Wits Workers Solidarity Committee Statement: Defend MJL Workers and the Right to Protest

3 June 2015

On the 29th of May 2015, following talks with Wits University Management, workers and students decided to voluntarily end a three day occupation of the University’s 11th floor: home to senior management including the Vice Chancellor. The occupation occurred after the University failed to ensure that the company MJL Electrical – then on Wits’ vendor system – complied with labour laws. MJL Electrical systematically flouted labour law and mismanaged funds. MJL workers subsequently lost their jobs and have not been paid properly since January 2015, and despite deductions from the wages workers were previously paid, all 22 workers have not received UIF, tax and provident fund monies. This is not an isolated case. Companies on campus continuously violate labour laws, for example, it is reported that some workers are still paid below the minimum wage, in cash in brown envelopes, without payslips. Workers employed by Impact – another company that the University has contracted - are currently facing the reality of job insecurity under outsourcing, as the company’s contract with Wits comes to an end this month. Workers live in fear of losing their jobs and livelihoods.

As per the agreement reached in talks to end the occupation, Wits’ Acting Vice-Chancellor and Principal Tawana Kupe released a statement (http://witsworkerssolidaritycommittee.blogspot.com/…/statem…) that committed that no charges would be brought against workers and students. Further, management confirmed that they would approach companies on the vendor list to “request them to employ these workers where possible”. We recognise management’s commitments and believe they should ensure employment for workers retrenched from MJL whose livelihoods and those of their families are threatened. However, we assert that it is because of the University’s outsourcing of services, which began in 2000-2001, that the flouting of workers’ dignity, the non-compliance with labour law, and the precariousness of workers’ jobs all continue unabated. University Management is responsible for instituting and maintaining the practice of outsourcing.

Occupying workers and students engaged in generous talks with management and acted in good faith, despite this, the University went ahead to secure a court interdict against those on the 11th floor. The Wits Workers’ Solidarity Committee sees this action as unnecessarily aggressive since a settlement to end the occupation had already been reached and the 11th floor vacated. We are deeply troubled that the court interdict goes beyond this particular dispute, constrains future political activity that the occupiers may engage in and potentially violates our constitutional rights to protest, and freedom of expression. A further court order was served on 3 June 2015 , holding unemployed workers and students personally liable for legal costs incurred by the University. Beyond there being no way in which unemployed workers and students can afford such, we view this as punitive action on behalf of the University that threatens the right to protest.

We entered into this action aware of the brutality that other workers and students have faced because of their engagement in political action. Workers are routinely threatened, intimidated and victimised for participating in action. A worker leader at the Education Campus has already been victimised due to his involvement in supporting MJL workers. The University must guarantee that workers and students at the University can exercise their rights to meet, organise, protest and strike without fear of victimization, threats or intimidation and commit to taking action against any private service provider that victimizes or threatens workers who exercise these rights.

We call on all who continue to fight against outsourcing to join us in a protest at Wits University Senate Meeting on Thursday the 4th June at 12.30pm. We call for an end to outsourcing, the immediate reinstatement of workers formerly employed by MJL and the defence of our rights to freedom of expression, to protest and organise.

DATE: Thursday 4 June 2015

TIME: 12.30pm

VENUE: Concourse, Senate House, Wits University

CONTACT: Richard 072 604 3501; Deliwe 076 753 7261; Thembi 082 909 3203

FOLLOW US: https://www.facebook.com/WITSWSC;

http://witsworkerssolidaritycommittee.blogspot.com/

Statement From The Acting VC Prof Tawana Kupe Occupation Of Management’s Offices At Wits University Ends

1 June 2015

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to inform you that the occupation of management’s offices on the 11th floor of Senate House ended peacefully on Friday morning.

The occupation by about eight workers of MJL Electrical, a company that provided electrical services to Wits and some students lasted for two days.

The group was demanding that the University employ the workers who lost their jobs due to mismanagement by the owner of the company.

The University secured a court order to evict the group but they left voluntarily on Friday. No charges will be brought against workers and students who occupied the offices.

The University will be approaching private companies on the vendor list to request them to employ these workers where possible.

The students have agreed to respond to the Vice-Chancellor’s call for comment on transformation at Wits, including the insourcing versus outsourcing issue.

The activities of the University continue as usual.

