💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › shawn-hattingh-sugar-coating-exploitation.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:01:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Sugar Coating Exploitation Author: Shawn Hattingh Date: September 17, 2012 Language: en Topics: South Africa, workplace struggles Source: Retrieved on 4th August 2021 from http://anarkismo.net/article/23865
Southern Africa has become well known for being one of the cheapest
places to produce sugar. Consequently, million of tons are produced in
the region every year. Two companies have come to dominate much of this
lucrative industry: Illovo Sugar and Tongaat-Hulett. It is little wonder
(given how profitable the sector is), that in 2012 these two South
African headquartered sugar giants once again declared massive annual
profits. In fact, Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett have been reaping in
billions of Rands from their operations in South Africa, Mozambique,
Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Swaziland over the years.
Illovo and Tongaat-Hullett have publicly claimed that despite their
drive to maximise profits and their self-declared goals of becoming the
cheapest sugar producers in the world; they have also played a valuable
social role in the southern Africa. As part of this, both these
companies have publicly declared that they care deeply about the welfare
of workers. They claim workers employed by them are well paid, that they
are respected and valued. It is, however, not only workers that these
two companies claim to treat well. Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett have
repeatedly highlighted their Corporate Social Responsibility programmes,
including work around HIV/AIDS and outgrowing schemes. This has all been
used by these two companies to argue that they play a very positive role
in society.
Unfortunately, much of this is a public relations campaign that is
designed to sugar coat the shady practices of these two companies. In
reality, both of these companies’ profits are based on paying abysmal
wages. Linked to this, other negative practices have been prevalent like
forcing workers to work and live under appalling conditions, being
involved in land grabs, destroying people’s livelihoods, and abusing the
environment. Racial discrimination against low paid black workers also
appears to be part of the practices of Illovo. If truth be told, Illovo
and Tongaat-Hulett too have benefited from the political links they have
in the region, which has included states aiding these companies to break
strikes or handing out tax breaks. The aim of this article is to trace
some of these negative practices, and to juxtapose them with the
positive images that have been portrayed by these companies’ public
relations machines.
While claiming to remunerate their workers relatively well, when one
scratches beneath the media statements, one finds a much darker story.
Many workers are badly paid, overworked and/or casaulised. Undoubtedly,
the worst paid workers in Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett’s operations are the
workers in the cane fields. In 2007 on Tongaat-Hulett’s Mozambique
plantations, for example, cane cutters were being paid as little as R
300 a month. By 2012, the situation had not improved with cane cutters
still earning a mere R 378 a month. The company has claimed that this
was above the national minimum wage, and hence believes that there has
been nothing wrong. However, this is no hard-stick to be proud of – the
minimum wage in Mozambique is not enough to secure the very basics of
life. Consequently, many of the field workers have had to find other
ways of making extra money to simply cover the costs of food and rent.
Coupled to this, some workers have complained that the company forces
them to work up to 14 hours a day and that they have been expected to
also work weekends. This means that within a month, some workers have
been working up to 30 to 31 days, but were only paid for 26 days.
Such practices are not isolated instances. Workers in the sugar sector
from Tanzania to Malawi have complained of poor pay. Cane cutters at
Illovo’s operations in Tanzania and Malawi were respectively earning R
371 and R 349 a month in 2011/12. Workers in Tongaat-Hulett’s fields in
Zimbabwe were faring a little better and were receiving just over R 600
a month – which, however, is still a pittance. Workers too in South
Africa have highlighted grievances around Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett.
Workers have not always been paid overtime and promised bonuses have, at
times, been withheld.
To cut costs and increase profits, most workers in Illovo’s and
Tongaat-Hulett’s fields are hired only on a seasonal basis. Outsourcing
of agricultural production has also become common. While Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett claim that the lives of many people have been improved by
these ‘outgrower’ schemes, the truth has not been so simple. Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett reportedly place immense pressure on the outgrowers to
produce sugarcane at a very low price. To produce cheaply, many of the
outgrowers are involved in employing vulnerable workers at extremely low
wages. Targets are also set for the workers; and if not met, they are
not paid in full. Benefits are reportedly also non-existent for many of
the workers, which includes basic rights such as maternity leave, sick
leave and over-time pay. Of course, Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett benefit
from such abuses: it has become cheaper and more profitable for Illovo
and Tongaat-Hulett to outsource agricultural production, but it has been
the workers that have paid the consequences.
