From the CEO’s Desk

Here we are, at the beginning of 2018, with so much promise in the air. After eight lost years of the Jacob Zuma presidency, finally it seems that the country is on the verge of solid leadership and economic stability.

In years to come, the election of Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa as the 13^th president of the governing African National Congress (ANC) in its 106-year history may be seen to have been a major turning point in our fortunes as a country. Unlike his predecessor – who is likely to have been ejected from office by the time this issue of SEIFSA News is published – Ramaphosa can legitimately be described as a man of integrity who works hard and leads by example.

Uniquely among his fellow contestants for the position of ANC president ahead of the organisation’s 54^th national conference in Johannesburg, Ramaphosa combines experience and expertise in labour, business and government. He has a firm grasp of how the economy works and knows and appreciates the fact that it is business that creates jobs, and not governments, and that South Africa is involved in a never-ending competition for foreign investment with many other countries around the world.

He enjoys widespread respect both here and abroad, and has served on the Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Company’s International Board of Advisers, among other senior positions. Among his many achievements, his co-architecture, along with Roelf Meyer and others, of South African’s Interim Constitution during the multi-party talks in the Convention for a Democractic South Africa (CODESA) and of the current Constitution that was subsequently adopted by the National Assembly in 1996 must rank among the highest.

Following his election as ANC president in December, Ramaphosa now stands a good chance of becoming South Africa’s next Head of State, should the organisation win in the forthcoming national elections next year. Among the seven  individuals who contested the ANC presidency, he it was who stood the best chance by far of stanching the organisation’s recent haemorrhaging of votes. While in recent years and months it looked like South Africa was heading for an opposition-led coalition government next year, Ramaphosa’s election may well see the ANC narrowly winning the 2019 elections.

Were he to emerge as South Africa’s President next year or sooner, Ramaphosa will have accomplished his long-held dream – which, in subsequent years, even he would have begun to think unattainable – and the ambition that democratic South Africa’s Founding Father, Nelson Mandela, had for him.  After all, it was Ramaphosa that Mandela wanted to appoint Deputy President of the country when the latter became our Head of State in 1994, but he was strongly prevailed upon by those in the ANC who had been in exile to go with Thabo Mbeki, instead.

Cyril Ramaphosa, then, is a man in whom the saintly Madiba had lots of confidence.

His final election as ANC president has marked the end of a terrible chapter in our democratic era and the beginning of a new one. Unlike his predecessor, he is a constitutionalist who is actively championing good governance and a meaningful partnership involving the Government, business and labour. An astute businessman, he has placed a deserved emphasis on growing and transforming our economy.

Immediately after Ramaphosa’s election as ANC president, many commentators expressed legitimate concerns about the composition of the leadership surrounding him in the ANC top six. Some of the individuals surrounding him are not exactly known for their shining credentials as anti-corruption crusaders, and some have featured prominently in the recent Gupta-leak e-mails. They are, therefore, unlikely to share his enthusiasm to throw the book at those allegedly behind our rampant corruption.

I argued elsewhere at the time that, while legitimate, those concerns should not be exaggerated. I pointed out that the ANC leadership is made up of more than just the five men and one woman at the apex of the organisation. It also comprises the 80-member National Executive Committee (NEC), which is the highest decision-making body between conferences. I added that there are men and women on that structure who are just as keen to rid the organisation and the country of corruption and who would like to rescue whatever equity remains of Brand ANC.

The narrow margin by which Ramaphosa won the contest against Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma – who was volubly supported by some of the most disagreeable and controversial characters in our politics – also raised the understandable concern that there were almost as many delegates at the ANC’s 54^th national conference who were opposed to him as those who supported him. It was understandable that some people would worry that Ramaphosa would not find the kind of support within his organisation that he needs to redirect the country’s fortunes.

While understandable, that concern ignored the fact that, according to various surveys conducted across the country in the run-up to the conference, the vast majority of ANC members in all nine provinces preferred Ramaphosa for the ANC presidency. The small margin of his victory was indicative of the determined efforts by those with vested interests who were threatened by the prospect of a Ramaphosa presidency, among them Jacob Zuma, who worked very hard to persuade as many ANC branches and delegates as possible not to support his candidature.

As I predicted at the time, now that a Ramaphosa presidency is a reality, many of those who were successfully lobbied against him have begun to turn their backs on Zuma, who is now yesterday’s man, and are actively seeking to be in Ramaphosa’s good books. In the weeks and months to come they will work even harder to ingratiate themselves to him and his fellow officials in order to improve their chances of deployment into cushy positions in government, the public service and State-owned companies.

As often happens in the ANC, in the coming months and years those to be elected onto the leadership of the various leagues – Women’s, Youth and Military Veterans – and provincial structures will most likely be made after the image of the leader. That means that, in the months and years to come, the number of overtly pro-Ramaphosa individuals in strategic positions within the ANC will increase, thus making it possible for him to re-orientate the organisation and, hopefully, to advance South Africa’s interests.

So far, Ramaphosa and his team have made a most encouraging start. Not only have they insisted on the prosecution of those against whom allegations of State capture and general malfeasance have been made, but they have also made wholesale changes to the Eskom Board of Directors, on the eve of the annual World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, Switzerland. They have made it abundantly clear to Zuma and his remaining defenders that the ANC leadership is the centre of authority, with Zuma and others in Government having to implement ANC policy.

In other words, although at the time of writing Ramaphosa was still Deputy President of the country and Zuma was President, there is no doubt at all that, as of 20 December 2017, Ramaphosa is Zuma’s boss – including in Government. For as long as he remains our Head of State, Zuma has to take instructions from Ramaphosa, as has happened in the case of the appointment of the Ngoepe judicial commission of enquiry into State capture.

Notwithstanding some controversial resolutions adopted at the ANC conference, such as on land restitution without compensation, there is no doubt in my mind that a Ramaphosa-led ANC will do everything possible to revive the economy and to forge a working partnership involving Government, business and labour. I am confident that he and his team will do everything possible to undo the damage done to South Africa by his predecessor and to win back the civilised world’s respect for South Africa.