Prof. Tawana Kupe
Acting Vice-Chancellor and Principal
Wits University

Statement by the Occupiers of the Vice Chancellors Office

29 May 2015

Wits University’s Vice Chancellor (VC), Adam Habib, released a document titled “Opening the conversation: Accelerating transformation for an inclusive and competitive Wits”. The document sought to outline his views on transformation at the university, what areas need transforming and how this could be done. In the document he argues for the need to make Wits a more “inclusive” space where “every one of us must feel that we own the corridors of Wits University.” Transformation needs to address important issues such as a racism, racial exclusion and marginalization at the university.

It is in the spirit of engaging the document and ideals for the university that we write this statement. As we sit, we are currently engaged in a sit-in at the VC’s office. This is because the livelihoods of 22 black workers and their families are at stake. Some of the workers have already left; there are now about 10 who are still fighting for their livelihoods. This matter is one that arises out of outsourcing.

Workers employed by the company MJL electrical have been engaged in an ongoing dispute with their employer. They have not been paid wages for many months; this is something the university is aware of and has been engaging with workers on. The workers have lost their jobs through no fault of their own but through the mismanagement and violation of labour laws by their company. Like outsourcing, this is one of the problems that arise when workers work for people who are on the University vendor list. Workers are exploited by their bosses.

We propose that this matter be the first attempt by the university to intervene in ways that align with its vision on transformation and the long term goal to end outsourcing as outlined by the VC. We therefore propose that the university intervene in a way that would result in workers being employed by those currently listed on the universities vendor list. The University has agreed to approach companies.

We have decided to end an effective 3 day sit-in of the VC’s office in the interest of moving forward and negotiate the best possible outcome. We appeal to the university to not take criminal or disciplinary action against the students and workers who occupied the 11th floor.

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Worker and student occupiers

MJL Occupation of Wits 11th Floor

Media Statement: 27 May 2015

20 workers and students occupied the Vice Chancellor’s office. We did not do this because it is fun or because we are violent. We were forced to because our mothers and fathers that work at this institution are suffering.

We requested an urgent meeting with management to discuss outstanding issues before MJL workers access cards are deactivated on Monday 1 June and thrown out of Wits like rubbish.

Since January 2015 MJL workers have not been paid their full wages. The company has failed to provide workers with materials to do their jobs. The company has failed to pay in UIF, tax and provident fund monies despite making deductions from workers’ wages. Workers are unable to access these benefits. Wits management has now terminated their contract with MJL.

When MJL started defaulting on payments, workers engaged in negotiations with MJL and Wits management. Wits management is aware of MJL’s violations of workers’ rights. They made promises to secure workers jobs and try to find a solution. But they changed their tune in April, refusing to assist workers and denying responsibility for the working conditions of workers on the campus. Wits management has refused to ensure that workers are absorbed into another electrical company on campus because this would ‘set precedence’ for other workers. But in 2013 workers were absorbed from Super Care into uKweza due to pressure by Wits Workers Solidarity Committee and as agreed to by Senate. Why are they stripping workers of their right to job security?

We have had many meetings. We have sent many emails. We submitted a petition with nearly 2000 signatures. We have protested during many lunchtimes. And still the only answer from management is that it is not their responsibility.

We do not accept that management can hide behind outsourcing. They brought outsourcing to this university and workers are suffering because of it. Some MJL workers have already lost their homes. Workers cannot provide food for their children or pay for school fees. How can this be in a university that claims to stand for human rights and social justice? These are the workers who built and maintain the university. There is no university without workers.

This is not an isolated incident. There is a history of violation of workers’ rights on this campus. It must end. There are companies to date that still have people working as casuals for more than 8 years, without Provident Fund and UIF. While there was the Tokiso Investigation Report that recommended that companies are obliged to submit monthly reports together with their invoices, workers’ schedules and details of amount paid to workers. The fact that there are such grievances, as per findings from our survey with workers, only means that the University has not lived up to these recommendations and are therefore participating in the exploitation of workers.

Wits management refused to meet with us because there were students in our delegation. We refuse to let management dictate who should represent us. We do not dictate who represents them. They are now getting a court order to evict us. We will peacefully stay here until MJL workers are guaranteed their jobs. This is a basic necessity for any human being. Wits management must stop treating black workers like rubbish!