Along with paying many workers extremely low wages, Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett also operate as exploitative landlords hiring out
accommodation to their workers at high prices. This accommodation is
often in an appalling state. It has been reported by the Tanzania Union
of Industrial and Commercial Organisation that rent charged by Illovo
for housing for cane cutters was so expensive that up to 10 workers were
being forced to live in one room; despite clubbing their wages to afford
the rent. Likewise, at Tongaat-Hulett’s accommodation for seasonal cane
cutters in Mozambique, 4 workers were being expected to share a single
room. This accommodation was in a dreadful condition, and as a result an
outbreak of cholera occurred in 2010. During this, 3 workers died in the
accommodation; while more workers reportedly died later once they had
been transported to hospital. Indeed, through renting accommodation to
workers at high prices, both Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett have been, in
practice, reducing the real wages that workers earn. Central, therefore,
to the huge profits of these companies has been the ruthless
exploitation of workers.
Despite clearly paying many workers exceptionally low wages, Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett, nonetheless, claim to respect workers’ rights, including
their right to organise. However, at various times, workers have
complained that they have been subjected to abuses at the hands of these
companies, including attacks on their basic organising rights.
There is ample evidence to back up these claims. At Illovo Malawi, when
workers embarked on a strike in 2011, to demand improved wages, some of
the key workers involved were immediately dismissed. The grounds that
the company dismissed the workers on included, amongst other things,
holding a union meeting without the knowledge and permission of the
company. Amongst those fired were officials from the Sugar Plantation
and Allied Workers Union. Prior to being fired these two officials had
been subjected to intimidation at the hands of management. Linked to
this, the union had its access to emails restricted by the company. The
company also colluded with the local police, and the two union officials
were later detained. The fact that the company openly believes that a
union should not be allowed to meet without its permission, reveals the
level of arrogance that exists amongst top Illovo management. Indeed,
such practices are a complete violation of the right of freedom of
association.
In Zambia in mid-2012 a similar attack on striking workers occurred at
Illovo’s Nakambala Estate. In the run up to mid-2012, the company’s
operations in Zambia had declared huge profits. In the light of this,
3000 workers demanded their rightful share and went out on strike for
higher wages. Illovo and the state, however, declared the strike
illegal. A solution looked like it had been reached when the company and
the National Union of Plantation and Allied Workers reached an agreement
around wage increases. With this, the workers returned to work. Illovo,
however, went on the offensive and wrote letters to a 119 of the
workers, informing them of the company’s intention to charge them with
misconduct. Of these, 70 workers identified as ringleaders were also
suspended. If truth be told, the company looks as if it is seeking to
dismiss these workers in what appears to be blatant retaliation against
sections of the workers that went out on strike.
A similar story has occurred at Illovo’s operation in Tanzania. When
migrant workers undertook a go-slow to protest against ill-treatment and
low pay in 2011, they were threatened with losing their jobs. At one
point, the local police were called by the company, in what was a
barefaced bid to intimidate workers. This even saw police members
individually questioning workers whether they intended to continue with
their action. If so, they were informed that they would no longer be
employed and would be physically returned to the areas from which they
had come. Most workers chose not to return to work and in the end as
many as 1 400 workers were fired. The company, realising production
would be severely hit, then offered to re-employ some of these workers;
many of whom rejected the offer. Clearly, Illovo in Tanzania has little
regard for workers or their rights – despite what it may claim on its
website.
In the case of Tongaat-Hulett, the company has also been willing to use
violence to break strikes. In Mozambique in 2007, one worker was killed
by Tongaat-Hulett’s security guards during a strike. During this
incident, the guards fired rubber bullets and even live ammunition at
striking workers.
