News Feeds

This week, we’re chatting with Dallas developer, DART board member, and urban designer Patrick Kennedy about his recent publication, “An Atlas of Intercity Highway Impacts.” We discuss the tax base that highways removed from cities, what we could have done for cities with federal transportation funding, and the long term value we lost.

You know the drill: we provide three ways of enjoying the podcast: The full, AI-generated transcript; an edited excerpt at the end of this post; and the embedded audio player below.

Jeff Wood: What was the process like for putting together all these maps, all these data points, and making sure that you were on the right track in terms of the story that you were trying to tell?

Patrick Kennedy: It was an iterative process because I didn’t know what I was going to do with it. I had a plan that I wanted to write a book on the history of the Interstate Highway System and how we got to this place, and a lot of it centered on Eisenhower and the person he appointed, General David Bragdon, to keep the interstate system on time and under budget.

Megan Kimble was working on her book, City Limits, and I talked to her about that. She ended up going to the Eisenhower Library and digging through the notes for that book. I was talking to a friend, Scott Polikov, about this, too. He was like, “Nobody cares about history. Focus on the actual data. What was the impact? And focus on the future.”

And that’s when I decided, you know what? I’m gonna focus on the data. I had been talking to some book publishers, and they were more interested in black and white text than images. So I was like, that’s not what this can be, right?

This has to be maps, and this has to be data. I’m just going to go my own way, just do it, and just do it for free and post it. I just focused on the real world impacts to every city. I started on every city in the Yellow Book, but I realized that was not enough. There were something like 90 cities. I expanded it to 142 because no cities in North Carolina were in the Yellow Book.

Phoenix might have been in the Yellow Book, but San Diego wasn’t. I just wanted to keep adding cities. And I just was assembling data and data and data. I was interested in what happened to population density since 1960 once we started building in earnest, what happened to population since 2000 to present.

I found an inflection point in demographics where millennials were entering the workforce and looking to come back to urban environments and walkable environments. I started keeping this huge database of these things. During the pandemic, I came across a report by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve — their study suggested that within three-mile radius of downtowns, highways become a disamenity and devalue property up to about a half mile away.

That was the key point where I started building these databases and said, “OK, real estate values in most cities is generally not as valuable in a three-mile radius.” So I built a one-mile radius and a three-mile radius, and I used that to collect population data points and my real estate data points regarding how much recent development is worth on the assessed tax rolls in all these cities.

I went through, found new development, looked it up on the tax rolls, and aggregated the total amount of highway right of way in each of these cities, in those geographies, the one-mile to three-mile radius, and said, “OK, if I developed these highway right of ways at 50 to 55 percent efficiency,” you’d have tax-exempt surface roads and schools and whatever else.

55 percent of private development, what would that be worth to the city? And I said, “OK, every city then has this value multiplied by the amount of land that highways take up in those one-mile and three-mile geographies.” And that’s what I used to determine the economic development potential of removals, and how much theoretical tax base was removed from each of these cities because of the development potential those cities lost by building highways.

Another book that was kind of the impetus to this was The Elephant in the Bedroom, which was a book about California highway building from the early 1990s. It was written by a couple of engineers. And when I was researching, thinking I was doing the book on the history of highways, came across a line where they said the 210 freeway through Pasadena wiped off 10 percent of the property tax rolls right off the map. I thought, “Oh, okay, there’s a number for every city,” and I wanted to know what it was.

Jeff Wood: I guess I have to disagree with Scott a little bit. I think the history is really important. I think it’s good to know.

Patrick Kennedy: No, me too. But the story was being told, you know? I was like, yeah … I’m just retelling the same story.

Jeff Wood: Yeah. We talked with Megan Kimble about Bragdon and what she found in the archives from Eisenhower’s library. But I think that’s really important to think about all the places where we could have gone in a different direction. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, especially in the 1970s with the oil crisis — kind of what we’re in now with the Iran oil situation.

But there’s all these off-ramps that we could have taken over time, and we continue to go along the route that we’ve chosen. I feel like this is a negative way we’ve taken to building infrastructure in the country. But those inflection points are really fascinating.

I’m wondering how the Bragdon information spoke to you. You talked about the Philadelphia Federal Reserve. There’s a lot of little things that, in the past, kind of shaped how you’re thinking, but also kind of shape the politics of the way that things are going now.

Patrick Kennedy: To me, Bragdon was the most influential person. I’m drawn to those sort of Cassandras that fight the righteous battle, but then ultimately lose and are forgotten to history. But I also kind of wanted to tell that story because he was right and he fought the Bureau of Public Roads and all of the Robert Moses acolytes that worked there.