Issued by: Occupiers of the 11th floor

Contact: Richard 072 604 3501; Koketso 071 887 5051

Room for Change

For an institution that “preaches about human rights and respect” of its employees, the state of the workers change rooms was a huge contradiction, Munshi said in the latest "Vuvuzela" (Wits University Newspaper) article which can be found here.

Draft Report on the Conditions of Outsourced Workers at Wits University

Submitted for Senate Discussion on the 28 October 2011

I. INTRODUCTION[1]

After a long struggle by outsourced workers a senior manager at the University of the Witwatersrand, Ian Armitage, resigned on 10 June 2011, after admitting to the allegations of racism against him. His resignation two days before his disciplinary hearing was welcomed with mixed feelings. This case has forced us to ask hard and poignant questions about the University and its lack of leadership in the fight against racism.

How is it possible that in a post-apartheid era, in an institution which commits itself to upholding “democracy, justice, equality, and freedom from racism and sexism” as enshrined in the Constitution and to the elimination of “discrimination based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation and disability”, a senior manager openly referred to workers as k****rs and baboons? Why did the University not respond swiftly and decisively to allegations of racism? The campaign against racism was led by outsourced workers and supported by other members of the university. It has led to animated debate and further campaigns against the entrenched and systemic oppression of outsourced workers.

This report is premised on the basic position that outsourced workers, who daily work at the institution, are members of the University community. Management has a responsibility to all who work and study at the University, including outsourced workers on campus. It is in the nature of outsourcing that the primary company, in this case the university, is able to absolve itself of any responsibility to the workers. Thus the University insists it only has a relation to the outsourced companies, and not the workers the companies employed by them. It does not recognise the workers. It is a position the university has steadfastly held to since the advent of outsourcing a decade ago and was recently reflected in the Vice Chancellor’s refusal[2] to meet with workers in his formal capacity. Instead he agreed only to meet workers in his individual capacity, which in fact perpetuates and reaffirms workers’ status as second class citizens at the University.

During the recent cleaning sector strike, from 8 August 2011 to 12 September 2011, workers were subjected to an interdict that disallowed them from being 20m from their place of employment for the duration of the strike. In accordance with the interdict, Wits University not only stopped workers from entering the campus, it blocked their access cards and issued a statement in support of scab labour. Thus the University took a clear, unequivocal position on the side of employers.

The aim of this report is to open a public conversation at the university about the conditions to which our colleagues, the outsourced workers, are daily being subjected to. It also aims to persuade the university immediately to terminate all the policies and practices that discriminate against these workers. Section II highlights some of the grievances workers have raised against the University and the contracted companies. Section III draws a comparison to the experience of outsourcing at the University of Cape Town. It looks at the implementation and significance of UCT’s Minimum Working Conditions Contract. Section IV concludes and makes recommendations to the University.

Historical background: origins of outsourcing

Outsourcing at Wits began in 2000, when the University handed over cleaning, catering, grounds and maintenance to private companies. The decision to outsource was taken by the Wits management and subsequently approved by the University Council, on the basis of a report prepared by the consulting firm University Management Associates (UMA), which was paid R4.5 million for this task. The decision was opposed by the National Education Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU), representing most of the affected workers; by the main student representative bodies, the Students’ Representative Council and the Postgraduate Association; and by the South African Students’ Congress, the leading student political formation. These groups, with others, joined to form the Wits Crisis Committee to oppose the outsourcing.

After “consulting” many “stakeholders” throughout the university in 1999-2000, UMA said the outsourcing would save Wits R30 million over five years; they later increased this figure to R68 million without explaining why.[3] Even more absurdly, they claimed that the outsourcing would bring “career opportunities” and “employment stability” to retrenched workers.

A group of “concerned Wits academics” criticised UMA’s assessment in a report presented to the Wits Council in May 2000.[4] The report contended that the UMA report was confusing, biased and poorly argued; and that it ignored arguments against outsourcing, downplayed proposals for alternatives by Wits “stakeholders”, and twisted evidence to make outsourcing a favourable option. They challenged the basis for UMA’s cost-saving figures. They dismissed claims that outsourcing would benefit workers, pointing out that outsourcing typically leads to weakened unions and reduced wages. And they argued that despite Wits’ professed commitment to transformation, outsourcing would “reproduce the apartheid legacy” at the University.

