logo
Unions treat govt as an endless ATM

Unions treat govt as an endless ATM

News2417-06-2025
The Transnet wage deal shows that unions prefer protecting their members' privileges over the economic well-being of the country, writes Busisiwe Mavuso.
• For more financial news, go to the News24 Business front page.
I was astounded to see news last week of Transnet's capitulation to union strike threats, agreeing to give workers 6% pay rises in each of the next three years. This agreement represents a failure of leadership on both sides – militant unions holding the country hostage with strike threats, and management caving to their demands without a fight.
While South African businesses slash costs and workers face retrenchments, Transnet workers will get pay rises that are double the inflation rate, funded by taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet. Inflation is running at 2.7% and the economy is expected to only grow 1.4% this year. The news came days after National Treasury had agreed to give Transnet additional guarantees to enable it to manage its huge debt pile.
In the private sector, the bleak economic outlook is leading to severe belt-tightening. Managers everywhere are having to find ways to save and try to hoard cash to be able to trade through tough conditions. Inevitably, some firms are going to fail, and workers will find themselves out of a job. Yet the unions threatened to bring the entire logistics network to a standstill unless their excessive demands were met, showing complete disregard for the economic factors that affect us all.
It is even more shocking when you consider the role Transnet plays in perpetuating our economic predicament. Transnet's poor performance has been a major contributor to our dismal growth outlook. Stellenbosch University professor Jan Havenga has estimated that Transnet costs the economy R1 billion every day thanks to its poor performance in moving goods around the country and out through our ports. That is equivalent to wiping out the entire annual budget of a midsize municipality every day. It equates to about 5% of GDP.
The unions are acting as if we live in a world we haven't seen for 15 years, when growth was running at over 5% and government boasted a budget surplus. Instead, we live in a world where Goodyear Tyres has just let go of over 900 workers after having to shut its 78-year-old plant in the Eastern Cape, affecting thousands more jobs down the value chain. Where SAB is engaging with unions about retrenching workers across its operations. Where mines across the country are retrenching thousands because they cannot get their output to the markets. In many of these cases, union action at Transnet is a direct contributor to this job carnage.
The failure here is twofold: unions' refusal to accept performance-linked pay, and management's refusal to insist on it. If workers were to get increases indexed to Transnet's performance, we could support these. Bonuses could be tied to improvements in volumes shipped through ports and on rails, or specific metrics like international port efficiency rankings, which currently put SA's ports among the worst in the world.. Instead, the unions demanded guaranteed increases regardless of whether Transnet improves its service delivery.
This represents a toxic dynamic where unions treat the state as an endless ATM. Private sector unions understand that companies must remain viable to protect jobs, but Transnet's unions can make unreasonable demands knowing that management cannot afford to have their suboptimal operations interrupted as this will put a further strain on the economy Worse still, they've secured additional job security guarantees in this wage agreement, further limiting Transnet's flexibility to restructure and improve performance.
The unions know exactly what they're doing. They understand that by threatening strikes at Transnet, they can hold the entire economy hostage. They know that government will always cave rather than face the economic disruption of a logistics shutdown. This is economic blackmail, pure and simple, and taxpayers are footing the bill while the economy suffers.
Firmer stance needed
I've written many times about the solutions we need for Transnet, including private sector investment and competition. But as long as militant unions can veto any meaningful reform through strike threats, we'll remain trapped in this cycle of poor performance and endless bailouts. The unions have made it clear they prefer protecting their members' privileges over the economic well-being of the country.
The wage settlement shows just how unhelpful these unions can become to South Africa's economic prospects. We need government to finally take a firmer stance. National Treasury must demand that any future bailouts come with strict conditions that break the unions' stranglehold over Transnet's operations. Treasury must insist on performance metrics as strict as those facing any private company seeking bailout funds, and the power to override union objections when restructuring is needed.
Business wants to partner with Transnet, but the unions' actions are not helpful, and they do not support the economic recovery we're all trying to achieve. Until government finds a way of confronting union militancy at state-owned enterprises, taxpayers will continue subsidising this destructive cycle while our economy stagnates. The unions need to be called upon to contribute to solutions of rebuilding our economy rather than exacerbating its challenges.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Economy Updates: After a Weak Jobs Report, Trump Fires That Agency's Commissioner
Economy Updates: After a Weak Jobs Report, Trump Fires That Agency's Commissioner

New York Times

time2 hours ago

  • New York Times

Economy Updates: After a Weak Jobs Report, Trump Fires That Agency's Commissioner

