DEAR readers, this week I have decided to dedicate this space to a valuable article written by a labour consultant with vast experience in labour and employment matters.  This is in view of the crucial period in which we are, when Zambians will be listening to many campaign messages from different politicians who will be explaining their vision for the country. Read on …

By CLEMENT KASONDE –
THIS article discusses the role of capital and labour in a global economy and identifies the main crises as well as challenges facing contemporary trade unions in today’s neoliberal monopoly capitalism. It looks at the role of government in the capitalist market as manager of conflict and entrepreneur manager in the labour market from the perspectives of neoclassic economics and the Keynesian demand capitalism.
The article advocates for Keynesian demand management which supports a powerful institutional role for organised labour and a comprehensive welfare state, while acknowledging the necessity for development and income growth for the billions of people living in abject poverty, to which Zambia constitutes a part. It further advances and shares the views that for any meaning economic development to take place, there must be an active sound labour relations among labour market stakeholders namely the state, labour and capital.
Both labour and capital are regarded as economic agents of the labour market. The labour market is an important economic institution of a capitalist market. Capitalist market can only operate in a capitalist society which depends on capital accumulation. Capital accumulation is an important process in contributing to social structure of accumulation for the survival of human development and the wellbeing of the people of any country, both in terms of growth and development going forward
However, it is important to point-out here that capitalist market though an inevitable economic institution for human survival is not a society where people live happily but that it is based on the notion of insatiable appetite for growth through lowering of wages and erosion of working conditions in the name of competitiveness and technological innovation. Most often than not, it is based on the notion of exploitative labour practices, as a way of maximizing shareholder value.
The article argues that economic and political hegemony of capitalists must be counter-balanced with contemporary trade union action which should involve coming to terms with the power of capital rather than attempting to overthrow that power (Luke 1974 and J. Femia 1975). Capital is always fighting labour, and as a result, labour has always fought back.
The fight between labour and capital has sometimes led to social crisis within the labour market. When there is conflict in the labour market, labour market being one of the most important institutions for economic development and growth, this may lead to uneven and non linear growth in the economy. As a result of this uneven or non-linear growth in the economy, most often than not, this leads to what may be referred to as:”social dysfunctional” of the capitalistic society. In fact, if this is allowed to continue, it has the potential to affect the capital accumulation, growth and structural change.
Therefore, in order to manage this conflict, we need the state’s participation inside the labour market to act as manager of conflicts while acting at the same time as entrepreneurial manager. This is, however, contrary to the new classical liberal view which advocates for non-regulation as its insatiable desire to continue accumulating and accumulating (extraction of wealth by eliminating all obstacles e.g. labour and labour laws).
Capitalism comes from capitalist society which is a class society based on materialistic notion through exploitation of labour force. The class struggle between capital and labour is based on capitalists seeking more profits while workers seek “more money in their pockets.” According to Karl Marx, the most important thing in any business transaction is to make the economy moving regulated by prices, wages and profits. There is always a confrontation between workers and capital because the central issue or main goal for capital is to make profits [return on investments]. The profits are made based on the exploitation of labour force.
However, the conflict between workers and employers can best be achieved through adoption and application of a spirit of win-win situation using collective bargaining processes. Although trade unions still remain the most maligned organizations in society, however, both historically and at present, they are viewed as being responsible for the disruption of industry, the decline of the economy, as well as the undermining of the social rights and privileges that traditionally held together the fabric of society (Tom Clarke, 1978).
Contrary to this imperialistic notion held by neoclassic economists, however, it can still be argued that in fact, most of the industrial disruptions, the world economic recession of 1929 and the recent economic crises of the 2008/9 were not caused by trade unions per se, but were caused by flawed economic policies derived from flawed ideas based on imperialist capitalist corporate greed (Thomas I Parley, 2012).
Currently, there appears to be consensus among stakeholders within the labour market namely: governments of various nations, employers’ and workers’ organizations etc, on how best capital and labour may relate to each other for the purpose of industrial harmony and continued productivity for economic growth
In fact, it has been widely acknowledged that the sound labour relations enjoyed is as a result of the enactment of several ILO conventions, inter alia, Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of Right to Organise, 1948), Convention No. 98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining, 1949), and Convention No. 135 (Workers’ Representatives, 1971). These and others not mentioned constitute the bulk of international legal instruments requiring governments of different nations, employers’ and workers’ organizations world over to apply them in law and practice in the spirit of tripartism.
What is of interest to learn from the “capital-labour conflict” in Zambia is that unlike the general attempts by previous governments to directly control the levels of earnings of working people in order to maintain and protect corporate profitability, the Patriotic Front government has maintained that it would not allow anyone to blackmail it and that the government would not rescind its decision on the upward adjustment of the wages as doing the contrary would go against the campaign promises it made with the people of Zambia and in particular the youth who protected the votes from being stolen by the former MMD government.
On the other hand, the Zambia Federation of Employers (ZFE) argued that if the new minimum wage is implemented, some employers will find it difficult to meet increased pay demand and may decide to lay off some workers due to diminished profits or may be forced to increase prices on most of goods and services. However, government has maintained that what has been set is basic minimum wage and that the super-profits most employers make are not affected.
These two positions may be properly summed-up into what Tom Clarke said thus:
“The most critical field of State intervention in the advanced capitalist economy is that of incomes policies and that any attempt to regulate the overall levels of profits and wages is potentially the most explosive development of all those which constitute the new form of capitalism” (V.L. Allen 1971).
Therefore the author’s views are that although the incessant struggle between capital and labour will continue manifesting itself, however, the adoption and application of internationally agreed standards of good practice in labour matters will always form a basis on which both employers’ and workers’ can be reminded of the fact that resolving industrial disputes through peaceful means must always  be put at the forefront of both workers and the capitalist agenda because as Karl Marx had put it:
“And as we, as socialists, tell you that, apart from the money question, you will continue nonetheless to be workers, and the masters will still continue to be masters, just as before…”
It is also important to note that the incomes policies in every country are determined by a traditional standard of life, the satisfaction of certain needs or wants or desires that spring from the social conditions in which people are domiciled and reared up.
The statement of the main conclusion restates the views of Karl Marx on Capital and labour thus:
“Of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself and the organization of revolutionary elements as a class supposes the existence of all the productive forces which could be engendered in the bosom of the old society.”
And so was in the wise words of 18th Century Adam Smith who said:
“We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combination of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate. When workers combine, masters… never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen.”
Therefore this article advocates for a strong view that economic, social and political freedoms must help to re-enforce sound labour relations among all actors in the labour market rather than being hostile to one another (as has been the case sometimes).
It calls for a need for an integrated analysis of economic, social and political activities involving a variety of institutions and many other interactive economic agencies, in particular on roles and interconnections between certain crucial instrumental freedoms including economic opportunities, political freedoms, social facilities, transparency guarantees, and protective security, as well as social arrangements, involving many institutions (the state, the market, the legal system, political parties, the media, public interest groups and public discussion forums, among others as active agents of change, rather than being seen as passive recipients of dispersed benefits for their survival.
(The author is Executive Director of the Labour Institute of Zambia and a Labour Studies lecturer at Mulungushi University in Kabwe.  A former unionist and telecoms engineer by profession. He is former General Secretary of the National Union of Communications Workers. He holds a Master of Arts in Labour Economics [UNICAMP/GLU-BRASIL], LLB (UNZA), Dip. Telecoms & Electronics Engineering (City & Guilds of London, and MBA candidate (Northrise University, Ndola). Send feedback to clementkasonde@gmail.com or lizambia@gmail.com