In conducting this survey over a period of 15 years, the changes in the political context and impact on the attitudes of unions and workers towards our research was profound. reflecting on our earlier survey, Buhlungu (2006: 5) noted that time-series studies in the area of labour studies can run into politically sensitive difficulties, because of the different expectations of research subjects at various levels of the organisational structure.
Our experience of negotiating access to the research sites highlighted the power dynamics of the research process and the hierarchies in the power structures. The unions and management had the power and control over the research sites, with management often invoking its control over the physical premises, while branch and local union officials often sought to control access to their members within workplaces. As researchers, we had to negotiate at different levels with our gatekeepers, and these included COSATU as the federation, the relevant affiliates’ shop stewards in the various workplaces and management at the workplaces concerned.
The first step in the negotiation process in the 2008 survey was to contact COSATU as the federation, informing them about our study and its research objectives. This was a relatively smooth process, as we had conducted the survey three times in the past 15 years. The general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi, wrote an endorsement letter expressing his support for the study and encouraging all affiliated unions to allow or facilitate access for the researchers to the workplaces and their membership.
This first part of the process was then followed by negotiating with affiliated unions in each region. In most instances, the affiliates granted access and
gave researchers the go-ahead to contact union members at their different workplaces. However, we still had to contact management and the worker leaders at each workplace, and this often presented some difficulties. In a few instances, management simply refused access, without giving specific reasons, while in other instances, management had fears that the research would ‘stir things up’ amongst the workers. These fears stemmed mainly from the negative industrial relations climate of the company and the fact that the purpose of the study was political in nature. In such cases, we had to abandon attempts to access those workplaces and negotiate for access elsewhere. Similar experiences have also been reported in other studies on workplaces (see Von Holdt 2003). reflecting on his experiences during research with the metalworkers at Highveld Steel, Von Holdt notes, ‘management refused to co-operate with this study, referring to the volatile racial tensions in the company and their anxiety about losing control of confidential information’ (2003: 12).
Where management granted access, we still had to negotiate with worker leaders and we had several challenges in this regard. Firstly, communication between COSATU as the federation, the affiliated unions and the worker leaders at specific workplaces, came up as an issue during our research. Some worker leaders expressed their surprise and suspicion that COSATU or their affiliated union did not communicate directly with them about our research project. In an attempt to negotiate the setting up of interviews with a worker leader in one workplace, one researcher was questioned on the procedures that she followed in negotiating access. After explaining the process and indicating that the union had granted access verbally, she was still refused access. The shop steward concerned emphasised the importance of following ‘protocol’ in union structures and of ensuring that he had a mandate from the union for every decision he makes in the workplace. Verbal communication was not sufficient, nor was the official endorsement letter from COSATU. According to the shop steward, his position in the workplace as a union leader may be jeopardised if he is perceived as taking decisions not approved by the national office of his union.
This example raises important questions about the notion of worker control in the workplace and the authority structures within the unions. In his recently published book, A Paradox of Victory, Buhlungu (2010: 118) highlights the changes that have occurred in the union movement, specifically
the hierarchical relations amongst union leaders and between the union leadership and membership. He notes such hierarchical relations often subject junior union leaders to discipline by senior union leadership.
Another difficulty that we faced when negotiating access to the workplaces related to the length of our interviews and the number of workers we required from each workplace. The length of our interview was a minimum of 45 minutes and a maximum of an hour, and for consistency we required ten workers at each workplace to be interviewed during working hours. In several instances, access was denied due to these requirements.
likewise, some unions within the manufacturing sector, in particular, were concerned about production times, meeting their targets and therefore bonuses. When we contacted one of the shop stewards referred to us by one of the union affiliates, he explained the difficulties the workers had with granting us access. Because workers’ remuneration is performance-based, their bonuses were tied to production targets, and so if ten workers were to go for interviews, it meant losing ten working hours. Furthermore, it did not make any difference whether we interviewed two or three workers at a time; they would still lose production time and this would have an impact on their bonuses. Thus, in some cases, access was denied by the union shopfloor representatives and not by management. This response has to be assessed in the context of the global changes in the workplace with regards to the production process.
The political climate at the time of the survey also posed complications for our survey. The conflict within the ANC and the breakaway of some of its members to form COPe created an atmosphere of fear and suspicion across the Tripartite Alliance structures and, particularly, COSATU and its affiliates. This observation was particularly acute when we contacted one affiliate, which demanded to see the questionnaire before they would grant us access to their membership. The affiliate was concerned about the kind of questions we wanted to ask their members and the extent to which those questions could confuse or influence their members negatively against the ANC. There were fears that we may have been representing or advocating particular political views. We sent through our questionnaire, together with the endorsement letter from COSATU, and we were subsequently granted permission to contact the union shop steward.