Pietermaritzburg,the unions take the lead YUNUS CARRIM
Possibly the most effective consumer boycott outside the Eastern Cape was in Pietermaritzburg. It was organised specifically around local demands: for the reinstatement of 950 BTR SARMCOL workers in Howick and the signing of a recognition agreement with their union, the Metal and Allied Workers Union (MAWU). Launched on August 15 and ended on September 26, the boycott did not achieve these ends. But it demonstrated to a wide crosssection of white Pietermaritzburg the power of Black consumers.
A survey by the Pietermaritzburg Chamber of Commerce revealed that in the first two weeks of the boycott, white businesses experienced a 60-70% drop in turnover. This varied with the type and locality of business. Even John Orr's and the Hub, not highly reliant on Black custom, admitted to a 15% drop. Most large supermarket chains refused to comment and referred all queries to their head offices, which also gave no definite answers.
A MAWU spokesperson said a monitoring committee believed that the boycott of white businesses varied between 30% and 90%. Large supermarkets in the Indian area reported an average of 25% turnover increase. Indian businesses in the mainly white Central Business District and others in the Indian area of the city complained of lost turnover as the boycott kept consumers out of the city.
Despite few precise details, the boycott was clearly effective for at least three weeks. It then tapered off and was officially called off at the end of the sixth week. Organisations supporting it began discussions to end it in the fourth week.
Support for the boycott arose in the course of the sustained campaign over the preceeding three and a half months by unions and community organisations to win the SARMCOL workers' struggle. SARMCOL dispute
On April 30, 950 MAWU members went on strike at BTR SARMCOL in Howick (20 kilometres from Pietermaritzburg). The dispute was over terms of a recognition agreement. On May 3 all 950 were fired, and at a mass
International Viewpoint 13 January 1986 meeting they launched a consumer boycott of all white businesses in Howick from May 6. The objective was to cause business to pressurise SARMCOL to reinstate workers and recognise MAWU.
In Howick, a supermarket owner reported a 50% drop in takings in the first two days. One business closed and several others feared possible closure. A local businessman pleaded with strikers at a mass meeting not to treat him as white and donated 200 rand to their cause. Businessmen complained whites from outlying areas feared to come into town.
The boycott was successful because Howick is a small town with a cohesive, united Black community and a strong MAWU presence. SARMCOL workers are a significant proportion of the township workforce and white business relies strongly on township custom.
But SARMCOL management refused to budge, and employed scab labour from Pietermaritzburg and surrounding areas.
Taking their struggle to Pietermaritzburg, workers met community organisations and church groups to raise material and political support. Black, and particularly Indian businessmen were approached for donations in cash or kind, and asked to provide basic groceries to the support fund at reasonable prices. The response was good.
The Pietermaritzburg public was forced to notice the SARMCOL struggle when during peak shopping hours on Saturday June 29, a convoy of ten buses of striking workers jammed main street traffic. Posters, leaflets and stickers were distributed to explain the struggle and appeal against scab labour.
On July 6, at a 2000-strong mass meeting, union and community organisation representatives endorsed FOSATU proposal for a one-day stayaway if the Pietermaritzburg Chamber of Commerce did not get SARMCOL to negotiate with MAWU. It did not, and the stayaway took place on July 18. Some 92% of African workers and 70% of all workers, including whites, stayed away. Township schools were boycotted and 80% of all Black businesses were shut.
Still SARMCOL management would not budge. Unions and commu-
SOUTH AFRICA nity organisations then discussed FOSATU's proposal for a consumer boycott. Because of this threat and the success of the stayaway, the town mayor and the Chamber of Commerce invited MAWU and community organisations to a meeting. MAWU was criticised for organising the stayaway and urged not to extend the struggle to Pietermaritzburg. Chamber representatives said they could not influence entatives said thev could not influence SARMCOL to meet the union, but agreed to try to set up a meeting between MAWU and the company. There was a meeting but SARMCOL rejected all MAWU's proposals. The consumer boycott went ahead. Debating local tactics
Momentum for the boycott came out of the preceding months of struggle and was propelled by violent confrontations between people and police, and between strikers and scabs. Three were killed and scores arrested. Five strikers have been jailed for up to a year for violent intimidation'. Other cases are pending.
Added to the momentum was the declaration of the state of emergency, the UDF [United Democratic Front] -proposed national consumer boycott, Victoria xenge's death, a schools' boycott and a defiant, militant youth.
The goal of the boycott was debated. The unions and the African Peoples Democratic Union of Southern Africa, APDUSA (1), sup ported a boycott based on the SARMCOL issue. The UDF and its affiliates felt that lifting of the state of emergency should be included as a demand immediately, to reflect the militant township mood. It argued for inclusion of a demand for the release of all detainees including those detained during the stayaway. The issues could not be separated, the UDF believed, and inclusion of such demands linked the union and political struggles. The UDF said that to mobilise maximum support, demands appealing to the widest number of people should be included.
The unions responded that if the SARMCOL and emergency demands were linked, SARMCOL management could respond that even if workers were reinstated, the boycott would continue until the emergency was lifted. Management would say pressure
1. African People's Democratic Union of Southern Africa (APDUSA) is one of the small organisations which came out of the ending of the Unity Movement at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s. It seems that the organisation in question here, that is the APDUSA (Natal) was integrated into the New Unity Movement, a wider organisation which has emerged in the last few months.