President Trump said on social media on Friday that he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were 'rigged' and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month. In a long post on social media, Mr. Trump said he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis in 2024. Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner for the bureau, confirmed late Friday that Dr. McEntarfer had been fired and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as acting commissioner. The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump's policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was 'doing GREAT!' Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, echoed Mr. Trump's concerns about Dr. McEntarfer in a post on social media. 'So you know what I did?' Mr. Trump later told reporters, as he claimed the numbers were 'phony.' 'I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing.' Dr. McEntarfer was appointed to her post by President Joseph R. Biden Jr. in 2023 after a long career at the Census Bureau and other agencies, where she served under presidents of both parties, including Mr. Trump. Among the Republicans who voted to confirm her as commissioner was Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator. The firing prompted swift criticism from economists, former government officials and others, who said the removal would further erode trust in government statistics and make it more difficult for policymakers, investors and businesses, who rely on having dependable data about the economy to make decisions. In addition to the monthly jobs numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for producing data on inflation, wages and other aspects of the economy. William W. Beach, who led the bureau during Mr. Trump's first term, criticized the move to fire Dr. McEntarfer on Friday. 'It's unfortunate,' he said. 'This could set a precedent where bad news on many different fronts is a reason for dismissing a person.' Mr. Beach, who was appointed by Mr. Trump in 2019 and remained in the role for the first two years of the Biden administration, said he had never felt pressure to manipulate the data under either president. Even if there were such pressure, he said, there is 'no way' the commissioner could interfere in the revisions process, which is conducted by career employees. Erica Groshen, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, called the decision 'a terrible precedent.' 'I hope will be reversed because it undermines the integrity of our statistical system and really all of government data and science,' she added, calling it 'a very sad day.' Dr. McEntarfer's tenure got off to a rough start last year when the agency made a series of missteps in which Wall Street firms had access to data before the general public. But none of those incidents involved issues with the statistics themselves. Mr. Trump and his top aides have made a habit of attacking government agencies, researchers and watchdogs when they have produced findings that the president does not like. That has led to concerns that Mr. Trump could seek to interfere with the operations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other statistical agencies, particularly if the economy begins to take a turn for the worse. Until now, however, most experts on the statistical system said they remained confident in the data produced by the agencies and had seen no evidence of political interference in their operations. Current and former agency staff members consistently echoed that message — in part, they said, because they trusted Dr. McEntarfer and her counterparts at the other major statistical agencies to protect their independence. 'If that pressure got too great, you would see people resigning rather than shape the numbers,' Mr. Beach said. Economists across the ideological spectrum said Mr. Trump's move to oust Dr. McEntarfer was likely to erode public confidence in the data published by the administration. 'If you want people to stop trusting the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firing the person who is confirmed by the Senate to make sure those numbers are trustworthy is a real good way to do it,' said Martha Gimbel, the executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, who served in the White House under Mr. Biden. Dr. McEntarfer could not immediately be reached for comment. On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that employers added only 73,000 new jobs in July. It also notably revised data for the previous two months, reducing the number of jobs created by 258,000. While revisions to previous months are common, it was an unusually high number that came as a surprise. It suggested the labor market was not as resilient as it had seemed earlier this summer. Shortly after the numbers were released, Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered an explanation for the jobs revision that was much different from Mr. Trump's. On CNBC, he said much of the change was the result of 'quirks in the seasonal adjustment process' and even the president's own policies, particularly on immigration, potentially affecting hiring numbers for May and June. He made no mention of any concerns about manipulated data as he sought to recast the slowdown in July as a 'pretty decent' jobs report. By evening, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, sought to frame the firing as an attempt to restore 'trust' at the statistics agency. Unlike Mr. Trump, who described the revisions as politically motivated, Mr. Hassett said its jobs figures had been 'awful' for some time. 'I think it is a good time for a fresh set of eyes to look at what the heck is going on,' he told Fox Business. In his social media posts on Friday, Mr. Trump provided no evidence that Dr. McEntarfer had injected political bias into her agency's data. And his criticisms contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Mr. Trump complained about not just the latest jobs numbers but also a set of revisions from last year. The bureau, like other statistical agencies, routinely updates its figures to incorporate data that wasn't initially available or to reflect information from more authoritative sources. Last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said employers had added roughly 818,000 fewer jobs over a 12-month period than previously believed. That announcement was part of a normal annual revision process, although the change was unusually large. (It was also preliminary — the final figures were revised down by just under 600,000 jobs.) In a social media post on Friday, Mr. Trump said the revision was made 'right after the election.' In fact, the announcement was made roughly two and a half months before Election Day. Indeed, Mr. Trump posted about the revisions at the time, calling them a 'MASSIVE SCANDAL.' To the agency's defenders, however, the twin revisions show that it operates without political bias and was willing to announce politically inconvenient news under presidents of both parties. 'President Trump is completely wrong in asserting there's been any sort of anti-Trump bias in the labor market data,' said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'I think that assertion is wholly unsupported.' Mr. Strain said that government data is revised frequently, and that doing so reflected a 'standard' practice to ensure its quality. In this case, he acknowledged that the change was 'historically large' but 'doesn't smell fishy.' Federal statistical agencies have faced mounting challenges in recent years as Americans have become more reluctant to respond to the surveys that are the basis for much of the nation's economic data. Shrinking budgets have made it harder to make up for falling response rates, and to develop new approaches to replace surveys altogether. Those concerns predate the current administration, but have grown worse since Mr. Trump returned to office. The statistical agencies have struggled with staff attrition as a result of the president's freeze on federal hiring, combined with the buyouts he offered early in his term. The president's budget also proposed further staff and funding cuts. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was reducing its collection of data on consumer prices in response to resource constraints. Economists warned that, over time, such cuts could erode the reliability of the inflation data that Federal Reserve policymakers rely on when setting interest rates, and that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits, among other uses. Asked about those cuts on Wednesday, Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, said policymakers were 'getting the data that we need to do our jobs.' But he stressed the importance of the federal statistical agencies. 'The government data is really the gold standard in data,' he said. 'We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it.' Sydney Ember contributed reporting.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store