If people are this wonky and interested, his 1960 interim report is kind of fascinating because he argued that the interstate highway system was for interstate commerce. It was not to serve local traffic. If we were to build highways to serve the traffic projections in 1980, some of the highways through the bigger cities would have to be 40 lanes or more.

He said that it’s far better to use our dollars for actual high-capacity transit. And part of his job was to keep the entire interstate system under budget. It ended up going about five or six times over the original budget. I calculated that in today’s dollars: the interstate system ended up costing something like $750 billion.

He said the inner city highways, which were one-tenth of the lane mileage of the system, cost ten times per mile to build. And so it was the most expensive part. Roughly half the cost of the entire interstate system was just the property acquisition and construction of the inner city highways.

Montreal was building the first legs of its subway in the 1960s. We could have built the equivalent of 36 Paris Metros for that $375 billion at the cost that Montreal was building its subway. And so part of this is just creating like an Earth 2 in my mind. What if we had gotten it right?

We could have a Paris Metro system in Cincinnati and in Kansas City serving local traffic and not devaluing the downtowns and basically wrecking a lot of the local economies around the country.

For years, the Akademik Lomonosov looked like one of the nuclear industry’s more eccentric experiments: two reactors mounted on a barge and towed thousands of kilometers to Pevek, a tiny Russian port above the Arctic Circle.

But next week, representatives of the nuclear and maritime industries will gather in Washington to discuss whether something resembling Russia’s experiment could become considerably more commonplace.

On August 26 and 27, the International Atomic Energy Agency will formally launch ATLAS — Atomic Technologies Licensed for Applications at Sea — an initiative aimed at developing an international bureaucratic framework for civilian nuclear technologies at sea. The project encompasses both floating nuclear power plants and nuclear-powered commercial ships, bringing together two industries whose regulatory worlds have historically not much intersected.

The event is significantly timed. After decades on the fringes of the nuclear industry, maritime reactors are attracting new interest as small modular reactor developers search for markets and the shipping industry looks for ways to decarbonize.

The United States is already preparing. In July, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Marine Minerals Administration signed an agreement establishing how the agencies would divide responsibility if developers propose nuclear projects on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. No such commercial projects have yet been proposed, but the government is creating a regulatory pathway before they arrive. The NRC is separately developing guidance for licensing floating plants and nuclear propulsion systems.

Russia got there first

None of this is entirely theoretical. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov has been supplying electricity from Pevek since 2019 and entered commercial operation in 2020. Its two KLT-40S reactors provide roughly 70 megawatts of generating capacity, making it the world’s only operating commercial floating nuclear power station.

Bellona has followed—and criticized—the project since construction began in 2006, raising questions about its economics, radioactive waste, spent fuel, maritime accidents and the risks inherent in moving nuclear materials through remote Arctic waters. The plant also became an illustration of nuclear megaproject delays: construction ultimately took 13 years rather than the four originally envisioned.

But Rosatom has not abandoned the concept. Quite the opposite.

The Russian state nuclear corporation is now trying to turn the Lomonosov experiment into a repeatable model. Four newer floating power units equipped with RITM-200S reactors are planned to supply the remote Baimskaya mining project in Chukotka. In May, Rosatom announced completion of the first reactor unit for the project.

That project also demonstrates why floating nuclear power may prove considerably more complicated than simply putting a small reactor on a barge.

Russian shipyards lacked the capacity to build the first two hulls on the required schedule, forcing Rosatom to outsource them to China’s Wison shipyard. The first Chinese-built hull arrived at the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg this spring, where its Russian reactors and turbines are to be installed.

In other words, floating nuclear plants promise factory-style construction, but Russia’s experience suggests that they still require an elaborate international industrial supply chain.

New technology, new vulnerabilities

The renewed enthusiasm for nuclear power at sea also arrives at an unsettling moment for international nuclear security. Recent wars have challenged a longstanding assumption underlying civilian nuclear power—that reactors and other nuclear facilities remain insulated from military conflict.

Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant has turned Europe’s largest nuclear station into part of an active war zone, repeatedly exposing the site to explosions, drone activity and losses of external power. In February 2025, a drone struck and badly damaged the New Safe Confinement protecting the remains of the destroyed Chernobyl reactor. And this year, projectiles struck the grounds of Iran’s operating Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant during the war there, though no reactor damage or radioactive release was reported.

None of these incidents produced a major radiological accident. But together they raise a question that becomes especially important as nuclear power moves offshore: Does mobility make a reactor safer in wartime—or simply create new ways for it to become vulnerable?

