' homes, and everywhere the representatives of the union were cordially received. Hundreds of workers, who had left the union, rejoined, and many of them soon became active again. Like many other countries, South Africa began to recover from the depression and, when the country went off the gold standard at the end of 1932, industrial development was stimulated. New factories sprang up and some of the older ones expanded production. This improved the employment position and made the workers a little more independent.
When the Britten arbitration award expired in 1933, negotiations were started between the union and the employers for a new agreement. We felt that time could wipe out the feeling of hostility between the employers and the union, which had been created by the strike, but some employers resolutely refused all dealings with the union. Gradually, however, the atmosphere became friendlier and the employers offered a five per cent increase in wages on the scale laid down in the arbitration award. The representatives of the union pressed for a return to the old wage scale, but the employers were adamant. I had come to the conclusion that it was far more important to rebuild the union than to try to obtain a five per cent increase for, once the union was strong again, we would be in a position to demand higher wages and better conditions. I also knew that any improvement we could secure for the workers would have a tremendous effect on they morale and would inspire confidence in the union once again. Above all, I was quite convinced that we had neither the forces nor the means with which to start another strike. The majority of the central executive committee, including Johanna Cornelius, opposed my advice and insisted that we should take strike action. The union has always been based on true democratic principles and we decided to call a general meeting and let the members decide whether to accept the offer of the employers or to go on strike for a ten per cent increase. About four hundred members attended and both points of view were fully discussed. A secret ballot was taken and, by a majority of more than two to one, the meeting decided to accept the employers' offer. An agreement was entered into and, once the workers saw that the union could still further their interests, they started flocking back. Within six months, about ninety per cent of the workers, over three thousand altogether, were members of the union.
On July 16th, 1934, the members of the Bespoke Tailoring Section seceded from the Garment Workers' Union and registered a union of their own, known as the Tailoring Workers' Industrial Union. There were several reasons for the breakaway. The most active members in the factory section, consisting almost entirely of young Afrikaner women v/ho had played a leading role in the two general strikes and in many other disputes, began to find the "paternal" attitude of the men in the bespoke section irksome and unbearable. On the other hand, the men were overburdened with difficulties of their own and could no longer be bothered with the numerous problems of the factory section. At joint general meetings, the women workers often felt disgusted with the attitude of the tailoring workers, who were habitually bickering and frequently engaged in petty quarrels, without giving due attention to the business on the agenda. There were also many personal intrigues, which are not worth recording. The workers in the bespoke tailoring industry had a different background and different traditions from those in the clothing section and their industrial agreements provided for higher rates of pay and better conditions generally than the agreements for the clothing industry. Matters came to a head when Johanna Cornelius and a large group of shop stewards from the factory section advised me that, unless the two sections separated, the shop stewards would resign, as they would no longer tolerate the intrigues and quarrels of the bespoke workers. By mutual agreement, the clothing section took over the union and the tailoring section was given an adequate amount of the union's funds to enable it to start on its own. In the main, both sections benefited from the secession, as it allowed each group of workers to devote all their attention to their respective problems. In subsequent years, the relationship between the Tailoring Workers' Industrial Union and the Garment Workers' Union has been, in the main, cordial and co-operative. There have been minor conflicts between the two bodies, but they never assumed serious proportions or lasted very long.
In 1934 a new era began for the clothing industry and for the workers. The economic position of the country had improved considerably and secondary industries began to attract large capital investments. A number of large, up-to-date factories were built and the modern capitalist employers began to play a leading role in the industry. They realised that they could not build an industry, make profits and pay dividends by pilfering from the workers' wages; the more intelligent ones also saw that the industry would never develop satisfactorily by producing shoddy garments and that the quality of production would have to be improved considerably if they were to find buyers. Their attitude to the union and to the workers changed too. Strikes and disputes are very costly for the employer and the advantages of having contented workers soon became apparent. These new capitalists were anxious to eliminate unfair competitors and to stop the practices of the unscrupulous employers who thrived by robbing their workers. The cut-make-and-trim manufacturers, who accepted very low contract rates from merchants, were also in unfair competition with the big manufacturers, and the union, in co-operation with the employers' associaÂtion, helped the cut-make-and-trim people to organise and secure fair contract rates.
The union did not abandon its militant policy, but decided to take advantage of the new circumstances and make full use of conciliation in order to secure the maximum benefits for the workers. The Industrial Council for the Clothing Industry, which had ceased to function during the strike of 1932 was re-established and in due course the conciliation machinery for the industry began to operate extremely well. The employers' representatives on the council were as determined to enforce the provisions of the agreement and to eliminate underpayments as the union. Indeed, for several years, while still secretary of the union, I was appointed director of the council, with power to enforce observance of all the provisions of the agreement.
