'Who Ate the Cheese?' The CCMA's collapse and the betrayal of South African workers
When Thandi, a domestic worker in Johannesburg, was unfairly dismissed without severance pay, she turned to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA), a body designed to protect workers like her.
Today, Thandi waits endlessly for justice. The CCMA, once a beacon of post-apartheid labour reform, is collapsing under maladministration, corruption, and the deafening silence of those meant to safeguard it.
A Legislative Promise Betrayed Established under Section 112 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA) and enshrined in Section 23 of the Constitution, the CCMA was created to 'advance economic development, social justice, labour peace, and the democratisation of the workplace.'
As a Schedule 3a entity under the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA), it is mandated to operate independently, free from political, union, or corporate influence. Its functions, from conciliating disputes to training on labour law, were designed to empower workers. Yet today, the CCMA's doors are closing. Service centres in Black communities—critical for workers without digital access — have shuttered. Walk-in advice desks, once lifelines for the vulnerable, are gone. The nightmare began in late 2020, when budget cuts axed part-time commissioners, stranding thousands of cases. What was framed as a 'temporary measure' has become a permanent injustice.
A Competent Leader, Shackled by Neglect
To blame the CCMA's collapse on institutional incompetence would be a lie. The current Director, Advocate Cameron Morajane, is a seasoned labour law expert with a track record of integrity. Colleagues praise his commitment to fairness and the innovative traits evident in his push for digitising case management and expanding rural outreach.
Yet even the most capable leader cannot perform miracles without resources. The Director's hands are tied. With a stagnant budget and a 40% reduction in part-time commissioners since 2020, his team is forced to triage cases. 'We're firefighting, not fireproofing,' a staffer admitted anonymously.
The Director's proposals for sustainable funding models, including public-private partnerships, gather dust in Treasury offices. Competence means little when the system is designed to fail. Who Benefits from the CCMA's Decline? The answer lies in who 'ate the cheese.' While workers suffer, employers flout labour laws with impunity. Unfair dismissals, retrenchments, and workplace exploitation surge as the CCMA buckles.
Yet the state, led by former trade unionists, turns a blind eye. These leaders rode to power on the backs of workers like Thandi, but now preside over the erosion of their rights. Equally culpable are South Africa's labour federations, who sit on the CCMA's board through Nedlac, earning lucrative fees while workers starve.
Their silence is deafening. Where is the outrage over closed service centres? Where is the demand for accountability? Their inaction suggests complicity in a system where justice is rationed for the privileged.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
10 hours ago
- eNCA
Ramaphosa should put his ego aside, says Mondli Makhanya
JOHANNESBURG - The National Dialogue continues to dominate the headlines after hundreds of delegates wrapped up the first National Convention in Pretoria over the weekend. The gathering held on Friday and Saturday aimed at bringing together diverse voices sought to begin citizen-led conversations that shape our nation's future. But in a hard-hitting editorial written by veteran journalist and City Press editor-in-chief Mondli Makhanya, he cautioned that for the process to gain real traction, it must shed the perception that it is 'a Cyril Ramaphosa show.' Makhanya says Ramaphosa appeared to be on a mission to revive his reputation as one of the "midwives of the Constitution", seeking to also affirm his legacy as the leader who led the nation into "introspection" and while also charting the way forward. He also questioned Ramaphosa's opening address, in which the president challenged South Africans to ask themselves difficult questions: "why women live in fear of men, why so many remain in poverty, why opportunities are limited for black children, and why women continue to be paid less than men?" But Makhanya says Ramaphosa is expected to provide answers to those questions. He says now is the time Ramaphosa's shifts his "ego" to the side and stop seeing the dialogue as his 'personal legacy project' but rather allow the panel of eminent persons to be the face and eyes of this dialogue.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
National Dialogue exposes deep rifts between citizens and state officials, raises doubts about its impact