Council reluctantly agreed to hear a presentation of the academics’ objections in May 2000, but was quite dismissive of their arguments. Ignoring the criticisms contained in the aforementioned report and the protests of students and workers, the Wits authorities went ahead with their plan. Outsourcing was implemented on 30 June 2000.

Six hundred and thirteen workers were retrenched from Wits; perhaps 250 were re-employed at the time by four outsourcing companies.[5] Those who held their jobs faced drastic attacks on wages and conditions: typically, cleaners’ wages dropped from R2 227 per month to about R1 200.[6] Most of these workers lost their pensions and medical aid benefits altogether. Moreover, as Wits employees, the workers’ children had been entitled to free education at this university just like the children of professors; this too was gutted by the retrenchments, slamming the doors of learning and culture in the faces of workers’ families. NEHAWU lost about half of its members on campus; union organising among outsourced workers was seriously weakened.

We cannot here tell the full tale of the ups and downs of outsourced workers’ struggles over the past 11 years – also including the workers at the former Johannesburg College of Education, since it was incorporated into Wits. We do not know what has become of UMA’s cost-saving predictions, although critics have pointed out that financial and organisational problems at Wits remained serious for many years.[7] But it is already clear that outsourcing was a great blow to the affected workers, from which they have still not recovered. This report will show that the “concerned academics” were right about at least one thing: outsourcing has undoubtedly reproduced the apartheid legacy at Wits, and continues to do so to this day.

List of outsourcing companies at Wits

Whilst a full list of all outsourced companies at the University is not readily available, the following is basic overview of the companies contracted by the University and what services each provides to the university.

1. Cleaning: 

• Supercare
• Impact Cleaning 
• Carovone

2. Landscaping: 

• Servest (previously Sonke)

3. Movers: 

• ABC Movers
• Mavika 

4. Residence Catering: 

• Royal Sechaba Catering

5. Electricity: 

• MJL Electrical 
• Ribach

6. Plumbing: 

• Kevin’s Plumbing
• Linpro
• Sunshine Plumbers
• Karoo Plumbers
• Wejel Pumbing
• Carlyle

7. Waste removal:

• Oricol

8. Welders: 

• Gate Mission
• Euro Welding
• Skill Possibilities 

9. Carpentry and building:

• ABC

10. Painting:

• ABC
• Hendrick Kingdom 
• Mathale Contracting 

11. Air-conditioning:

• Perfect Air Conditioning
• BMS Air conditioning 

12. Lift services: 

• Allied Elevator 
• Schindler 
• United Elevators 

Wages

As with the list of outsourcing companies, a full account of the wages, or average wages, earned by workers at the University is difficult to ascertain. Cleaning workers recently went on strike - to no avail - demanding a living wage of R4200 a month. Currently, workers earn an average of around R2000 a month or around R12.51 per hour, before deductions. It is important to note that beyond the primary issue of wages, outsourced workers at the University enjoy few benefits: they have no medical aid, travel allowances, maternity benefits or pensions.

Unionisation

There are a number of different trade unions which operate and have members at the University. The union with the highest membership at the University is the National Services and Allied Workers Union (NASAWU). The Hotel, Liquor, Catering, Commercial and Allied Workers (HOTELICCA) also s a high membership at the University, both NASAWU and HOTELICCA are affiliates of the National Council of Trade Unions (NACTU). Nationally, there are two unions, both affiliates of the COSATU, the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) and the National Education and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU). All four of these unions have active members at the University.

II. OVERVIEW OF GRIEVANCES

Practices of the University

1. Blatant racism by Wits managers: the Armitage affair

In April 2010, outsourced workers at Wits University alleged that a senior university official had been racially abusing them, allegedly calling them ‘k****rs’ and threatening to cut of male workers’ genitals. It was expected, given the seriousness of the allegations, that the university management’s response would be swift and uncompromising. These were, after all, allegations of the most serious kind.

Despite the Vice Chancellor promise to get an external investigation, workers did not to receive any urgent response from the university’s management. After repeatedly petitioning management, workers, with the support of students were forced to hold a demonstration before the university’s management agreed to conduct an investigation.

That investigation took place at the end of 2010, and the report was completed sometime at the end of February to early March 2011. But, workers have not been kept informed of the process, despite attempts to acquire information. It was during this period, that staff and students who have been concerned about the continuing and intensifying injustices against outsourced workers joined with workers to form the Wits Workers Solidarity Committee.