Most of the employers now adopted a friendly attitude towards the union and gave union officials help in the organisation of the workers and in the collection of contributions.
Within a few years, a closed shop provision was inserted in the agreement. Much criticism, most of it based on ignorance, has been leveled against the closed shop. The attitude of the workers, who are members of unions, in the matter is simple and logical. They say:
We, through our efforts, struggles and sacrifice, have secured improved conditions, from which all workers in the industry benefit. We would never have succeeded if we had not had a strong union. Our union is democratic and under the direct control of the membership. We, therefore, expect every worker to become a member. A worker has a perfect right to refuse to join, but we, on our part, also have the same right to refuse to work with him.
The closed shop provision never caused the slightest trouble to the workers or employers in the clothing industry. Indeed, the employers preferred to deal with an organised body and not to be bothered with individual members, and the only violent opposition to the closed shop principle emanated not from employers, but from the Nationalist Party. In 1949, Mr. B. J. Schoeman, the Nationalist Minister of Labour, refused to gazette an agreement for the clothing industry because it contained a closed shop provision. We were not in the least perturbed and advised the employers that we were quite prepared to have the agreement gazetted without the closed shop provision, but the employers insisted on its inclusion. At about the same time, a number of workers, under the influence of Nationalists, began to make mischief in the ranks of the union. The central executive committee of the union issued a circular to all members, advising them that those who did not wish to be members of the union were free to resign and that the union would not enforce the closed shop provision. Not one member resigned.
The union or the council promptly attended to workers' complaints and this helped to establish and increase the confidence of the workers in the union. On the other hand, the making of agreements always presented difficulties. Many of the employers have often proved generous, as individuals, but as a body their loyalty to class interests dominated their outlook. Since 1934, about twenty industrial agreements have been made between the Garment Workers' Union and the Transvaal Clothing Manufacturers' Association. The agreements were usually for one year and, on almost every occasion; negotiations broke down because of the employers' adamant attitude. When the terms of an agreement were accepted it was nearly always under the threat of strike action.
The Garment Workers' Union may claim, with every justification, to have had the "best of two worlds". We are very proud of the numerous strikes we led in the past and of our militant tradition; but we are also not ashamed of having taken full advantage of conciliation and the labour laws of the country. Leaders of the union continually impressed on the workers the need for building a great industry and for producing garments of good quality and workmanship; on the other hand, we always demanded a just share for our members in the prosperity which their efforts had helped to create.
The Industrial Council for the Clothing Industry, Transvaal, became a model of efficiency in preventing and settling disputes. Several full-time inspectors were employed and paid by the Council to inspect wage registers and to enforce strict observance of agreements. Disputes were dealt with promptly and efficiently. Complaints Sub-Committee was elected by the Council to deal with all minor disputes and this body would meet regularly, often at an hour's notice, to hear complaints from workers and employers. Red tape and legal technicalities were eliminated and the parties to the dispute invariably accepted the decisions of the committee. In case of a deadlock on the committee or where a question of principle was involved, the matter would be referred to a full council meeting. The union and the employers' association Co-operated to promote peace and the welfare of the industry generally.
From 1936 onwards employer-employee relationship in the industry was excellent, and there was all-round progress. Workers' efficiency and productivity increased enormously, factory organisation improved, the industry began to produce better quality garments and all connected with the industry began to feel that we were entering a period of prosperity, progress and peace.
Our hopes for a peaceful future were soon dashed to the ground when two problems peculiar to South Africa began to make their impact felt upon the industry and the economic life of the country generally.
Large numbers of non-Europeans began to enter the factories, and this brought us face to face with the crucial problem of race relations in industry. This problem, however, was soon resolved to the benefit of Europeans and non-Europeans. The second problem robbed our union, our industry, our entire country, of peace and tranquility. The rise of Nazism in Europe had a tremendous influence on the political development of South Africa, and from 1933 onwards certain sections of the Nationalist Party enthusiastically embraced Nazi philosophy, policy and technique.
The rest of the book is devoted to these two problems. After 1936 the history of the Garment Workers' Union is no longer one of bitter struggles over wages and conditions; our everyday economic problems were solved in a peaceful, unexciting manner. Henceforth, while not neglecting this important aspect of our job as a Trade Union, we had to concentrate all our energy and attention on maintaining racial harmony in the industry and on countering the furious attack of the Nationalists upon our union, the trade union movement as a whole and democracy itself.