President Cyril Ramaphosa and his deputy, Paul Mashatile, came under intense scrutiny at the National Convention in Pretoria, where citizens demanded more than promises. Ramaphosa was challenged directly by delegates accusing the government of shutting down grassroots voices and using the platform for electioneering. The National Convention in Pretoria over the weekend was intended to begin shaping a shared national vision and create a space for forthcoming dialogues. However, the event revealed a clear disconnect between government officials and ordinary citizens. Before the official opening on Friday, protesters had already gathered outside the venue, expressing frustration at being left out of the process, saying they only learnt of the convention through the media. Inside, proceedings quickly became tense. A delegate collapsed, prompting confusion and a brief scuffle on stage, while protesters remained outside, continuing to voice concern about their exclusion. Although the convention was meant to foster collaborative problem-solving, discussions were often marked by strong emotions. Much of the focus shifted from future goals to immediate frustrations with crime, corruption, inequality in education and perceptions of a weak justice system. In a breakout session on 'Crime and Corruption' a facilitator asked a simple question: What is the South Africa you dream of? Responses reflected everyday concerns rather than lofty aspirations. 'I dream of a South Africa where education matters, where rural children are given the same tools as those in Gauteng,' said Qophumlando Dlangamandla, a teacher from North West. 'You give one child a laptop and internet access, and another nothing, yet expect them to compete equally, that's not a dream, that's a nightmare.' Many in the room murmured in agreement. Tension continued to build. When a facilitator pointed out that South Africa's murder rate was '30 times worse than Ukraine, a country at war', there were audible gasps from the audience. Personal stories followed. Bonginkosi Zwane spoke emotionally about his young grandson, who had recently been a victim of rape. 'His life will never be the same again,' he said. 'All that I dream of is the return of Scorpions. Back then, we saw real and swift action against criminals.' Others echoed Zwane's call for tougher law enforcement, community policing and quicker legal action. One woman asked: 'We always boast about our Constitution, but when will it become real for us? When will we see the consequences? The Zondo Commission told us everything we need to know, but where are the prosecutions?' Delegates raised concerns about the need for both restorative and retributive justice, stronger protection for victims and more political accountability. Tensions came to a head in the main plenary, where President Cyril Ramaphosa was present. Activist Sihle Lubisi addressed the hall directly: 'We are the foot soldiers. We know what's happening on the ground. All of you here have bodyguards and we don't. You say it's a National Dialogue, but you shut us down!' Lubisi continued: 'You are here because the 2026 elections are coming. You're trying to buy our silence.' Another delegate, representing the Rastafarian community, shared a similar view: 'You don't come here to talk us down. Stop telling us what to do. We are here to speak!' By the second day frustration among attendees had escalated. When facilitators presented summaries from the breakout sessions, delegates interrupted, accusing them of misrepresenting the discussions. 'This is not what we said!' one woman shouted. Nomalanga Ngwenya of Sonke Gender Justice added: 'Our voices are not there. The deliberations were diluted and I would not be comfortable with that being the report that is published on our behalf.' Some delegates expressed disappointment with the entire process. Felicity Poho said: 'It felt like a box-ticking exercise. They say they want to listen, but they already know what they want to hear.' Acting President Paul Mashatile, who stood in for Ramaphosa on Saturday, left the room temporarily during proceedings. His absence did not go unnoticed. Delegates voiced their dissatisfaction, with some seeing it as a sign of disrespect. When the programme director asked if attendees wanted an explanation for Mashatile's absence, many responded with a clear 'no'. The programme director then committed to issuing formal communication to all delegates. The convention was presented as the beginning of a national reset. Now, attention turns to whether that reset will materialise in practice or remain a government-led initiative without broad public trust. Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder of Gift of the Givers and a member of the Eminent Persons Group, acknowledged the intensity of the emotions throughout the convention. 'Nobody said this was going to be an easy process. South Africans have been upset for a long time, so yes there is a lot of emotion, lots of anger. People feel they haven't been heard.' Sooliman said although tensions were high, it was important to have the dialogue, and if it had gone relatively smoothly, it would have not achieved what it was meant to do.'It's a trial-and-error process. Nobody is dictating to the people what to do.' DM
