Remarkably, one of South Africa’s major Trade Union Federations came out on Monday in support of our campaign and rubbished the claim by the Liesbeek Leisure Property Trust (LLPT) that they are acting out of protecting workers’ interests. SAFTU knows when a line is being spun by a propaganda outfit and will call it out quickly. 

Zwelenzima Vavi, General Secretary for the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU), pointed out that it was the LLPT that is responsible for job losses because it was their lack of meaningful consultation with indigenous people that resulted in the High Court interim interdict that halted construction. He noted that the Trust was falsely trying to blame Khoi, San, environmental and civic leaders and activists for job losses when they persisted recklessly in construction, knowing that a court challenge might halt the development. Despite LLPT’s attempts to portray the interdict as job-killing, Vavi noted that Amazon had several alternative options at which to locate their headquarters but chose the site at the confluence of the Black and Liesbeek Rivers – a site of pre-eminent heritage importance due to its historical, cultural and spiritual value, and its environmental sensitivity. 

He compared these scapegoating tactics to those often used by employers to escape accountability for their own failures and to blame trade unions and union members for non-payment of wages during strikes. Vavi drew analogies between the myriad crimes perpetrated against indigenous people, which have never been adequately acknowledged, addressed or atoned for and the present-day hazardous and underpaid working conditions experienced by black construction workers. For that reason, Vavi argued, workers are not the "enemy of marginalised indigenous Khoi and San groups, who are merely fighting for their fundamental right to dignity and respect." Rather, SAFTU has called out the hypocrisy of the developers using workers jobs as pretext and workers as pawns in their propaganda game.

SAFTU also pointed to the deafening silence of Amazon who, as the anchor tenant, cannot pretend they are not party to the heritage and environmental crimes being committed to build their headquarters on a sacred floodplain. 

It’s also the case that the number of workers that the LLPT claims to support through this development are likely wildly overestimated.  The LLPT job claims are based on an estimate in the Socio-Economic study prepared by a consultant from the company hired by LLPT. But the consultant simply repeated what is an LLPT estimate of jobs they will create without any critical assessment.

LLPT claimed that, on average, there would be 5239 jobs created (which the LLPT has recently quietly increased to 6000 jobs) and that the maximum number of workers on site during the construction phase would be 8382. But if the average number of jobs were to be 5239, you might expect that on some days there would be perhaps 2000 workers, some days 3000 but then at other times, you would expect 6000 or 7000 workers.  But when the interdict was issued, they were almost 9 months into the project and 750 workers were on site, by LLPT’s own admission.  Where were the other 4000+ workers? So, it is clear that the job numbers they claim to be able to create are not a fact, but an opinion from the developers and they have over-estimated job number hugely. 

Since the LLPT have every interest in overstating the benefits of the development, why on earth should be believe their estimates? There has been no objective verification of such claims and the only evidence suggests they have hugely overestimated the employment benefits.

Vavi’s statement makes it quite clear that workers can tell when they are being exploited and by whom, and when propaganda is being used to make a case that is not based on evidence. The argument that this is job-killing is simply an argument to say that indigenous heritage does not matter, nor does it matter that decisions are made unlawfully. It is an argument that heaps contempt on indigenous people’s claims to heritage and culture and thumbs its nose to the requirement for legality of decision-making on public goods.

In any event, workers would have been employed in large numbers had any of the other five sites been chosen for Amazon’s HQ. What is different is that it would not have been the LLPT and their backers making an annual 9% return on investment. So, this is not about workers jobs but about LLPT’s profits.

And it’s LLPT’s profits that are funding their appeal to the Supreme Court, ratcheting up legal costs for us. So, to ensure the historic decision made by Judge Goliath in her groundbreaking ruling on March 18th is preserved, we need your financial support so we can effectively oppose the respondents’ approach to the Supreme Court.

Please help us fund these legal costs by contributing at our fundraising site.  

Visit our website and follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction. 

Make the Liesbeek Matter!