A floating plant could theoretically be moved away from a threatened area, something impossible for a conventional reactor. But a reactor moored in a harbor or supplying an isolated military, mining or industrial installation could also become a conspicuous strategic target. Its electrical connections, cooling systems, moorings and supporting infrastructure may be more exposed than those of a heavily protected land-based plant. And a nuclear-powered commercial ship introduces another problem entirely: unlike Zaporizhzhia or Bushehr, it could actually sail into or through a conflict zone.

A nuclear plant without an address

The technical problems with floating nuclear plants may be easier to solve than the legal ones. Nuclear regulation has traditionally assumed that a reactor stays put. Maritime law, by contrast, is built around vessels that cross borders and operate under different flag, coastal and port-state jurisdictions. A floating reactor forces those systems together.

Who licenses a reactor built in one country, registered in another and moored in a third? Who takes responsibility for its nuclear waste and spent fuel? Which country is responsible for safeguards if the plant moves? What happens when a nuclear-powered ship enters a foreign port—or when a floating reactor must be evacuated because of war or extreme weather?

The IAEA has identified refueling, maintenance, remote operation, safeguards, security and international regulatory harmonization among the issues that must be resolved. Meanwhile, the International Maritime Organization is revising its own 1981 safety code for nuclear merchant ships, with adoption of a new code currently envisioned for 2030.

The appeal nevertheless seems obvious. Floating plants could be assembled in specialized shipyards rather than constructed individually at remote sites, then delivered to isolated communities, mines, islands or industrial projects whose grids cannot support conventional gigawatt-scale reactors. When their work is finished, they could theoretically be removed.

That is the vision ATLAS will begin trying to turn into a workable international system next week.

Russia, meanwhile, has already spent nearly two decades discovering what happens when that idea encounters reality. Its experience suggests floating nuclear power can work—to a point. Whether it can be made economical, replicable and safe enough to operate around the world is a much larger question—and one the rest of the nuclear industry is suddenly eager to answer.

The post Floating nuclear power was a Russian curiosity. Now others want to give it a shot appeared first on Bellona.org.

Dictionary (WG) * Coordinators: Carlos Tornel and Franco Augusto * Members: Franco Augusto, Matthew Burke, Ashish Kothari, Vera Kozak, Lizah Makombore, Vasna Ramasar, Carlos Tornel, Matías Vaccarezza. Description * Our short project aim: To create a collection of concepts in an online platform where we foster intercultural knowledge of radical alternativesalternatives

The TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation in California is working to scale regenerative land management to improve climate stability while promoting the health of humans, animals, and the planet. 

The Foundation’s home base is an 1,800-acre grass-fed cattle ranch in the San Francisco Bay Area, known as TomKat Ranch. The site serves as a “learning laboratory about regenerative practice to de-risk and broadcast it,” Founder Kat Taylor tells Food Tank. Their goal is to provide an evidence base demonstrating that regenerative models are environmentally beneficial and economically viable. This work is complemented by efforts to advance good policy and build strong markets. 

“Every farm and ranch is a business first,” Taylor explains. “If we don’t sustain them that way, they become imperiled personally, the practice doesn’t scale, and they are subject to competition from the incumbent system.” 

As multiple crises, from wealth consolidation to climate change, come to a head, building regenerative models is a way to create an alternative future that is grounded in resilience. Taylor believes that the time is right to drive these efforts forward, stating, “We have this incredible moment in history to redesign civilization, to protect our values, to still harness the power of capitalism and create an economy that serves civilization, not vice versa.”

But the Foundation realizes they can’t do this alone. “Almost everything we do, we try to do in coalition,” Taylor says. “We are crowdsourcing design solutions at a time that it’s important to rethink and redesign, and we don’t have all the answers.”

This also means working alongside people they may not always agree with. “We are trying to listen deeply, empathize completely, and work with people where they are,” Taylor tells Food Tank. All people, she believes, want the same thing: thriving economies, a healthy planet, land that can be passed on to future generations. 

Listen to the full conversation with Kat Taylor on “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” to hear more about the ways that the TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation is helping to mitigate risk for food producers, Taylor’s work to advance school meals for all, and how we return to healthy, safe, and vibrant food and farming systems. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of William Milliot, TomKat Ranch

The post TomKat Ranch Educational Foundation Wants to Build a Food System Grounded in Resilience appeared first on Food Tank.

Solar power is in its heyday, with installations growing rapidly around the world as costs drop. Recent studies have suggested that photovoltaics could be the dominant power source by 2050.

Those shiny sun-harnessing panels have a dark side right now though. They are slated to become a major waste problem at the end of their lives. Anywhere from 297 to 402 million tonnes of solar panels will be discarded by 2060.

