'Who Ate the Cheese?' The CCMA's collapse and the betrayal of South African workers
When Thandi, a domestic worker in Johannesburg, was unfairly dismissed without severance pay, she turned to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA), a body designed to protect workers like her.
Today, Thandi waits endlessly for justice. The CCMA, once a beacon of post-apartheid labour reform, is collapsing under maladministration, corruption, and the deafening silence of those meant to safeguard it.
A Legislative Promise Betrayed Established under Section 112 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and enshrined in Section 23 of the Constitution, the CCMA was created to 'advance economic development, social justice, labour peace, and the democratisation of the workplace.'
As a Schedule 3a entity under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), it is mandated to operate independently, free from political, union, or corporate influence. Its functions, from conciliating disputes to training on labour law, were designed to empower workers. Yet today, the CCMA's doors are closing. Service centres in Black communities—critical for workers without digital access — have shuttered. Walk-in advice desks, once lifelines for the vulnerable, are gone. The nightmare began in late 2020, when budget cuts axed part-time commissioners, stranding thousands of cases. What was framed as a 'temporary measure' has become a permanent injustice.
A Competent Leader, Shackled by Neglect
To blame the CCMA's collapse on institutional incompetence would be a lie. The current Director, Advocate Cameron Morajane, is a seasoned labour law expert with a track record of integrity. Colleagues praise his commitment to fairness and the innovative traits evident in his push for digitising case management and expanding rural outreach.
Yet even the most capable leader cannot perform miracles without resources. The Director's hands are tied. With a stagnant budget and a 40% reduction in part-time commissioners since 2020, his team is forced to triage cases. 'We're firefighting, not fireproofing,' a staffer admitted anonymously.
The Director's proposals for sustainable funding models, including public-private partnerships, gather dust in Treasury offices. Competence means little when the system is designed to fail. Who Benefits from the CCMA's Decline? The answer lies in who 'ate the cheese.' While workers suffer, employers flout labour laws with impunity. Unfair dismissals, retrenchments, and workplace exploitation surge as the CCMA buckles.
Yet the state, led by former trade unionists, turns a blind eye. These leaders rode to power on the backs of workers like Thandi, but now preside over the erosion of their rights. Equally culpable are South Africa's labour federations, who sit on the CCMA's board through Nedlac, earning lucrative fees while workers starve.
Their silence is deafening. Where is the outrage over closed service centres? Where is the demand for accountability? Their inaction suggests complicity in a system where justice is rationed for the privileged.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
MKP stands by Chief Whip Makhubele as Ndhlela is confirmed fired
MKP parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe and Chief Whip Colleen Makhubele during a press briefing at Parliament. Image: Armand Hough The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) has confirmed that Colleen Makhubele remains firmly in her position as Chief Whip, despite purported suggestions of a petition calling for her removal. At a press briefing held in Parliament on Thursday, MKP parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe said it was false that a letter had been sent to party president Jacob Zuma to oust Makhubele. 'There is no letter, there is no petition, in terms of which MPs are calling for the head of the Chief Whip. This is a figment of someone's imagination,' said Hlophe. The party said recent internal changes, including the removal of spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela from its whippery, were strategic and administrative, not evidence of factionalism. Hlophe said the MKP is reorienting itself towards legislative impact and preparing constitutional amendments, including a proposed revision of Section 235 of the Constitution, which relates to self-determination. 'We don't believe South Africa belongs to just anyone who lives here,' Hlophe said. 'You must be a citizen of this country before you can say, 'I am a South African'. You can't visit here for two weeks and say, 'I love Constantia, I live here now, I must benefit'. We are bringing serious amendments to the Constitution, and that means realignment of internal parliamentary functions.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading On the matter of the former deputy whip, Ndhlela, who contested his removal, Hlophe confirmed that a termination letter had been sent and received. 'Initially, he said he hadn't received the letter. When it became clear that he had, he changed the story and said the signature on the letter was forged. I can confirm that the letter came from my office.' Makhubele said the rumours had caused unnecessary disruption and she expressed disappointment at how the matter played out publicly. Responding to the rumoured petition against her, Makhubele said: 'There is no such letter. I haven't seen it. The caucus hasn't seen it. We're coming from a caucus meeting, and we're all shocked. It has dented our image, and we want to ensure this never happens again.' She emphasised that the MKP caucus is made up of members from diverse political backgrounds but unified under one constitutional vision. 'All of us, whether we came from COPE, ACDP, the DA or the Patriotic Alliance, have aligned ourselves with the MK Party constitution and the people's mandate,' she said. The party also introduced its new portfolio leaders, described as equivalent to shadow ministers, who will lead on key areas such as public service, land reform, and economic transformation. Makhubele said the MKP's legislative priorities will include land expropriation without compensation, decolonisation of the economy, and constitutional recognition of traditional leaders.