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Striking a Balance Between Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Residents of Atteridgeville, grouped under Concern Tshwane Residents, protesting outside Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital, calling for undocumented foreigners to be barred from receiving healthcare services due to the alleged strain on public resources. Image: Independent Media Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu The issue of undocumented migrants in South Africa has caused a stir across various sectors. While some call for their immediate deportation because they deplete the country's resources at the expense of the nationals, others – including some NGOs – plead on their behalf. They even invoke certain clauses of the Freedom Charter and sections of the country's constitution to strengthen their argument on why these undocumented migrants should be allowed to stay in this country. The main question that begs for attention is: where does one draw the line between addressing the challenge of undocumented migrants and upholding human rights? Another question becomes: should the rights of these undocumented migrants supersede those of South African citizens? These are very critical questions. To answer them properly, one must cogently interpret both the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Clause five of the Freedom Charter states that 'all shall be equal before the law.' Clause 6 states that 'all shall enjoy equal human rights.' The reality is that when the Freedom Charter was adopted in Kliptown, Soweto, on June 26, 1955, it did not envision a South Africa that people from outside the country would populate. In that sense, the 'all' in both clauses did not refer to foreign nationals. Therefore, if these undocumented migrants were to be allowed to live in South Africa, it would be for other reasons, not because of the Freedom Charter. Some cite different sections of the Constitution to make a case for these undocumented migrants, especially Chapter 2 on the Bill of Rights. Sec 25 states that 'everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.' Section 27 states that everyone has the right to basic education. While these sections are relevant to the debate, it is Section 27 that has triggered a serious debate. Sub-section 1(a) states that 'everyone has the right to have access to health care services, including reproductive healthcare.' Some South Africans complain that they are unable to access health care services because they compete with undocumented migrants. It was for this reason that members of Operation Dudula were arrested for checking patients' identity documents to ascertain if they were South Africans. Others criticise these undocumented migrants for taking their jobs. Whether this is true or not varies from one case to another. This debate leads us to a broader discussion that we must focus on. In this regard, there are five questions to ruminate about. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Firstly, what role has our government played in creating this situation? For example, had they protected the country's borders like other countries do, would this problem have arisen? Secondly, to what extent are the home governments of these undocumented migrants to blame for many of the challenges South Africa is wrestling with? In other words, had these governments ensured political and economic stability in their countries, would these undocumented migrants have come to South Africa? Thirdly, what role do NGOs play in sustaining this challenge? Do they assist the government on how to address the challenge, or do they use the desperation of these undocumented migrants to make themselves relevant and score cheap points? Fourthly, how does the international community contribute to the sustenance of this challenge about undocumented migrants? Do they share their experiences with the South African government, or do they use these migrants for political expediency? Fifthly, what is the way out of this dilemma? In other words, should South Africa simply learn to live with this challenge, or should a solution be found? If the latter is the case, how should the process unfold, and who should be the role-players? On the first question, our government is to blame for the current situation. The country's borders are porous. Corruption has become 'normal'. Some argue that they were in exile in the countries where the undocumented migrants come from. While this statement is factually correct, it is analytically flawed. They lived in camps, were known to the authorities, respected the laws of those countries, and many of them did not compete for jobs with the citizens of their host countries. On the second question, the home governments of these undocumented migrants are to blame. They created economic and political conditions not conducive to their citizens. As such, some had to find their way out to look for greener pastures in South Africa. Regarding the third question, NGOs are not a homogeneous group. Some are doing a good job in filling the gaps where the government has failed. Others advance the interests of foreign governments that want to see South Africa fail. They do so under the guise of helping the needy. They take the side of undocumented migrants to paint the country in a bad light. The fourth question is related to the third one. Some foreign governments are vocal whenever South Africa acts against undocumented migrants. Ironically, they are very tough in their own countries. In that sense, the fate of these undocumented migrants is used to tarnish South Africa's global image while scoring cheap political points. The fifth question is the most important. The South African government should demonstrate leadership. This includes teaching South Africans the correct interpretation of the Freedom Charter and the Constitution. Where the constitution has loopholes, these should be filled through constitutional amendments.