But all that PV waste could deliver almost $1 trillion in economic benefits if recycled properly, according to a new study published in Nature. And with international cooperation and foresight, these benefits could be distributed globally, writes the international team from China and Sweden.

“Effectively recycling [end-of-life] PV modules is therefore not only an environmental imperative but also a strategic necessity to secure material supply chains for future PV deployment and sustain global decarbonization goals,” they write.

Right now when solar panels become ineffective or break, they typically end up in landfills. There, they can leach toxic heavy metals such as lead and cadmium into soils and groundwater systems.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:What happens to obsolete oil rigs in a green future? This study has a smart answer.

 

Solar modules also contain valuable materials such as silicon, silver, copper, and tellurium, which could be reused to make new panels. Silicon and silver are the most valuable metals in PV panels. But today’s commercial recycling technologies typically cannot recover either at sufficient purity to justify the cost of recycling. And there simply aren’t enough industrial-scale recycling operations in place today.

Veolia runs PV recycling facilities in France and Michigan. China, which is the world’s biggest PV producer, has a directive for manufacturers to take responsibility for collecting and treating end-of-life panels. Many Chinese solar PV manufacturers now have pilot recycling projects.

“The global landscape is far from uniform, characterized by an uneven distribution of recycling capabilities,” the authors write. High- and middle-income regions such as the EU, the United States, China, Japan and South Korea have the capacity to recycle most of the world’s solar panels. Meanwhile, low-income regions lack the expertise and capacity for recycling so they rely on outsourced recycling.

So the researchers created a computer model that examined 1,708 recycling scenarios across 32 global regions. They took into account recycling technologies, material prices, international trade and subsidy policies. They found that combining region-specific recycling technologies with outsourced recycling strategies gives the highest benefits. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 3.32 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent. And it would generate a net benefit of around US $530 to over 935 billion by 2060.

But these benefits would concentrate in upper-middle-income regions with advanced technologies. One strategy that would help make recycling more equitable is a declining subsidy model, the researchers found. This approach gradually reduces financial support as recycling becomes commercially viable.

International cooperation mechanisms, such as the Paris Agreement, should also prioritize technology transfer and targeted funding to develop recycling capacity in low-income regions, they write.

“We suggest that regionally adapted recycling strategies and international cooperation, with a focus on technology transfer and funding for recycling capacity in low-income regions, provide effective ways to achieve equitable and scalable PV waste circularity,” the team writes.

Source: Chen Wang et al. Towards an equitable future of global photovoltaic waste recycling. Nature, 2026.

Image: AI-generated / by Magnific

 

NUMSA Press Statement

13 August 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) rejects the comments made by Professor Anton Eberhard whom NUMSA regards through his conduct as nothing less than a hired “World Bank Inkabi” who has decided to unleash a series of attacks against the Eskom leadership, with a brazen focused attack targeting for liquidating the Eskom Board Chairperson Mr. Mteto Nyati.

The above message from his X account represents absolute levels of arrogance that we have observed over time.

We want to state publicly as NUMSA that we are dismayed and disgusted that Anton Eberhard can think he is entitled to fire the Eskom Board Chairperson through a post on X. This explains how he thinks his proximity to the Presidency and National Treasury entitles him to hire and fire Eskom board leadership.

NUMSA does not take light the fact that there seems to be a coordinated attack by the self-appointed Anton Eberhard to advance a capitalist right-wing, backward World Bank agenda to steal Eskom assets in broad daylight.

This is a joint collaborated effort by both the World Bank and President Cyril Ramaphosa. It is not a coincidence that both Anton Eberhard and Vincent Magwenya, the Presidential Spokesperson, have become partners in crime in attacking the Chairperson of Eskom, Mr. Mteto Nyati.

The mischievous and dishonest statement from the Presidential Spokesperson not only demonstrates how shallow and deceitful he is in trying to muzzle the Chairperson of Eskom, but also undermines the Chairperson’s attempts to exercise his fiduciary duties.

The Eskom board has been firmly mandated by the people of South Africa to run Eskom as a public utility that consistently acts in the public interest. This remote-controlled Spokesperson of the President attacks the Eskom Chairperson’s correct and well-articulated defence of public assets.

President Cyril Ramaphosa and the World Bank are attempting—in broad daylight and without any logical financial justification—to strip these assets from public ownership. They are throwing them like a javelin into the private hands of hyenas ready to feed their greed for maximisation of profits, stealing these assets under the guise of a so-called state-owned transmission system operator.

Our message to him and the Presidency is: Hands off our people’s assets and hands off our Eskom Board Chairperson Mteto Nyati!

