The union confirmed that they had received a mandate to embark on strike action from today, Tuesday, 15 September 2009. The union stated 92% of the 46,000 of union members were in favour of strike action. The apparel manufacturing sector has offered a 5% wage increase with condition that they "forfeit overtime earning for any form of absenteeism, even when such absenteeism is legally authorised." The union is demanding a 7.9% wage increase which resulted in a deadlock.
In the TV interview it was stated that manufacturers claimed the issue was not money but the high percentage of absenteeism. Palmi responded by saying that it was strange that money was not a problem as the industry is under stress, cash-flows tight and profit margins even tighter, but confirmed that the issue of absenteeism was a problem. "This is due to a number of factors such as HIV/AIDS and the fact that the majority of workers are women who are often the single bread winner and they have to deal with domestic problems resulting in them not arriving at work."
Asked what the consequences would be for the industry Palmi responded by saying the long term consequence would be detrimental for the industry. He said he "understood that the union was following the mandate of its members but the short term results would be overshadowed by the long term negative impact on the industry and consequently the union's members."
Palmi said he saw the following options for the apparel sector:
A further consequence of this strike action would be "unregistered companies in the informal sector that are not registered or unionised seeing a possible increase in orders. The immediate result for the apparel sector could see retailers cancelling orders, even fining suppliers for non-delivery and simply placing orders either with unregistered companies or moving more of their procurement offshore."
In a research study Palmi did in 2007, the results reflected that absenteeism was a major concern with 80% of the respondents saying HIV/AIDS was a concern, and 96% saying that the high level of absenteeism could be a result of the pandemic. To read the full study click here.
Palmi stated that the low level of wages and the difference between metro and non-metro areas was a concern and he understood the position of the union; however, he questioned if the industry could really afford a strike. "What this will result in is more imports and less locally made clothing. The effect of this strike can have a ripple effect throughout the entire industry and the various stations within the apparel value-chain will be adversely affected. He said he hoped that the strike would not be militant or result in damage. The unions cannot afford to marginalize the consumer, "they [the union] need to get the consumer on their side and to understand the importance of supporting locally made apparel."