Workers at Illovo have not only faced an attack on their basic right to
organise, but at times have been subjected to racial abuse and
humiliation. At Illovo’s operations in Zambia, for instance, it has been
claimed that some managers – mostly white South African expatriates —
have used racially abusive language towards workers. The company itself
apparently favours hiring South African’s in management positions over
graduates from Zambia. This same management too has reportedly
unconstitutionally imposed curfews for workers in the past at its
Nakambala Estate. It seems quite clear that Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett’s
claims to care about workers’ rights have been hollow.
Unfortunately, it has not only been workers that have faced the
callousness of these two companies, but also communities – communities
that Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett claim to care sincerely about.
In Zambia, for example, as part of Illovo’s outsourcing drive, the
company has attempted to expand its outgrowing scheme to the Magobbo
village. As part of this, people were expected to incorporate their land
into the scheme. Some members of the community were, however, unwilling
to join. One of these community members noted that when this happened
Illovo threatened to come with graders and destroy their homes unless
they joined.
In Mozambique, Illovo has had similar practices. At Maragra it has also
been attempting to expand its outgrowing scheme. Once again, people that
refused to join were victimised. It has been alleged that Illovo did so
by damming the local water-source, and then refusing local peasant
farmers access to this water unless they joined the scheme. Fortunately,
the National Union of Peasant Farmers (UNAC) has taken up the struggle
against this.
Peasant farmers in Malawi have also not been spared. There, the state
transferred land that was being used by people for subsistence farming
around Chipakuza to Illovo, without the people’s consent. While the
company did provide some compensation, this was only for the people’s
houses and existing crops; and not for the land or the future loss of
income. Added to this, the compensation was small.
Pushing people off the land has not only been limited to operations
outside of South Africa. In South Africa too, Tongaat-Hulett has evicted
farmworkers that had been longstanding residents on its land. Along with
this, Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett seem to have an utter disregard for the
health of the communities that surround their factories in South Africa.
In Durban, communities surrounding Illovo’s factory have repeatedly
complained of air and noise pollution; and have been subjected to such
pollutants as sulphur, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide; leading to
numerous health problems.
In fact, the environmental consequences of Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett’s
production can be seen across southern Africa. An estimated 60% of the
water supply in the Zambezi river basin – stretching across Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Mozambique – is used for sugar production, in which Illovo
and Tongaat-Hulett are the biggest players. Illovo in Malawi has also
diverted the Shire River to irrigate its plantations. The consequences
have been that subsistence farmers in the area no longer have access to
this water. During the dry season this has meant that these people face
the real prospect of failed crops and starvation. As such, these two
companies are not saints out to help society, but rather vultures that
exploit people.
Part of the reason why Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett seem to be able to get
away with such practices is the power that they have, along with the
political connections they have, in southern Africa. As a matter of
fact, these two companies have very close relations with the states, and
members of the political elite, in the countries in which they operate
Zambia provides a good example of this. President Banda, along with the
South African President Zuma, even opened the company’s Nakambala
Expansion Project. In their speeches both of these Presidents
highlighted how the economic policies of the states they head have been
aimed at benefiting corporations, such as Illovo. In fact, in Zambia the
company has been given massive tax breaks and incentives by the state.
The state also protects Illovo from competition from imports, by placing
high import tariffs on sugar. Added to this, Illovo managed to get the
state to block the entry of potential rival, the Indian linked company
Shree Rakuna, into the country. In 2009, President Banda even announced
that crop levies for commercial farmers would be scrapped, of which
Illovo was the main beneficiary.
In the case of the South African state, it too protects the local
operations of Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett through tariffs. In some states
in southern Africa, Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett are even involved directly
with the state as partners in the sugar industry, which has included
public-private partnerships, getting cheap finance from the state and
other forms major assistance. Across the region, certain states have
also pushed for, and adopted positions, in their trade policies and
negotiations that benefit Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett. For example, the
South African state in its negotiations around trade with the European
Union pushed for preferential access to European markets for sugar
produced in South Africa. Of course, the main beneficiaries of this
would be Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett.
Some politically influential people have also been part of the boards of
these companies. For instance, Tongaat-Hulett’s board members have
included a Director in SADC, the former Governor of the Mozambique
Central Bank, a one-time member of the South African State Presidency’s
National Planning Commission and an advisor to the drafters of the South
African state’s economic policy, ASGISA.