Repeated attempts to access information and the report were met with refusals by the university. Demonstrations were held and more memorandums handed over, and eventually, the university released a communication in which they stated they could not release the report on Armitage until his disciplinary hearing was completed. This was confirmation that the university had the report, and something was finally about to be done.

Three days before his hearing, Armitage resigned, and sent a note to the Disciplinary hearing admitting his guilt. To date, the university has been silent on the matter.

The issue of racism affects the entire the university community. Outsourced workers were not kept informed of the process of the investigation. The issues of confidentiality in that process is a matter the university’s management is obliged to negotiate in a way that does not restrict or violate the university community’s right to information. Simply remaining silent is an abdication of that responsibility. And continuing to remain silent after Amitages resignation is an affront to workers who were racially abused by Armitage. This response by Wits University management runs the risk of being complicit in sweeping potential racism at the university under the rug.

2. Ban on workers meeting on campus

Workers at the University of the Witwatersrand are banned from meeting on campus to discuss their grievances. This is due, mostly, to the contractual relationship between Wits management and the outsourcing companies. With the workers being outsourced, management can claim that the workers are not its responsibility, but instead the responsibility of the companies. Thus, the absurd situation arises wherein workers – who work on campus every day – are told that Wits is not their workplace, and that as a result, if they wish to discuss their grievances collectively, they must go to their employers’ offices off campus. In practice this would require Supercare workers to travel to Randburg if they wanted to hold a meeting.

This perpetuates the secondary status of workers at the University community, and constitutes a direct violation of their right “to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions” as guaranteed in Chapter 2, section 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

There are numerous cases of attempts to enforce this violation of their rights by the companies that employ them, all with the complicity of Wits management who remain silent on the issue except when they feel the need to support the companies. Workers have, for example, been issued warnings for attending WWSC meetings and rallies. Carovone workers were, for example, warned not to attend a WWSC rally on 6 May 2011, and Sonke workers have been issued verbal warnings for attending meetings.

3. Segregated entrances

Wits Campuses have multiple entrances which allows for ease of access to students and staff. Yet, outsourced workers who work daily at the university are given access to only one entrance to the University. At Main Campus, this entrance is the service entrance on Raikes Street which is notoriously dangerous, and there have been numerous day time muggings. Female workers tend to walk in groups as they are the most vulnerable to such attacks.

Forcing workers to use a single secluded entrance to the university reinforces the segregation of outsourced workers from the rest of the University community. Isolated to an entrance on a side street rarely used by students, means workers are kept from interacting with students, even when entering their workplace. This segregation of entrances, and purposeful segregation from the rest of the University community is not only racist, but it maintains outsourced workers current position as secondary citizens of the University.

4. Segregated spaces inside Wits

(a) Dining rooms and change rooms
Outsourced workers are given allocated spaces on campus to use as their change rooms. These change rooms from part of the basic necessities required for workers on campus. This is a centralised space where outside workers store their belongings and eat. As a result this they spend their limited social time during the day. The dining rooms are where workers are expected to have their meals including tea. Ideally, they should be allowed to use the same kitchen facilities that staff members at the University use. The centralised space controls workers interaction at the University at all times to the extent that social activities such as resting and eating are confined to worker-only spaces, alienated from the rest of the University community.

(b) Toilets
Outsourced workers are not allowed to use the same bathrooms as the rest of the University community uses. They have allocated bathrooms at their change rooms. This violates the dignity of people who are segregated from using basic facilities that should be available to all people. Why is it that the University does not want workers using basic facilities such as bathrooms? Again, workers are kept segregated and do not interact with the rest of the university community. Not allowing people to use basic facilities that a visitor to the University has access to, isolates workers from the workplace and clearly means that they are not welcome at the University. At a more practically level, centralised change rooms places a further unnecessary inconvenience on workers.

(c) Public spaces
Outsourced workers are not allowed to use ‘public/open’ spaces at the university, such as the library lawns. Workers are faced with the situation where they are not allowed to comfortably sit and enjoy their break because they are seen as being the spaces for the ‘client’ (Wits University).

(d) Educational facilities
The primary function of the University is that of education. Outsourced workers work daily at the University, yet they are not given access to the universities libraries and educational facilities. Prior to outsourcing, workers had access to libararies, and their children could study at the university.

