The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Yesterday, the Democratic Alliance (DA) proposed an amendment to the Labour Relations Act that would seek to hold unions themselves responsible for damages or offences caused by their members during strike actions. The Young Communist League (YCL) has issued a statement that has revealed the true character of the people that organization chooses to defend: lawbreakers and those who are a discredit to the legitimate strike actions of the majority of workers. The YCL is essentially defending those people who break the law and, in doing so, undermining the right to strike by all those who do not. Their response represents an attack on accountability and the rule of law. They should be ashamed.

In its statement, the YCL said "The violence [is as a] a result of the intransigent attitude demonstrated by Employers or Management who undermine the right of workers to strike and resort to utilising police brutality and violence to avoid proper negotiations and giving workers what they rightfully demand."

As an example, here are some pictures taken after the security unions strike in Cape Town taken by the DA during a strike in 2006 on 16 May of that year:

These were the actions of strikers who ignored the regulations that govern the right to strike and damaged and destroyed property. Because of the way in which our law is written there are no express consequences for them doing so. There are numerous other examples of strikers breaking the law in this way.

The Western Cape High Court recently handed down a judgment by Justice John Hlophe on 9 September this year. The case concerned a similar issue of damages of liability against the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union. In his findings, Justice Hlophe said: ‘The State is obliged to take actions and implement measures which protect the lives, dignity and property of its citizens.' We believe that while this established a precedent, it needs to be extended further and formalized by an amendment to the Labour Relations Act such as we have proposed.

People have the right to strike. It is a necessary and important part of the democratic process. But like all democratic processes, it must be done in accordance with the law. If not, there should be consequences. That is what accountability is all about. The DA has introduced a series of measures to hold those who break the law to account. They have no bearing on the millions of people who properly and respectfully strike in accordance with regulations and guidelines. But for those who do not, they ensure their illegal action will be met by sanction.

It says everything about the YCL that these are people it has chosen to defend - those who maliciously damage property and act in a violent manner, and in doing so, undermine the very right to strike of others, who do so in accordance with the law.

The idea of accountability is under assault in South Africa. The DA has introduced measures to help hold those people who violate the law to account. We believe that the best way to do this is by making unions responsible as juristic persons in terms of liabilities for damages or offences caused by their members during strike actions.

This in no way threatens the right to strike. In fact it preserves it. The right to strike is enshrined in the constitution and is an essential component of our labour law that enables workers with legitimate grievances to take industrial action as a means of articulating their grievances and for negotiating with employers.

That right, a fundamental feature of any democratic society, is done a disservice by those who abuse it by destroying or damaging property or causing other offences. This is a disservice to their fellow workers, whose legitimate complaints are undermined by the spectacle of public disorder thus distracting from the wage negotiations at hand. Similarly, it is a disservice to members of the public, who do not deserve to have their property destroyed or their persons injured during a strike. Finally, it is a disservice to the rule of law in our country as it implies that the ordinary laws that are the fabric of our nation can be arbitrarily suspended.

The DA does not support those who give striking workers a bad name nor those who break the law. Who precisely does the YCL support?

If the YCL wants to defend law breakers, that is its right, but it says everything about its principles and values that it would seek to promote and protect criminals ahead of those people who have genuine grievances and go about advocating them in accordance with the law.