There is a good chance, therefore, that, while correctly insisting on the need for “radical economic transformation”, the Government will be much more sympathetic to business’s concerns and more accessible for meaningful engagement. It is important that business should not be found wanting in this regard.

SEIFSA will, on its own and through Business Unity South Africa, take full advantage of the blowing winds of change in order to engage meaningfully with policy makers.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

The past few months have been very hectic for the SEIFSA team, especially for Operations Director Lucio Trentini, Chief Financial Officer Rajendra Rajcoomar and myself. Supported by a great team led by Associations Manager Theresa Crowley, we have been involved in a series of meetings with General Managers, Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of companies that were members of the South African Engineers and Founders Association (SAEFA).

Although these engagements began some months ago, they have accelerated since 1 December 2016 when we were informed by the Chairman of that Association that, at its Special General Meeting a day earlier, SAEFA had decided to resign from the 74-year-old Federation. In addition to these meetings with leaders of companies that are/were members of that Association, we have also held regional roadshows on the East Rand, the West Rand, the Midrand area, Johannesburg and the Vaal Triangle to talk about the SEIFSA membership value proposition and to ask companies to remain within the SEIFSA family.

At the time of writing, colleagues and I were still in the middle of this process. However, we have been very well received by the companies with which we have held meetings so far and our regional roadshows have been well attended. Indeed, the number of former SAEFA member companies that have switched to other SEIFSA-affiliated Associations collectively employ by far the majority of the employees working for companies that were members of SAEFA before the unfortunate 30 November 2016 de-federation decision.

Given the importance of this matter not only to the companies concerned, but also to the entire SEIFSA family and, indeed, the metals and engineering sector, I have decided to deal comprehensively with the SAEFA resignation in my column in this issue of SEIFSA News. I do so in the form of a question-and-answer interview for the benefit of any interested stakeholders and, indeed, those companies that have yet to make the decision to remain affiliated to an Association that continues to be part of the SEIFSA family.

Why did SAEFA resign from SEIFSA?

For some time now, the Association has not been aligned with SEIFSA and its member Associations on a number of issues. These include approaches on the position of the financially-challenged Metals and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and extension of collective agreements to non-parties, among others. The SEIFSA constituency regards the MEIBC as an important institution whose survival is vital for industrial stability in the sector, and believes that ideally collective agreements reached by the majority of parties in negotiations should be extended to non-parties, while SAEFA holds different views on these issues.

Were the disagreements of such a nature that they could not have been solved?

To the end, we believed strongly that a way could be found to ensure alignment between the SAEFA leadership and SEIFSA. After all, for many years SAEFA was one of the most loyal members and ardent supporters of the Federation. Things started to change when the current leadership of SAEFA was elected two years ago. Regrettably, despite numerous efforts by the SEIFSA Executive Team and the Board to resolve differences with the Association, in the end some in the SAEFA leadership campaigned actively and aggressively for the Association to resign from SEIFSA, South Africa’s oldest and largest employer representative in the metals and engineering sector.

We understand that the SAEFA leadership has been critical about the way in which SEIFSA has been led and has alleged that the organisation has failed to implement mandates from its members. How do you respond?

Yes, some in the top leadership of SAEFA have, indeed, made a series of unfounded allegations against SEIFSA and have been very reluctant to accept incontrovertible facts that disprove their allegations. It is important to note that these allegations have been made by some individuals, and not by the entire Association or all of those in its leadership, and that they are both malicious and baseless.

For the record, SEIFSA is strictly a mandate-driven organization. The Federation derives its mandates from its members, which meet in an assembly of Associations called the SEIFSA Council, to debate matters and agree on a common position that becomes the Federation’s mandate. This has always been the way in which the Federation has operated. When there is no unanimity among member Associations on any matter, the majority position adopted at the SEIFSA Council becomes SEIFSA’s mandate on that matter.

SAEFA has also alleged that SEIFSA has not been as virulently outspoken as NEASA against the unions and the Government. How do you respond?

For a start, unlike others, SEIFSA does not consider the Government and labour as enemies. Instead, we view them as important stakeholders with whom we have to work cooperatively to advance the interests of our sector and to grow the country’s economy. Where we disagree with either stakeholder group, we say so boldly, and when we agree with them on any matter, we work with them as enthusiastic partners.

Secondly, SEIFSA is a federation representing employers throughout the broad metals and engineering value chain. These range from primary steel producers through to metal fabricators, and from small companies employing anything up to 50 people to large, listed or multi-national companies in different sub-sectors of the metals and engineering sector with thousands of employees. Given this vast and diverse constituency, SEIFSA does not easily and readily make public pronouncements on matters in a manner that organisations representing only employers of a particular kind can or do. When it makes public pronouncements, SEIFSA endeavours to represent the views of all – or most – of its constituency. That calls for great circumspection, which is not the case with the organization to which we are being unfairly compared.

How will SAEFA’s resignation affect SEIFSA?

Unfortunately, SAEFA’s resignation weakens the Federation at a time when greater unity of purpose is required among employers to solve the challenges that confront the sector, including the welfare of the MEIBC and the 2017 negotiations on wages and conditions of employment. To that extent, the resignation affects SEIFSA.

However, the Federation still represents 25 loyal employer Associations, which collectively employ the majority of factory workers (in excess of 150 000) in the metals and engineering sector. It remains the authoritative voice of employers in the sector, represents them in collective bargaining and lobbies on their behalf. It remains the only employer representative in the sector with healthy relations with all stakeholders, including labour and the Government, and believes firmly that it will take a solid partnership among Government, business and labour to get South Africa to realize its economic potential.

How many companies are members of SAEFA (and are all of them lost to SEIFSA)?

Just over 500 companies were members of SAEFA. Many of them were unhappy with the decision taken by the Association’s leadership and have since resigned from the Association because they want to remain part of SEIFSA. We expect many more to do so in the weeks and months to come. These companies are joining some of the existing SEIFSA-affiliated Associations, while others are planning to form new Associations that will be affiliated with SEIFSA. We expect at least 300 of these companies (60%) to continue to be part of the SEIFSA family. Collectively, these companies employ by far the vast majority of employees within that Association.

