Mass South African protests against labour brokers and inner-city road tolls will be good for morale as trade union federation Cosatu gears up for its elective conference in September. But the protests are unlikely to achieve their objectives - banning labour broking or preventing the introduction of tolls on highways in Gauteng, South Africa's provincial economic hub.

The primary outcome of the massive one-day (7 March 2012) protest action - estimates put participation at 100 000-plus, one of the biggest in post-apartheid history- was to demonstrate that Cosatu can and should push for a place in the decision-making forums overseeing Pretoria's multi-billion rand infrastructure rollout plan.The last-minute nature of this week's protests, with tolling only days away from implementation and labour broking the subject of negotiations on tougher legislation, has not helped Cosatu's case.

The mass action does provide impetus to the elective campaigns of ambitious Cosatu leaders who are gearing up for elections when the 2-million-member labour federation elects a new leadership in September 2012.

Cosatu general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi is expected to stand again for the post despite earlier indications that he wants to leave the union movement.Vavi is the longest serving secretary general in Cosatu's 26-year history. But he needs to strengthen his position: his earlier public announcement that he would not stand again created expectations in the next generation of trade union leadership.While there is a growing consensus among major union affiliates that he should be re-elected, in the interests of stability (Vol 30 No 2), his announcement - slapped down quickly by other union officials - of his plans to leave the federation, ensured a premature focus on the electoral succession not only in Cosatu, but also in its political allies, the African National Congress (ANC) and South African Communist Party (SACP). All three hold elective gatherings this year.

Labour brokers

While Cosatu has taken a "no surrender" view on its demand that labour brokers be banned outright, negotiations to which Cosatu is a party in statutory National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) suggest that Cosatu and the ANC are not far apart on the issue.

Labour broking has been the source of tension within the tripartite alliance: Cosatu argues that the ANC had "sold out" on its commitment ban labour brokers. But while Cosatu insists that the ANC had committed to a ban, the ANC's 2007 Polokwane national conference policy positions committed the ANC to toughen laws dealing with exploitative practices emanating from labour brokering. It did not support a blanket ban.

The ANC's 2009 election manifesto puts the issue thus: "Introduce laws to regulate contract work, subcontracting and out-sourcing, address the problem of labour broking and prohibit certain abusive practices."

Moreover, while the government has yet to announce what they have agreed to, it is understood that substantial progress has been made in addressing the demands of Cosatu on the issue.

The ANC government has tabled firm proposals to amend the law, a move that goes a long way to outlawing the most exploitative aspects of labour brokering.An announcement is expected shortly, once the details of the agreement have been fine-tuned in Nedlac. Among the changes envisaged includes measures outlawing employment of an individual in a position through a labour broker for more than six months. Thereafter, labour-broker employees will automatically be regarded as permanent staff of the client they are servicing, entitled to the full range of organisational rights and benefits. In addition, the proposals include enforcing equal pay for equal work.

The rationale of the changes is to discourage the use of labour brokers by increasing the cost of employment through labour-brokers. Labour-brokers typically undercut the wages of permanent employees. Workers placed by brokers will become more expensive once broking fees are included, leaving saving on "the hassle factor" as the only incentive to continue using them.

Once these provisions are in place, the major objection to labour broking, which has kept thousands of workers as "casuals" for the same companiesfor years on end, will be removed. Cosatu argues the activities of brokers should be limited to matching employers and employees. The labour broker's responsibility for the worker must end at the workplace.

E-tolling

Cosatu's opposition to e-tolling - an electronic tolling system formally titled the Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project (GFIP) - is rooted in its opposition to a policy of privatisation, especially on public utilities. The system was initiated under previous ANC Gauteng Premier Mbhazima Shilowa to facilitate the upgrading of Gauteng's highway system ahead of the 2010 Fifa World Cup tournament. Cosatu accused the Gauteng ANC of selling out on its commitments to involve stakeholders in its plans to upgrade public transport.The federation argues that tolling revenues would allow the South African National Roads Agency (Sanral) to milk roadusers for years after the R20-billion highway upgrade debt has been settled - in an estimated two-and-half years.

It protests have already resulted in major concessions from President Jacob Zuma's administration, itself less than happy with the e-tolling system inherited from its predecessor.

Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan included a R5,8-billion appropriation in this year's budget (Vol 30 No 4) to reduce the debt to be repaid through the toll system, and make a bigger discount possible for regular road users.Monthly tolls fees are now capped at R550 (US$72), down from R2 000-plus, as well as a near-50% cut in per-kilometre rates.