Treatment of workers by outsourcing companies

1. Intimidation of workers exercising their constitutional rights.

Workers are constantly faced with intimidation by the companies they work for. To name but a few examples of intimidation:

• At a meeting of the Wits Workers Solidarity Committee (WWSC) a manager from Supercare attended the meeting. He was asked to leave the meeting. A few days later, he gave a warning for to the worker who called into question his presence at the meeting. 
• Caravone workers were warned not come to the demonstration of the WWSC, when we handed over a memorandum to Wits management on the 6 May 2011 
• On the 29 July, Mr Trevor Ackerman, the M.D of Impact Cleaning, met with workers and threatened to fire workers involved with the Workers Solidarity Committee and those who became unionised. 
• Supercare cleaning suspended numerous workers after the Cleaning Sector strike that ended on 12 September 2011. All workers who are on the Wits Workers Solidarity Steering Committee were charged and acquitted of all charges. To date, they have not been compensated for the money lost during their two week long suspension. 

2. Direct verbal racism by companies.

• On 10 June 2011, a Wits employee, Mr. Ian Armitage resigned after he was charged with racism. Although he resigned before his Disciplinary Hearing could take place, he sent through a letter admitting to racism. 
• Sonke workers (before the company changed name to Servest) recently wrote a letter to Servest management after workers were concerned when a supervisors referred to a worker as an ‘illiterate stupid’. The same supervisor threatened workers to go to CCMA, claiming they will not win any case brought against him. This man is no longer an employee, for reasons not related to the case. 

3. Appalling conditions – change rooms etc

a) Servest workers 

Servest workers change rooms are located behind Sunnyside residence, and in front of Hofmeyer house. Hidden behind trees, are two shacks that have been built for Servest workers. These shacks house workers lockers, as well as the bathrooms. On the side of the shacks, exposed, lies the geyser. The ground is sandy, and there are a few wooden tables where workers eat.

Opposite the shacks, adjacent to Hofmeyer house, a room has been furnished with tiles, and are regularly maintained to house dustbins. At a university which stands for the dignity and justice, how can such an absurd situation take place? Why are rubbish bins are stored in a tiled clean built rooms, and yet human beings who work and keep his university tidy and beautiful, are given a shack to use as change rooms, and dining rooms

b) Supercare workers

Supercare workers have their lockers below the Matrix. In these lockers, workers store their clothing and food. However, the male lockers are located in the bathrooms that have been built for the workers. Hygienically, workers are concerned that their food and clothing are located in bathrooms.

Further, Supercare cleaners have been told that they are no longer allowed to change in the building the clean. They have to change in the lockers located inside the bathrooms.

The dining room that workers have to eat in is small and cramped for the large number of Supercare employees. There are no windows, and the space in uncomfortable and not conducive as a dining facility.

The dining room and kitchen that Supercare workers use have sewage pipes running across the ceiling. After a complaint by workers, management simply built a thin roof so the pipes are not exposed by sight. However, they still smell, and this solution has merely been aesthetic.

III. COMPARISON WITH UCT – memorandum of understanding

Outsourcing and privatising higher education institutions is a global trend, presenting workers across the world with some similar issues and challenges. In South Africa there are even deeper links to be made between workers’ experiences in tertiary education institutions; and thus much to learn from others’ activism, challenges and successes. There has, in particular, been some activity among the students and workers and staff at UCT from which we can learn.

Outsourced in the late 1990s, students and staff workers in the ‘non-core’ service provision held significant campaigns centred on attempts to pressure UCT management to adopt a fair and progressive ‘Code of Conduct.’ This campaign formed part of a refusal by workers, students and staff to accept UCT’s initial claim that the workers’ conditions are the sole responsibility of the outsourced companies; and instead urged UCT to enforce – and even go beyond – the basic requirements of South African labour law on its campus.

Guided by the approach taken by the Ethical Trading Initiative[8]the Code of Conduct (introduced in 2005) covers issues related to the freedom of association and collective bargaining; working conditions; minimum wages; and other conditions. Of particular interest to note are the wage recommendations, which requires UCT to require service providers to pay their employees a minimum wage at least equal to the Supplemented Living Level (SLL). Where service providers do not do this, UCT has agreed to supplement the Minimum Wage. Other important promises made by university management in this code include: worker representatives have full access to the workplace; and workers must have a safe and hygienic environment, including ablution facilities.