Many companies want to remain within SEIFSA for many reasons, apart from the fact that most of them have had a strong, productive association with the Federation over the years (in the case of some companies, for longer than 50 years). They know that, unlike any other employer organization in the sector, SEIFSA has unequalled experience in collective bargaining, employs qualified and experienced subject-matter experts in a number of Divisions (e.g. Economics and Commercial; Industrial Relations and Legal Services; Human Capital and Skills Development; Safety, Health, Environment and Quality, etc.) and offers a series of important products and services (like the unique SEIFSA Prices and Index Pages) which they access at a discounted price.

Will SEIFSA and SAEFA adopt adversarial positions in the 2017 Negotiations on Wages and Conditions of Employment?

SEIFSA’s philosophy is to work constructively and cooperatively with all stakeholders, whether they be fellow employer organisations or labour unions. That will continue to be our approach not only to the 2017 Negotiations, but to all other matters in which we are involved. We may have differences with the current leadership of SAEFA, but we do not see them or their Association as an enemy. Our approach to these matters is professional, and not personal. We will work with all employer parties within the MEIBC when we are in agreement on issues, as we have always done, and we will advance SEIFSA’s views and interests when there is no agreement with fellow employer parties.

What would you say are the main differences between SEIFSA and SAEFA?

We are comfortable to talk about what we (SEIFSA) stand for, and not so much what others stand for. Fundamentally, SEIFSA believes in:

working closely with our member Associations to further their interests;

effective lobbying of (or with) stakeholders (Government, business and labour) to advance the interests of our members;

constructive collective bargaining which results in a win-win outcome that leads to an internationally competitive metals and engineering sector that can preserve – and even create – jobs;

working with labour, as partners, to solve the challenges which confront the sector, including its non-competitiveness, and to lobby policy makers together in the interest of the sector; and

a solid, collaborative partnership among Government, business and labour.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

The past few months have been very hectic for the SEIFSA team, especially for Operations Director Lucio Trentini, Chief Financial Officer Rajendra Rajcoomar and myself. Supported by a great team led by Associations Manager Theresa Crowley, we have been involved in a series of meetings with General Managers, Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officers of companies that were members of the South African Engineers and Founders Association (SAEFA).

Although these engagements began some months ago, they have accelerated since 1 December 2016 when we were informed by the Chairman of that Association that, at its Special General Meeting a day earlier, SAEFA had decided to resign from the 74-year-old Federation. In addition to these meetings with leaders of companies that are/were members of that Association, we have also held regional roadshows on the East Rand, the West Rand, the Midrand area, Johannesburg and the Vaal Triangle to talk about the SEIFSA membership value proposition and to ask companies to remain within the SEIFSA family.

At the time of writing, colleagues and I were still in the middle of this process. However, we have been very well received by the companies with which we have held meetings so far and our regional roadshows have been well attended. Indeed, the number of former SAEFA member companies that have switched to other SEIFSA-affiliated Associations collectively employ by far the majority of the employees working for companies that were members of SAEFA before the unfortunate 30 November 2016 de-federation decision.

Given the importance of this matter not only to the companies concerned, but also to the entire SEIFSA family and, indeed, the metals and engineering sector, I have decided to deal comprehensively with the SAEFA resignation in my column in this issue of SEIFSA News. I do so in the form of a question-and-answer interview for the benefit of any interested stakeholders and, indeed, those companies that have yet to make the decision to remain affiliated to an Association that continues to be part of the SEIFSA family.

Why did SAEFA resign from SEIFSA?

For some time now, the Association has not been aligned with SEIFSA and its member Associations on a number of issues. These include approaches on the position of the financially-challenged Metals and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and extension of collective agreements to non-parties, among others. The SEIFSA constituency regards the MEIBC as an important institution whose survival is vital for industrial stability in the sector, and believes that ideally collective agreements reached by the majority of parties in negotiations should be extended to non-parties, while SAEFA holds different views on these issues.

Were the disagreements of such a nature that they could not have been solved?

To the end, we believed strongly that a way could be found to ensure alignment between the SAEFA leadership and SEIFSA. After all, for many years SAEFA was one of the most loyal members and ardent supporters of the Federation. Things started to change when the current leadership of SAEFA was elected two years ago. Regrettably, despite numerous efforts by the SEIFSA Executive Team and the Board to resolve differences with the Association, in the end some in the SAEFA leadership campaigned actively and aggressively for the Association to resign from SEIFSA, South Africa’s oldest and largest employer representative in the metals and engineering sector.

We understand that the SAEFA leadership has been critical about the way in which SEIFSA has been led and has alleged that the organisation has failed to implement mandates from its members. How do you respond?

Yes, some in the top leadership of SAEFA have, indeed, made a series of unfounded allegations against SEIFSA and have been very reluctant to accept incontrovertible facts that disprove their allegations. It is important to note that these allegations have been made by some individuals, and not by the entire Association or all of those in its leadership, and that they are both malicious and baseless.

For the record, SEIFSA is strictly a mandate-driven organization. The Federation derives its mandates from its members, which meet in an assembly of Associations called the SEIFSA Council, to debate matters and agree on a common position that becomes the Federation’s mandate. This has always been the way in which the Federation has operated. When there is no unanimity among member Associations on any matter, the majority position adopted at the SEIFSA Council becomes SEIFSA’s mandate on that matter.

SAEFA has also alleged that SEIFSA has not been as virulently outspoken as NEASA against the unions and the Government. How do you respond?

For a start, unlike others, SEIFSA does not consider the Government and labour as enemies. Instead, we view them as important stakeholders with whom we have to work cooperatively to advance the interests of our sector and to grow the country’s economy. Where we disagree with either stakeholder group, we say so boldly, and when we agree with them on any matter, we work with them as enthusiastic partners.

Secondly, SEIFSA is a federation representing employers throughout the broad metals and engineering value chain. These range from primary steel producers through to metal fabricators, and from small companies employing anything up to 50 people to large, listed or multi-national companies in different sub-sectors of the metals and engineering sector with thousands of employees. Given this vast and diverse constituency, SEIFSA does not easily and readily make public pronouncements on matters in a manner that organisations representing only employers of a particular kind can or do. When it makes public pronouncements, SEIFSA endeavours to represent the views of all – or most – of its constituency. That calls for great circumspection, which is not the case with the organization to which we are being unfairly compared.