Indeed, the vast majority of policies and actions of the states in
southern Africa have been aimed at benefiting capitalists, such as
Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett. Even the SADC agreements around sugar were
designed to benefit the likes of Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett. In many
African countries, as touched upon above, local states have also
intervened to assist the likes of Illovo in grabbing land and
undermining strikes. As such, the great revolutionary anarchist Peter
Kropotkin had a point when he said:
“states have always interfered in the economic life in favour of the
capitalist exploiter. They have always granted protection in robbery,
given aid and support for further enrichment. And it could not be
otherwise. To do so was one of the functions – the chief mission – of
the state.”
Far from benefiting society in southern Africa, many of the actions of
Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett have had a negative impact on workers and
communities. As such, workers and communities linked to, or working in,
Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett face a massive struggle. These companies
possess a lot of power and have proven most willing to use this power
against workers. The states in which these two companies operate have
also been strong backers of Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett, and have
intervened to blunt and undermine worker and community struggles.
Despite these massive challenges, fortunately workers and communities
have been involved in fighting many of the abuses of Illovo,
Tongaat-Hulett and their state backers, as has been evident in such
actions as strikes (including wildcat strikes). The fact that Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett operate in a number of countries, however, has been a
major challenge to the effectiveness of such struggles. Because Illovo
and Tongaat-Hulett have operations in different countries they have been
able to undermine and hold out against local strikes as their operations
in other countries have remained unaffected. As such, they are able to
play workers off against one another, and are able to continue
production in other areas as normal
To effectively combat this requires that workers forge unity across
borders, and that in the region they begin to work towards building a
counter-power that can win the massive gains that are so desperately
needed. Both Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett are multinationals, and
therefore, need to be challenged in all of the areas in which they
operate, so that any gains won do not remain isolated or rolled back.
Through cross-border struggles, the power that Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett
currently have could be undermined. For example, strike actions would be
far more effective if they could take place simultaneously across
borders. This would mean Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett’s operations as a
whole would be impacted on; limiting the manoeuvrability they have. The
prospect of workers forging unity and taking up struggles across
borders, nonetheless, remains distant; but steps have already been made
in this direction through an initiative called the Southern African Farm
Workers Network. This, however, would have to be built on if workers in
Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett are to win better wages and working conditions
as it would require uniting to fight across the region.
Linking across borders, nonetheless, needs to also be connected to
linking the struggles of communities and workers. The trade union
organisational form has the potential to do this. This, nonetheless,
would require that unions go beyond narrowly focusing on permanent
workers. It would, thus, require unions to also take up the issues of
casual workers and those faced by the impoverished communities that
surround Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett’s operations. For instance, trade
unions could take up issues such as land grabs, or access to water, or
they could demand jobs for community members. Unions would also need
greater flexibility so that they could recruit casual workers and
impoverished community members. Considering that permanent work is also
on the decline, such a strategy may prove vital for the survival of
unions. But taking up struggles of all workers and the wider community
would also strengthen the hand of permanent workers, and could ensure
community support when strikes are undertaken.
An important part of the struggle against companies like Illovo and
Tongaat-Hulett is that unions need to be based on direct democracy,
self-organisation and self-education. Unions need to be directed by
members themselves along with establishing an culture of self-education.
This is vital in effectively fighting bosses – without militant,
confident, self-organised, and knowledgeable members, unions can’t win
gains on a sustained basis. If union officials become disconnected from
workers, if unions rely on specialised negotiators, institutionalised
social dialogue and the law to try and win and maintain gains, they
usually end up becoming bureaucratised and their power sags. It is only
independent worker power that can win gains, and that requires very
democratic and militant unions. Certainly, hoping that institutionalised
social dialogue or the state (which is allied to the bosses) will bring
workers gains, as opposed to workers themselves mobilising and fighting
for gains, offers little hope. While demands by workers must be placed
on bosses and the state, to win meaningful gains needs workers’ power
and militancy. It was long ago pointed out that only workers can free
themselves, the same too applies for workers struggling for gains
against Illovo and Tongaat-Hulett.