Investigating the Need to Introduce Compulsory Interest Arbitration as a Method to Prevent Lengthy Strikes in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of lengthy strikes in South Africa has been a cause for concern since it destabilises the economy and can result in a loss of employment if it is not managed properly. A strike that takes too long to be resolved causes anger towards strikers, so creating a fertile environment for the eruption of violence between striking and non-striking workers. Damage to property and harm to civilians has been reported where striking workers have become violent during a strike. It appears that the existing remedies fail to curb long strikes and resultant violence, as unions and members continue with their action despite the granting of an order of interdict to stop the conduct. To solve the problem of long and consequently violent strikes, the article advocates the introduction of a compulsory interest arbitration in the labour relations law of South Africa. A compulsory interest arbitration will force the parties into arbitration once it is established that the strike has continued for an unreasonably long period without a solution. The use of compulsory interest arbitration will not be unique to South Africa, as other countries such as Canada and Australia use it in their labour relations systems – which helps them deal with long and possibly harmful or violent strikes. The article argues that lessons can be learned from these countries on how South Africa can deal with its own protracted strikes. The article further proposes that the LRA be amended to include a provision that will enable the Minister to intervene where the parties fail to reach agreement on disputed issues, and where it is in the public interest to do so. Introducing a compulsory interest arbitration in the labour relations system could limit the right to strike. However, the article argues that such a limitation may be justified in terms of s 36 of the Constitution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".