How will SAEFA’s resignation affect SEIFSA?

Unfortunately, SAEFA’s resignation weakens the Federation at a time when greater unity of purpose is required among employers to solve the challenges that confront the sector, including the welfare of the MEIBC and the 2017 negotiations on wages and conditions of employment. To that extent, the resignation affects SEIFSA.

However, the Federation still represents 25 loyal employer Associations, which collectively employ the majority of factory workers (in excess of 150 000) in the metals and engineering sector. It remains the authoritative voice of employers in the sector, represents them in collective bargaining and lobbies on their behalf. It remains the only employer representative in the sector with healthy relations with all stakeholders, including labour and the Government, and believes firmly that it will take a solid partnership among Government, business and labour to get South Africa to realize its economic potential.

How many companies are members of SAEFA (and are all of them lost to SEIFSA)?

Just over 500 companies were members of SAEFA. Many of them were unhappy with the decision taken by the Association’s leadership and have since resigned from the Association because they want to remain part of SEIFSA. We expect many more to do so in the weeks and months to come. These companies are joining some of the existing SEIFSA-affiliated Associations, while others are planning to form new Associations that will be affiliated with SEIFSA. We expect at least 300 of these companies (60%) to continue to be part of the SEIFSA family. Collectively, these companies employ by far the vast majority of employees within that Association.

Many companies want to remain within SEIFSA for many reasons, apart from the fact that most of them have had a strong, productive association with the Federation over the years (in the case of some companies, for longer than 50 years). They know that, unlike any other employer organization in the sector, SEIFSA has unequalled experience in collective bargaining, employs qualified and experienced subject-matter experts in a number of Divisions (e.g. Economics and Commercial; Industrial Relations and Legal Services; Human Capital and Skills Development; Safety, Health, Environment and Quality, etc.) and offers a series of important products and services (like the unique SEIFSA Prices and Index Pages) which they access at a discounted price.

Will SEIFSA and SAEFA adopt adversarial positions in the 2017 Negotiations on Wages and Conditions of Employment?

SEIFSA’s philosophy is to work constructively and cooperatively with all stakeholders, whether they be fellow employer organisations or labour unions. That will continue to be our approach not only to the 2017 Negotiations, but to all other matters in which we are involved. We may have differences with the current leadership of SAEFA, but we do not see them or their Association as an enemy. Our approach to these matters is professional, and not personal. We will work with all employer parties within the MEIBC when we are in agreement on issues, as we have always done, and we will advance SEIFSA’s views and interests when there is no agreement with fellow employer parties.

What would you say are the main differences between SEIFSA and SAEFA?

We are comfortable to talk about what we (SEIFSA) stand for, and not so much what others stand for. Fundamentally, SEIFSA believes in:

working closely with our member Associations to further their interests;

effective lobbying of (or with) stakeholders (Government, business and labour) to advance the interests of our members;

constructive collective bargaining which results in a win-win outcome that leads to an internationally competitive metals and engineering sector that can preserve – and even create – jobs;

working with labour, as partners, to solve the challenges which confront the sector, including its non-competitiveness, and to lobby policy makers together in the interest of the sector; and

a solid, collaborative partnership among Government, business and labour.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

A belated welcome to 2017 and everything of the best to all SEIFSA News readers and their respective families, and to all stakeholders in the metals and engineering sector.

We – all of you reading this issue of our magazine – have survived 2016, which was probably the most difficult year economically in our democratic era. Surviving the year shows that we are sufficiently resilient as companies and individuals. Having done so, we should be more than ready to stabilize and fly in 2017 and beyond.

By all accounts, 2017 is certainly expected to be a much better year than its predecessor. If our political mandarins were to refrain just long enough from shooting themselves in the feet, as is their wont, our hitherto stuttering economy should do considerably better this year. An expert analysis by our Economics and Commercial Division shows that the economy should grow by 1.2% this year and by 1.8% in 2018,  against the backdrop of improved commodity prices. The metals and engineering sector is expected to grow by 1.4% as a function of improving global and domestic growth.

As we all know, though, the economy is intricately intertwined with our politics. This means that the degree to which the aforementioned forecast is realized will be impacted upon by the conduct of our political leaders. Another factor will be the degree to which we will enjoy labour stability in the different sectors of the economy, starting with our own. Collectively, both factors may yet again be significant constraints on the economy, as they have been in the past.

Regrettably, over the past few years our political leaders have proved to be unequalled when it comes to scoring spectacular own goals. That has been our lot as a country over the past few years. Sadly, nothing in the horizon suggests that we may be spared the kind of folly to which we have now become both accustomed and increasingly inured.

If anything, every indication suggests that politically 2017 will be an even more volatile year. This is because the governing party, the African National Congress (ANC), will hold its 54th national conference in Gauteng on 16-20 December 2017, during which a new leadership will be elected. Regrettably, in the run-up to every ANC conference, much focus within the ANC is on jockeying for positions, with members of different factions in the organization expending much – if not all – of their time on positioning themselves for elections to the National Executive Committee (NEC).

In the run-up to provincial and national ANC elections in the past decade, we have seen important decisions in Government deferred or put on hold if they were perceived to have the potential to hurt somebody’s political fortunes, with those perceived to be likely to improve somebody’s political fortunes being actively championed. For the same reason, other initiatives have been opposed or resisted because they would make an individual or faction within the organization look good ahead of the conference.

Leaders and members of the ANC will be very internally focused this year. That much has already been evident since the beginning of the year. The degree of internal divisions in the organisation is unprecedented. Not only do individuals and groups rally behind and support certain candidates for election into the top six and the NEC of the ANC, but, for the first time ever, now members of the self-same organisation go out of their ways actively to impugn the character of those to whom they are opposed or who belong to factions different from their own.