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Mail & Guardian
Editorial: Retirement a daunting prospect
With soaring costs of living and priority given to paying off debts, fewer people are putting away adequate amounts that might one day give them the option of stepping away from full-time employment. No other area of society is as burdened with antiquated ideas as retirement. Much of the world has operated on the same broad outlines that were established more than a century ago. South Africa, despite its well-respected Constitution and legal frameworks, is no exception. Our journalist, Lyse Comins, That is a dreadful proposition to many later in life, with reliance on family and drastic cost-cutting becoming the only alternatives. Compounding the issue is that employees over a certain age are often compelled to retire. While the Constitution is clear on discrimination, and non-government workers can't be forced to retire, it is a norm for employers to insert a contractual clause that enables it in practice. It's a policy that can be traced back to the 1800s. In a bid to undercut Marxism, German statesman Otto von Bismarck proposed that anyone over the age of 70 must retire and be given a government pension. We know better in 2025. We live healthier lives than at any other point in human history. We have an abundance of research indicating that staying physically and mentally active is good for us. Those who remain active in the workforce after 65 are also a benefit to the economy. Make no mistake, however, that reality does not justify depriving people of the dignity of making a choice when the time comes. And the issue is that for increasing numbers, it's becoming a non-choice. The early evidence suggests that the Two-Pot system introduced last year is a positive development. While some confusion persists, policyholders have been able to get emergency funds while still protecting their long-term financial health. But what South Africa still requires is policies or incentives that encourage saving in the first place. The barrier to entry is often too daunting: in addition to debilitating economic circumstances, poor financial literacy rates make it difficult to know where to begin We need creative thinking and solutions. Plenty of both have been theorised — they simply require the courage to implement. One such idea is the Save More Tomorrow plan designed by economists Shlomo Benartzi and Richard Thaler. In essence, it would see retirement contributions kick in on increases to the salary that employees receive from the point it is adopted. This would sidestep the painful consideration we all face of putting money aside for an uncertain future. There are countless other good proposals out there. But they have to begin with us thinking differently about retirement.
eNCA
2 days ago
- eNCA
US Supreme Court to weigh transgender athlete bans
The US Supreme Court agreed on Thursday to wade into the hot-button issue of transgender athletes in girls and women's sports. The court said it would hear a case next term challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female competition. More than two dozen US states have passed laws in recent years barring athletes who were assigned male at birth from taking part in girls or women's sports. The conservative-dominated Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes two weeks after it upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical treatment for transgender minors. The Supreme Court has also recently backed a move by President Donald Trump, who campaigned on the issue of transgender athletes, to have transgender troops dismissed from the military. Trump issued an executive order in February aimed at banning transgender athletes from girls and women's sports. "From now on women's sports will be only for women," Trump said. "With this executive order the war on women's sports is over." The executive order allows federal agencies to deny funding to schools that allow transgender athletes to compete on girls or women's teams. In a high-profile case, the University of Pennsylvania agreed this week to ban transgender athletes from its women's sports teams, settling a federal civil rights case stemming from the furor around swimmer Lia Thomas. The Department of Education said that UPenn had entered into a resolution agreement vowing to comply with Title IX, the federal law which prohibits sex-based discrimination in any educational program. It follows an investigation by the department's Office for Civil Rights which found the university had violated Title IX by allowing transgender swimmer Thomas to compete in women's competitions. Thomas became a lightning rod around the debate over transgender athletes in women's sport after competing in female collegiate competitions in 2022. She had earlier swam on UPenn's men's team while undergoing hormone replacement therapy. Critics and some fellow swimmers said she should not have been allowed to compete against women due to an unfair physiological advantage. The Idaho case accepted by the Supreme Court stems from the Republican-led state's "Fairness in Women's Sports Act." It was challenged by an athlete at an Idaho university and lower courts ruled that it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The West Virginia case was challenged by a middle school student who was not allowed to compete for the girls' track team. An appeals court ruled that the ban was a violation of Title IX. The Supreme Court will hear the case during the term beginning in October and issue a ruling next year.