Despite the adoption of this code, there have many criticisms and complaints from workers. Firstly, many have claimed that the creation of the code was not consultative or transparent. Workers were not asked about their experiences and thus their particular vulnerabilities are not provided for within the code. Furthermore, oppressive labour practices have continued on the UCT campus despite the existence of the Code of Conduct. Victimisation, harassment and UCT’s inability to act on its commitments have meant that Code of Conduct has not been the solution of outsourced workers’ problems on campus.

But for all its problems, at least some of the items in this code are a step forward compared with Wits. At least management has made some promises, and in principle allows workers to hold it to these promises. The WWSC calls for a similar or stronger code to be implemented at Wits – but developed in full consultation with outsourced workers, and with students and staff of the University.

IV. CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, DEMANDS, WAY FORWARD
The report argues for the immediate removal of apartheid segregation in the University. The evidence demonstrated in this report not only attests to the explicit practice of apartheid in our University, but also to how senior management has been very slow, despite countless calls by others within the University community, in positively reacting to the situation. It is Senate’s duty to defend the University’s democratic practices, and to lead it as an institution that embraces, defends and advocated for human rights. The very decision to outsource in the year 2000 was taken and endorsed by this body.

What is clear, following the discussion in this report, is that our University has been practicing business in ways that have offended its own values. The racial discriminations, separate treatment of outsources workers, their humiliation and subjugation as sub-citizens is evidence to the effect that predictions made in the time of outsourcing that it would create conditions for the continuation of apartheid in campus, have come to pass.

The recommendation therefore, is that Senate should effectively call for the end of all apartheid practices in our University, and begin to hold the contractual practices of the University with outsourced all outsourced services and functions through a “Memorandum of Understanding” along the lines of UCT. In essence, the report makes the following recommendations;

• First, in the long term, open investigation into whether outsourcing has indeed benefited the University as argued in its inception with a view to possibly end it.

• Secondly, in the short term, the immediate removal of restrictions in terms of the following:

1. Access cards
2. Access to public space (e.g. Library, toilets, and other facilities)

• Thirdly, the immediate removal of the shacks behind Sunnyside, built for Sonke/Servest workers

• Fourth, the recognition of the right of workers to freedoms of association and expression, with the explicit mention of WWSC

In the end, Senate must ask as to what does it means that these offences have been made against all these black workers in the name of the University. What it does it mean that we have, as an institution, violated human rights, undermined people’s dignity by subjecting them to working conditions such as shacks right in our midst, within the university precinct? These questions have to do with the recent past, whereas the recommendations above have to do with an immediate and long term future. In essence, these are human rights offences, and the University must say what reparation response is appropriate as a concrete demonstration of regret.

[1] The Workers Solidarity Committee is a body of outsourced workers, students and staff (both support and academic) of the University. The aim of the body is to try and address the challenges faced by outsourced workers, some of its steering committee members also sit on the University Senate and other University structures

[2] Meeting held with the Vice Chancellor in the 26 May 2011

[3] J. Pendlebury and L. van der Walt. “Neoliberalism, Bureaucracy and Resistance at Wits University”. In R. Pithouse (ed.) Asinamali: University Struggles in Post-Apartheid South Africa. Trenton: Africa World Press, 2006. pp.79-92

[4] G. Adler, A. Bezuidenhout, S. Buhlungu, B. Kenny, R. Omar, G. Ruiters, L. van der Walt. “The Wits University Support Services Review: A Critique”. Presented to Wits Council, 22 May 2000.

[5] Pendlebury and van der Walt 2006, op. cit.

[6] L. van der Walt, D. Mokoena, S. Shange. “Cleaned Out: Outsourcing at Wits University”. South African Labour Bulletin, 25, 4, August 2001, pp.54-58.

[7] See e.g. Pendlebury and van der Walt 2006, op. cit

[8]Council of Code Motivation, July 2005, pg.2

'Abused' Workers at Their Wits' End

This report appeared in the Mail and Guardian Online. The full report can be found here

Wits University continues to practise apartheid-style segregation and treatment of workers, claims a hard-hitting report by Wits staff members, students and workers. The Mail & Guardian has a copy of the report, which the Wits Workers Solidarity Committee this week submitted to the university's senate