For instance, those in favour of the continuation of the status quo have embarked on a scurrilous campaign to tar and feather especially Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, among others. They have even resorted to manufacturing lies and sundry propaganda against them and spread these to the media through whispering campaigns.

This is totally unprecedented. I have never known such a divisive election campaign in the ANC before.

At the time of writing, it appears as though there are some dynamics of a not-dissimilar but low-profile nature at play within the official opposition, the Democratic Alliance (DA). The sudden resignation of Cape Town Mayor Patricia De Lille as DA leader in the Western Cape looks and sounds very suspicious, despite protests to the contrary from De Lille herself.

Given the various controversies in which he has been mired, President Jacob Zuma’s standing as Head of State has been seriously undermined to the extent that he can no longer address either House of Parliament without attendant drama. With his appeals against the re-instatement of the 700-plus charges against him and the Public Protector’s damning findings against him in the State of Capture report due to be finalized this year, President Zuma is likely to have an even tougher time in 2017 than he did last year.

Any controversy in which President Zuma finds himself mired will damage the candidature of his former wife, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, for the ANC presidency because, rightly or wrongly, she is seen as his proxy. Whether or not she is, indeed, his proxy, what we know for a fact is that she is his preferred successor.

So, while all indications are that 2017 will be a better year for our economy, much depends on the quality of political leadership that we will see this year. Unfortunately, that is something over which we have no control.  However, we can – and should – keep our heads down and focus on that which is in our direct control.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

And what a year it has been. Except for a few exceptions, by and large the global economy continued to stutter, the scourge of terrorism continued to manifest itself in a growing number of countries, more desperate Asians and Africans risked life and limb in an effort to take refuge in richer and presumably safer – or more stable – European countries, with the latter development leaving resentment and xenophobia in its wake among the locals.

It has been a year in which terrorism against innocent civilians has been on the march, starting with bombings at the airport in Brussels, Belgium on 22 March which claimed 32 lives and left more than 300 people injured. On Bastille Day, 14 July, a terrorist in a truck killed 84 people in the picturesque, holiday resort town of Nice in the south of France, leaving hundreds of others injured and shell-shocked. A few days later, in a period of just over a week, Germany experienced a series of horror attacks in Berlin, Wurzburg, Ansbach and Reutlingen.

Around the same time, two armed men stormed a church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, a suburb of Rouen in northern France on Tuesday July 26, slit the throat of elderly priest Father Jacques Hamel and took four other people hostage. Throughout much of the year, Turkey experienced various terrorist attacks from ISIS, a group bent on turning neighbouring Syria into a Muslim fortress.

Many other deadly terrorist attacks were witnessed, in the course of the year, in other countries like Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Libya, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Baghdad, Iraq and the gay night-club attack in Orlando, Florida, USA.

It has been that kind of year, in which lots of innocent blood has been spilt. On July 15 Oren Dorell wrote in USA Today: “More than halfway through 2016, it’s clear the year will be remembered for the scourge of near-daily terror attacks all over the world – from France to the United States to Iraq and everywhere in between.”

This happened at a time when the world economy was not at its best. For instance, the World Bank recently revised its global economic growth forecast down to 2.4% from the 2.9% initially projected at the beginning of the year. That downward revision was occasioned by “sluggish growth in advanced economies, stubbornly low commodity prices, weak global trade, and diminishing capital flows”, according to the World Bank.

The institution projected a meagre 0,4% growth in  commodity-exporting emerging market and developing economies, which “have struggled to adapt to lower prices for oil and other key commodities”. It added that “substantial downside risks” – such as further growth disappointments in advanced economies or key emerging markets and rising policy and geopolitical uncertainties – still had to be factored in.

Inevitably, these global security and economic challenges have led to hardening of attitudes and even anti-foreigner sentiments in different parts of the world. This hardening of attitudes has produced some of the most shocking outcomes in recent political elections and referendums. We have seen the rise of right-wing sentiments or populist parties in some parts of the world.

Perhaps the most shocking political developments of the year were the decision by a slim majority of British voters to support that country’s exit from the European Union in that “Brexit” referendum in June, followed by the November election of billionaire Donald J. Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America from 20 January 2017. Both developments have major potential implications, which are not as yet fully understood, for the international community.

They seem to signal that, at a time when the world has become much more of a deeply interconnected global village, some in the United Kingdom and the USA, both world super powers at different times in the past, are intent on being more domestically focused. Donald Trump wants to build a wall between Mexico and the US in order to keep illegal Mexicans and other immigrants out of America, while Prime Minister Theresa May and a small majority of her compatriots are working on taking the UK out of the European Union. At the time of writing, some reports indicate that France might be considering a similar referendum on its continuing EU membership.

Here at home, 2016 has been just as dramatic a year. While we should be grateful that we have so far been spared the terrorism that that has been visited upon many a country, nevertheless we have witnessed massive political earthquakes of our own. The Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Public Protector’s “Secure In Comfort” report on the Nkandla saga and the outcome of the 3 August local elections registered by far the highest magnitudes on the country’s political Richter Scale.

While the year started promisingly, with re-appointed Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan (who was returned to his post in mid-December 2015 after the inexplicable firing of Nhlanhla Nene) having actively and meaningfully reached out to the business community both in the run-up to and way beyond the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, for a while it looked as though the Government was finally recognizing business as a crucial stakeholder. Minister Gordhan has been outstanding in working with business and labour leaders in averting a mid-year ratings downgrade for South Africa, and has travelled to Western capitals with these stakeholders in an effort to convince ratings agencies that South Africa remained a viable, stable business proposition.

For all his hard work on behalf of our country, he has been hounded ceaselessly by the Hawks and the National Prosecuting Agency, apparently at the behest of his own wayward comrades within the governing party who have been overly eager to capture the National Treasury and to continue uninterrupted with their corrupt activities.

Regardless of the as-yet-unknown ratings agencies’ decisions in December, South Africa still owes Minister Gordhan a huge debt of gratitude and appreciation for his boundless energy and hard work. Of course, he is ably assisted by his deputy, the equally hard-working Mcebisi Jonas and the National Treasury team under the leadership of Director-General Lungisa Fuzile. Long may they continue to serve South Africa with distinction and integrity. Our beautiful country needs more men and women like them in Government and the general public sector in particular, but also in the private sector.