13
should be brought to bear on the government, rather than SARMCOL. MAWU also felt the SARMCOL struggle was at a crucial stage and needed intensified effort as management showed signs of giving in. MAWU stressed that it recognised that the state of emergency was a major issue, but a coordinated national strategy was necessary to combat it. Unions were discussing national action, and local unions had no mandate unilaterally to support a boycott over national issues.
MAWU argued that local dynamics should dictate the terms of the boycott. The specific way we combat the state of emergency is through the SARMCOL issue' , said a union organiser. Compromise
Unions and the UDF coinpromised, deciding to launch a consumer boycott based on SARMCOL demands for the first ten days. It would then be reviewed to see if lifting the emergency and related issues should be added as demands. The boycott would begin on August 15, and they set no date for its conclusion.
Organisations committed to the boycott were: FOSATU, CCAWUSA [Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union]; GWU [General Workers Union]; the UDF and affiliates, especially COSAS [Congress of South African Students], the Natal Indian Congress and various youth and civic organisations; National Education Union of South Africa (NEUSA); Detainees Support Committee (DESCOM); APDUSA; the Azanian Students Movement (AZASM); Lawyers for Democracy; Association for Rural Advancement (AFRA); and the Pietermaritzburg Youth Cultural Society.
About 70,000 leaflets and 30,000 stickers in English and Zulu advertised the boycott of white business. Black businessmen were approached, intormed of the boycott and asked not to use it as an opportunity to profiteer. They responded positively.
A monitoring committee representing unions and community organisations was set up. It administered the boycott in terms of mandates from weekly joint union and community meetings. Decisions at FOSATU shop stewards council meetings provided direction for the joint meetings.
Several community organisations complained they had not been properly consulted during planning of the stayaway, but concerted consultation over the boycott between unions and community organisations helped alleviate these tensions.
Pietermaritzburg is a relatively small town and most white business is situated in a central business district. There are a fair number of alternative Black businesses even though they do not match white business in variety or prices.
On August 24 a 2,500-strong mass meeting endorsed continuation of the boycott based on the SARMCOL issue. On September 2, largely on FOSATU and other unions' initiative, consumer boycotts were launched in Durban, Pinetown and Hammarsdale to oppose the state of emergency and related issues. These boycotts did not take up the demands of the SARMCOL workers. In the event, the Pietermaritzburg boycott never formally included demands relating to the state of emergency. But as other Natal union branches did, popular perception probably linked the Pietermaritzburg boycott with the state of emergency.
The Durban boycott appears to have been least effective, but it was evidently successful in Hammarsdale and particularly in Pinetown. The crisis in Inanda, (2) the confrontations between Inkatha and progressive township organisations and the spate of arrests of activists contributed to limiting the boycott's success in Durban. It was called off on October The boycott spreads
By the time the Durban boycott was called, the Pietermaritzburg boycott was flagging. After the mass meeting on August 24, there were no further attempts to consolidate it. Money had run out, and the township community organisations were in disarray. Confrontations with police and the need to escape detention hampered activists. And confrontations with Inkatha took a severe toll. Many activists fled their homes and open campaigning around the boycott was impossible.
Inkatha was not prepared to support the boycott because it had not been consulted, but did say that it sympathised with the plight of the SARMCOL workers. It believed consumer boycotts were a legitimate and powerful non-violent strategy but said the time was not right. Inkatha said a boycott had to be nationally coordinated and planned and must have majority support.
The Inyanda Chamber of Commerce, an organisation of businessmen affiliated to Inkatha, was stridently against the boycott. Its president, PG - Gumede, 'declared war' on FOSATU and called on Inkatha in Pietermaritzburg to crush' the boycott. He urged consumers to 'flock' to the city centre on Saturday September 28, assuring them that Inkatha would protect them against 'intimidation'. Gumede said KwaZulu's Chief Buthelezi made it plain that FOSATU's persistence with the boycott was a challenge to Inkatha and to his own leadership.
The Pietermaritzburg chairman of Inkatha and the secretary of Inyanda disassociated themselves from Gumede's statements. But the Inyanda Chamber of Commerce local secretary had said earlier that Inyanda did not support the boycott. African traders did not benefit but Indian traders did, he said. Ending the boycott
A pamphlet jointly produced by the Pietermaritzburg City Council, the Chamber of Commerce and the Afrikaanse Sakekamer was air-dropped over African townships, Entitled 'Boycotts harm you it stressed that boycotts 'hurt you and your family first', drive business away and lead to price increases and unemployment. Four editorials over seven weeks in the Natal Witness echoed the same sentiment and repeatedly suggested that intimidation was endemic to consumer boycotts.
The boycott was called off on September 26, after two weeks of discussions. Organisations involved in it stressed that they had not suecumbed to Gumede's threats. In the diseussions CCAWUSA workers said management had threatened them with retrenchments if the boycott persisted. They suggested calling off the boycott and organising another stayaway in which CCAWUSA members would not be singled out for victimisation. But already the boycott was beginning to peter out, and there was no sign that the SARMCOL management was prepared to give in.
At a meeting on September 19, the majority of union members suggested that the boycott be called off. The UDF felt that this would discourage those boycotting in other areas, and suggested that it be revitalised. The unions argued that local dynamics should dictate whether the boycott continued or not, but the UDF was asked to investigate the possibility of financing the necessary leaflets and investing more energy into the campaign. But at the next meeting on September 24, the UDF agreed with other organisations that the boycott be called off.
2. Inanda is the township which has in the past been the scene of unrest between the Zulu and Indian populations. International Viewpoint 13 January 1986