Pretoria has also intervened with the Gauteng provincial administration to exempt public transport carriers (buses and taxis) from paying tolling costs, with the ANC expressing satisfaction that this will alleviate transport costs otherwise passed on to what it calls "the poorest of the poor".

But the political management of introducing the system has flagged major challenges facing government's planned infrastructure rollout programme (Vol 30 No 3).The tolling system highlights what appears to be the lack of coordination on just how government's infrastructure rollout is meant to work.

Considering that the state has set aside R1-trillionover the next eight years for massive projects involving rail and road infrastructure, Cosatu would do well to position itself in the appropriate forums where decisions on these matters will be made.The SACP has identified several strategic questions that need answering, especially as decisions around infrastructure priorities are taken in the coming months and years.

Deputy Transport Minister and deputy South African Communist Party deputy general secretary Jeremy Cronin has highlighted several issues on the decision-making process leading to the tollroad system, which will also have a bearing on similar decisions in the future (see Cronin's questions below).

Developing answers to these questions in the coming months will be the litmus test as to whether the envisaged rail and road infrastructure plans in particular and the overall infrastructure spend in general will in fact be delivered on budget and on time.

Cronin's questions

• When politicians and the public are informed of a major project, we need to ensure its estimated costs include VAT. This is elementary, but it is the second time this oversight has been allowed.The Gautrain project used that as an excuse at one point, and now with GFIP it appears to be happening once again.

• The second lesson is the need to think clearly about funding models. Tolling of roads is widely used throughout the world. There are many important debates about whether this (and the more general user-pay principle on which it is based) is a more equitable approach to paying for public infrastructure than other alternatives. Clearly, with the GFIP tolling approach, there is an attempt to provide for some equity by way of targeted deductions - for example, reduced fees for public transport. Whether tolling, or a larger dedicated fuel levy, or direct financing out of the budget are the most developmental and effective means for financing major public infrastructure is something we must clearly debate, and not just in general, but specifically for different realities. However, we need to appreciate that public infrastructure is always paid for by the public - in one way or another.

• Which then raises the question, what are the public interest priorities when it comes to infrastructure? Whatare we seeking to achieve when we expand freeway networks? Very often, and this was certainly the prime argument with GFIP, it is said that we need to expand our freeways because of growing congestion on the existing network. But does the ever-increasing widening and extension of freeways solve congestion? International experience suggeststhis is not the case. More freeway lanes alleviate congestion for a few years, but simultaneously encourage more dispersed shopping malls, golf estates and townhouse property developments. Sooner rather than later congestion is back to where you began.

• This is not to say that we should never build or expand a freeway network, or that we should never toll such projects, or that we should never introduce congestion charging to encourage a switch to public transport or to rail freight haulage. But this brings us to a fourth lesson: if we use tolling to encourage public transport use or an increased switch to rail freight, then we had better FIRST provide affordable, accessible and safe public transport infrastructure and operations, and better rail freight.

• I have referred to "public" interest - but, of course, the "public" is a diverse class reality. In many US cities, an electronic tolling system on freeways may well largely impact upon upper middle-class households living in distant, well-heeled green suburbs out in the countryside. In this case, tolling is a way ofmaking them pay for their 4x4 to work and shopping mall commuting, for their choice of life-styles. Likewise, in Gauteng it is, in part, this middle class stratum that will be impacted upon by the proposed tolls. It was also they who back in 2002 were most vociferous in demanding improved first-world freeways to suit their life-style choices. But in urban South Africa, there is always another reality - apartheid (and persisting land-use patterns) forced the great majority of the urban working class and poor into distant, dormitory townships. The question arises as to why (and how) they should (or even remotely could) pay for other people's freeway-based, first world life-styles?

• Over the last 17 years, a number of major and arguably poorly conceived mega-projects in the transport sector have emanated from provinces and then been escalated to national when it became apparent that a provincial budget could not possibly sustain the cost. Going forward we need to ensure that we have a much more coherent strategic approach - ensuring that national priorities (public transport or rail freight, for instance) and local challenges (branch rail-lines, or access roads) are not overwhelmed and then financially crowded-out by costly provincial projects. This, in turn, raises a much wider range of questions about the affordability and desirability of three different spheres of government, and the topical question that rises out of the recent local government elections about how to sustain the critical local government sphere.

There are many things to be learnt from the GFIP controversy. We need to ensure that major public infrastructure spending is strategically prioritised, appropriately phased, and accurately costed. Above all, we need to understand that what we choose to spend on is not a class neutral and merely technical exercise.