I congratulate Minister Gordhan on becoming the first politician to have been awarded the Sunday Times’s Businessman of the Year Award for 2016. He has been richly deserving of it.

As we bid 2016 farewell, it can only be appropriate that we also pause to register our thanks and appreciation, as a country, to one special lady, Advocate Thulisile Madonsela, who has done such a fantastic job as a Public Protector. Advocate Madonsela came into a position seven years ago that was, for all intents and purposes, yet another job in the public sector and significantly raised the profile of the Office of the Public Protector, demonstrating what a vital institution it is in our democracy. While the men who had gone before her in that position merely plodded along (and chances are that many in the general public can hardly remember who they were), there is a good chance that nobody will forget her tenure as Public Protector.

New Public Protector Busiswe Mkhwebane has big shoes to fill. We will refrain from judging her prematurely, but so far her first few weeks in the job have not inspired much confidence.

Regrettably, we have not witnessed the same kind of integrity on display from our number 1 citizen, President Jacob Zuma, who has continued to be mired in various controversies throughout the year. It is such a great pity that, instead of being an asset, our Head of State has been South Africa’s biggest liability over the past few years. The number of people who continue to respect him and take him seriously as a leader has reduced considerably over the years – and now includes many within his own organisation. It remains to be seen if he will finish his terms either as ANC president in December next year or as Head of State in 2019.

Yes, 2016 has been a difficult year, just like 2015 before it. However, that is no reason for us to throw our hands up in the air in frustration and to be tempted to give up. Instead, we – as individuals and as companies – have to soldier on. We have to continue to work hard and to hope for a better tomorrow. As Robert H. Schuller said some years ago: “Tough times don’t last, tough people do.”

Let’s hope for a much better 2017.

Companies that have excelled in the course of the year will be recognized in May next year. Companies that believe that they have excelled in 2016 are encouraged to enter for the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence.

Criteria for the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence are available on www.seifsaawards.co.za. Please get your entries ready now. Any work done in the 2016 calendar year is eligible for the 2017 SEIFSA Awards for Excellence. Winners in each category will be announced at a function to take place in May next year.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

For the second year in a row, the SEIFSA Golf Day was over-subscribed: 156 golfers making up 39 four-ball teams participated in the event at Reading Country Club this year, and 160 golfers making up 40 four-ball teams participated in the event at the Glendower Golf Club in 2015. Both events took place on the back of a successful Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba three months earlier.

On behalf of the Federation, I take this opportunity to express our deepest appreciation to the companies that entered teams into the 2016 SEIFSA Golf Day and to the individuals who participated in the respective companies’ four balls. Without their support and participation, the SEIFSA Golf Day would not be the exciting event that it is.

This is an annual industry Golf Day that brings together companies in the metals and engineering sector and some of their customers and suppliers for networking, team building and fun. Your Federation, SEIFSA, is merely the organizer and facilitator. This is a day that makes it possible for people from different companies to build or strengthen relations with counterparts from other companies.

It is wonderful to see so many business leaders putting a day aside in a year to participate in an important industry event to build or strengthen relations with their stakeholders. Colleagues and I are grateful to these leaders and deeply appreciate their support.

During the past two years we have worked hard to improve the SEIFSA Golf Day. We will continue to make improvements to ensure that it becomes an event not to be missed in the industry. Look out for more innovations next year.

This year’s event stood out particularly because of the phenomenal amount of support that we received from sponsors, some of which are SEIFSA’s established suppliers. So high was the level of support that, in addition to the various prizes that were distributed during the prize-giving ceremony just before dinner, almost all 18 holes at the golf course were sponsored.

With almost every hole being a watering hole, golf players and their caddies were spoilt for choice when it came to drinks to quench their thirst on what was a very warm day. There were drinks, crisps, peanuts and biltong aplenty – in addition to other edibles – at every hole. This was a major change from what SEIFSA Golf Days used to be in the past.

My thanks go to each one of the companies that were among our sponsors for the 2016 SEIFSA Golf Day, and to the members of our staff – particularly Marketing Assistant Kristen Botha – who worked hard to encourage as many companies as possible to come on board as sponsors. We hope that we will be able to count on these companies’ support again in the years to come.

It was also very pleasing to see a number of member companies prominently exhibiting or displaying their products and services at some sponsored holes and distributing their business cards to potential customers or clients. The SEIFSA Golf Day, like the annual Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba, is intended to serve, among other things, as a great platform at which member companies exhibit or display their expertise and products and services in an effort to win new business or increase their market share.

We remain deeply indebted to these companies.

______________________________________________

Over the past three months Operations Director Lucio Trentini, Chief Financial Officer Rajendra Rajcoomar and I have held a series of meetings with the Chief Executive Officers / Managing Directors of some of our member companies in the Gauteng region. I have been very happy with responses from these captains of industry to my written requests for courtesy meetings with them so that we would get to understand their companies and their concerns better and take the opportunity to brief them on SEIFSA and the metals and engineering sector.

It has been most heartening that senior business leaders – some of whom lead multi-national companies – have seen merit in making time to meet with colleagues and me. Some have taken us on tour of their plants, while many others undertook to ensure that their respective companies were much more meaningfully involved in the activities of SEIFSA and their member Associations.

More importantly, we were deeply touched by the fact that many of these business leaders were themselves greatly appreciative of our efforts to reach out to them. Often we were told by people whose companies had been members of SEIFSA for many decades that they had never before had such a courtesy visit from SEIFSA and that they were very happy to have heard from us.

Time permitting, we intend to continue with such engagements, over the next months, with leaders of companies affiliated to SEIFSA member Associations. We hope that all business leaders with whom we ask for an audience will make themselves similarly available.

For now, I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to the CEOs and Managing Directors who have made time to see us in the past three months.

The year is fast coming to an end. Soon December will be here and we will be looking forward to the beginning of new calendar year, 2017, with the hoping that it will be a much better year economically and otherwise for Southern Africa. Among our wishes, no doubt, will be that South Africa will have a much better quality of political leadership than it has at the moment.

It is no secret that, even though the global economy is not exactly flying at the moment, South Africa would be performing much better than it has done in the past few years if it had a better quality of leadership that put the country first, and not itself or some factional interests. Regrettably, 2017 is not likely to be much better politically. Instead, it is likely to be a year characterised by even more tepid leadership as the governing ANC shifts its focus to internal battles ahead of its elective congress in December.

As year-end approaches, I would like to invite all readers of this publication to look at the criteria for the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence (www.seifsaawards.co.za) and to prepare their entries. Any work done in the 2016 calendar year is eligible for the 2017 SEIFSA Awards for Excellence, for which entries will be invited early next year. Winners in each category will be announced at a function to take place in April/May next year.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

A week, they say, is a long time in politics. How right they are!

When I wrote my column for the last issue of this magazine, the United Kingdom – also known as Great Britain – was very much a single country that was an important member of the European Union. Despite its occasional Euroscepticism, the UK’s membership of the European Union (EU) went back to 1970 when its membership application was eventually accepted after the French had relaxed their initial objection.

Since then, various Conservative Party and Labour Party governments have continued to keep the country within the EU, notwithstanding differences that they have had with the European Union from time to time. Throughout this period, the UK managed to maintain, with pride, its strong sense of identity based on its enviable history as a British empire in which “the sun never sets”. For instance, it held doggedly onto its own currency, the British Pound, instead of adopting the Euro, and onto its own immigration system, instead of allowing use of the Schengen visa which is more convenient for foreign travelers to much of Europe.

However, with anti-EU sentiment growing stronger in an increasing number of countries in Europe, largely in the aftermath of the 2008/9 global recession and following the recent massive wave after wave of illegal North African and Asian immigration into Europe, more EU scepticism manifested itself in Britain. With the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which made it into a coalition with the last Conservative Party government that succeeded Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s administration, and with Conservative Party support wavering, Prime Minister David Cameron went into the 7 May 2015 general election with a promise to call a referendum on continuing UK membership of the EU.

That referendum took place just over a year later, on Thursday, 24 June 2016 – and the following day the disappointed, pro-EU Mr Cameron tendered his resignation as Prime Minister when the “Brexit” lobby won the referendum by a very slim majority.

Given the very close degree of the world’s interconnectedness today, the entire international community followed events in Britain, in the run-up to and after the referendum, with great interest. While the predominant international view was that the continued presence of the UK in the EU was in the interest of both that country and the international community, just under 52% of British voters saw things differently and made themselves heard.

The narrow margin of that victory means that the UK is now a country divided almost right down the middle when it comes to EU membership. For every five British citizens who are against continued EU membership, almost five others hold the opposite view – equally strongly. They believe that the country would be better served by continuing EU membership. Going forward, this marked difference of opinion is likely to punctuate most or all important policy discussions in that country.

More importantly, however, the outcome of the referendum may well have far more serious, long-term implications for the UK itself. As the referendum indicated, among the four provinces (they prefer the word “country”) that constitute that country, two – England and Wales – voted for “Brexit” and the other two – Scotland and Northern Ireland – voted in favour of continued EU membership.

Scotland registered the highest pro-EU vote, at 62%, throughout the UK, followed closely by London in second place at 59,% and by Northern Ireland in third place at 55,7%.

With Scotland itself traditionally having a relatively high percentage of residents who prefer an independent Scotland, there is now a greater probability that Scottish nationalists will again call for a referendum on Scottish independence. Following the outcome of the UK EU referendum, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon immediately served notice that a second referendum on Scottish independence may take place soon. She said that it was “democratically unacceptable” that Scotland – which voted 62% in favour of continued UK membership of the EU – faced the prospect of being taken out of the EU against its will.

In the September 2014 Scottish referendum, 44,7% voted in favour of Scottish independence, while 55,3% voted in favour of continued membership of the UK. Judging from the outcome of the British EU referendum, a much higher percentage of Scots are in favour of EU membership than the percentage of those who were in favour of continuing UK membership in September 2014. To boot, the 55,3% of Scots who voted in favour of continued UK membership did so at a time when the UK’s membership of the EU was not in question!

Predominantly Catholic by religion, Northern Ireland has long had a peculiar relationship with the mainland UK. It is a province in which both political and religious battles have raged over the years between Catholics and Protestants, the Irish and the English. It is a territory that has long been the home of Sinn Feinn’s Irish Republican Army, which historically has been at the forefront of calls for a united Republic of Ireland.

The outcome of the “Brexit” referendum is certain to have potentially significant implications for the UK. Just what those implications are remains to be seen. As the new UK works on negotiating its new relations with the rest of Europe, it will have to keep an eye on possible events back home, with demands for Scottish independence and a united Ireland likely to grow louder.

However, contrary to fairly pervasive fears that were expressed here at home ahead of the British referendum, South Africa may not be that terribly affected by it all. Pretoria has every reason to want to strengthen its relations with the EU, while leveraging its relations with Britain to accomplish the same goal with that country. In the end, then, the UK EU referendum outcome may well be a win-win for South Africa, depending on how smartly Pretoria plays its cards.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer

The three-year agreement on wages and conditions of employment reached in July 2014 in negotiations between employers and labour in the metals and engineering sector was not perfect, as is the case with all agreements that are products of negotiations.

By their very nature, negotiations are a give and take. They bring together at least two sides that often approach them with differing – and often conflicting – interests and desired outcomes in mind. If the parties to negotiations are equally strong, often the final product of the talks is something that addresses most of their respective concerns, something that the respective parties can live with. However, if one side is considerably stronger than the other or the others, then a real possibility exists that the final product of the talks is likely to be more favourable to that party.

In South Africa’s pre-democracy talks at the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) at the World Trade Centre in the Auckland Park area, the same principles applied. The then-governing National Party (NP) and those supporting it managed to extract some important concessions, as did the African National Congress and those supporting it.

Among other things, the NP and its allies got Afrikaans maintained as one of the country’s official languages and a section of Die Stem incorporated into post-apartheid South Africa’s national anthem. The Inkatha Freedom Party – which had insisted on a federal or even confederal government system – and the Progressive Federal Party managed to secure a deal that saw South Africa with nine provincial governments. General Constand Viljoen’s Freedom Front extracted a concession for a referendum – as part of the founding democratic elections – on a homeland for Afrikaners, as part of “self determination”, and the ANC managed to get affirmation action and the need for land redistribution (with compensation) written into the Constitution.

Except for those on the extreme left and the extreme right (think of the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania and the Afrikaner Weerstands Beweging), each one of these parties managed to get some concession on what they considered to be of paramount importance to them. None got everything that it had wanted. In the process, South Africa was the winner, emerging with one of the best Constitutions in the world, which is sovereign, unlike in the apartheid era when Parliament was sovereign.

That is the nature of negotiations.

The historic agreement that led to our founding democratic elections of 27 April 1994 became possible because the main parties in those negotiations recognised that South Africa had to be put first and accepted one another’s bona fides as compatriots. Although politically and ideologically they belonged to different schools of thought, nevertheless they accepted the basic fact that they were interlocutors who saw the world differently and had different experiences during our dark era of apartheid, and were not enemies. Some, like ANC and NP chief negotiators Cyril Ramaphosa and Roelf Meyer respectively, even developed so strong a relationship that at times they went fishing together and subsequently became personal friends.

Therefore, although the three-year Settlement Agreement that ended the month-long strike in July 2014 was not perfect, nevertheless it offered employers and labour something that was of importance to them. In the case of employers, that was a concession on Section 37, which protects employers from union demands for company-level bargaining on matters that were up for discussion in the negotiations within the Metals and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council – such as housing. So strongly did employers feel on that issue that there could not possibly have been a settlement without them being accommodated on it.

Equally importantly, employers managed – despite labour’s initial vehement objection – to obtain a three-year settlement, thus guaranteeing stability in the sector for a three-year period. Such stability is not to be scoffed at or taken for granted. At a time when our economy is doing so badly and the metals and engineering sector is bleeding, instability would have been absolutely disastrous. It has been good to have three years of stability since the 2014-2017 MEIBC Settlement Agreement.

Although negotiations are, by definition, a process of give and take, it helps to ensure that one enters them fully prepared. The three-year agreement concluded in July 2014 expires in June next year, and negotiations on a new agreement are set to begin formally early next year, most likely in March. Although that may seem to be far away, it is, in fact, just around the corner.

Therefore, it is vital that SEIFSA and its member Associations start preparing seriously now for the 2017 negotiations on wages and conditions of employment. Of necessity, part of those preparations must be a very careful assessment of which issues are of such fundamental importance to employers that they will not be willing to make any concessions on them and which ones employers would be happy to drop or make concessions on in the course of the negotiations.

Similarly, it will be important to ensure that a careful assessment is made – taking into consideration all economic and socio-political developments in present-day South Africa and the mood of the country – of which issues or employer “demands” are realistic and which ones are not realistic. Going into negotiations with unrealistic demands that subsequently have to be dropped weakens – rather than strengthens – one’s position in talks.

Therefore, it is crucial that, as SEIFSA and its member Associations spend time debating other issues, they do not lose sight of the need to prioritize preparations for next year’s all-important MEIBC negotiations on wages and conditions of employment. Necessarily, this will entail them having serious – and even robust – discussions and debates among themselves, ahead of the emergence of a firm SEIFSA mandate for the 2017 negotiations.

We at SEIFSA stand ready to assist and play our part in the process. We remain clear in our minds about our roles: member Associations, through the SEIFSA Council, will develop the negotiating mandate and, working with representatives from the respective Associations, we will do the very best that we can to implement that mandate. Operations Director Lucio Trentini will be our Main Negotiator (to use the CODESA analogy, he will be our Cyril Ramaphosa or our Roelf Meyer). He is a very experienced man who has been around for many years and who enjoys the respect of our labour partners. The CEO will get involved in the event of a deadlock when talks need to be arranged with our labour partners’ Secretaries General.

________________________________________

The Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba (www.meindaba.co.za) and the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence (www.seifsaawards.co.za), which took place at the IDC Conference Centre in Sandton last month, were a great success. My thanks go to all the companies that sent delegates to the conference and to those individuals who were the delegates.

The Indaba is the cover story for this issue of SEIFSA News, which also features winners of the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence. My congratulations go to all the winners in the respective categories and to the many other companies that entered for the Awards.

From the comments of the Chief Judges in the different categories during the awards ceremony, it was evident that the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence, now in their second year, have grown considerably both in popularity and in importance among companies in the metals and engineering sector. It was also clear that the quality of entries for 2015 was much higher than was the case in the Awards’ inaugural year (2014). We are confident that that there will be many more, high-quality entries for 2016, with the results to be announced around May 2017.

In their first two years, the SEIFSA Awards for Excellence ceremony has ridden on the back of the annual Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba. Last year it took place during dinner on the first day of the conference, and this year it took place during a light breakfast on the second day of the conference. From 2017 onwards, the SEIFSA Awards ceremony will be a grander, stand-alone event most likely on a Friday evening in May, with the Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba scheduled for 14-15 September 2017.

We are keen to make the annual SEIFSA Awards for Excellence ceremony an event not to be missed. Therefore, we would be delighted to have companies which embrace excellence to partner with us, as sponsors, for the awards ceremony next year. They should please contact our Marketing Manager, Ms Faith Mabaso, on the e-mail address faith@seifsa.co.za.

As I indicated in my opening and closing remarks at the Second Southern African Metals and Engineering Indaba, I am immensely grateful to our Partners, the Industrial Development Corporation, which hosted the Indaba as value-in-kind sponsorship, and the Department of Trade and Industry. My thanks also go to our various sponsors – MerSeta, Investec, Standard Bank, Old Mutual, Novare, SMS Group, Sage VIP, RMA and Transman – and media partners.  The Indaba would not have taken place without them.

We look forward to a long, mutually-rewarding partnership with all of them – and with new sponsors that would like to come on board.

Kaizer M. Nyatsumba

Chief Executive Officer