Below is the attack unleashed by the Spokesperson in the Presidency, which NUMSA rejects with the contempt it deserves.

“It is unfortunate that Mr Nyati creates an impression as if there’s a process that’s underway without the inclusion of Eskom and at the detriment of Eskom,” Magwenya said. “All of Eskom’s concerns are well known and have been thoroughly discussed in government and with Eskom.”

This statement from Vincent Magwenya is a lie! It is nothing less than pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. The core argument of the Eskom Board Chairperson—which NUMSA fully supports—is a responsible and honest position: Eskom has received loans backed by its assets, and the value of those assets stands as security.

By speaking on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa and attempting to muzzle the Eskom Chairperson, Anton Eberhard and Magwenya are trying hard to conceal the recklessness of their decision. This is a fraudulent and illegal attempt to transfer Eskom assets into private hands for their own selfish ends.

NUMSA rejects this as we remain firm that Eskom must remain a public utility in the hands of the people to play its strategic role of continuously delivering a competitive electricity tariff to power the South African economy and our communities.

We reject their reckless attempt to loot Eskom’s assets and strip them away for no valid reason other than the selfish greed of satisfying private interests over the public good.

NUMSA is making a clarion call to everybody who cares and has a conscience to reject this tampering and attempt to move Eskom assets away from Eskom. These assets belong to Eskom and Eskom is the property of the people! They are not the private property of Eberhard, President Cyril Ramaphosa or the World Bank!

This dirty agenda and decision to steal and move Eskom assets has extremely serious consequences for Eskom’s financial future.

Firstly, it implies that Eskom may be forced to impair critical assets on its balance sheet.

Secondly, such impairments could trigger severe financial consequences for the utility, including potential credit and financing risks.

In essence, Eskom stands to lose cumulative revenue of approximately R342 billion over three years, based on the NERSA Multi-Year Price Determination for 2025-2028. In addition to this, the transfer of transmission assets would remove roughly R420 billion in regulated asset base from Eskom.

This will create enormous challenges for Eskom’s ability to meet its financial obligations and maintain long-term sustainability. On the segmentation report, transmission business generated almost R100bn in revenue for Eskom in the last financial year and made a profit of R27bn.

It is the duty and responsibility of the Eskom Board led by the Eskom Chairperson Mteto Nyati to defend Eskom assets and say NO to this open attempted coup to move Eskom assets to where they do not belong.

NUMSA will not stand on the sideline. We are calling on our members and the public at large to tell President Cyril Ramaphosa and the World Bank: Hands Off Eskom assets!

The consequences of such a decision will see the people of South Africa paying not less than R84 billion. NUMSA will do everything at our disposal to resist and fight back this open stealing of Eskom Assets.

We will deploy mass action which our members, Eskom and the public at large must lead. We will unleash legal action to protect Eskom assets from these desperate hyenas like Anton Eberhard.

Their attacks escalated last week and this week when Professor Anton Eberhard, completely unprovoked, called for the removal of the Eskom Board Chairperson. He was targeted simply for exercising his board fiduciary duty—a duty that essentially requires the accounting authority to exercise utmost care in ensuring the reasonable protection of Eskom’s assets.

This obligation is also explicitly reflected in the terms of reference for the Eskom Restructuring Task Team, which require the task team to:

“Ensure that, following the restructuring, Eskom is not worse off than its current financial position, and that the TSO is financially sustainable.”

Eskom’s vigilant leadership, led by Mteto Nyati and Dan Marokane, would have done an extensive study on the implications of transferring these transmission assets to the new transmission system operator.

This study indicates that this transfer of assets would have serious negative implications on Eskom’s financial sustainability. Furthermore, retaining these assets in the Eskom Group will further assist Eskom in seeking funding for future projects and for Eskom’s future sustainability which is an inherent duty of Eskom leadership as well as the board.

Such a task cannot be outsourced to Anton Eberhard and his cronies in furthering the aims of the World Bank, who do not want to see any success of assets that are owned and controlled by the public.

Under these circumstances, the suggestion by Anton Eberhard that Mr. Mteto is not assisting Eskom to align with the structural reforms is malicious and has no basis.

As NUMSA, we can no longer be fooled that he is advancing academic views from the University of Cape Town about the future of energy of our country.

We know these johnny-come-late individuals, such as the likes of Anton Eberhard, have become arrogant in their capitalist mission and agenda to liquidate Eskom. We have always known they have positioned themselves for their selfish interest of privatising our country’s energy provision.

Their sole interest is to hand over Eskom ownership and control to the private sector and its profit motive interest, against the peoples view that Eskom must remain a public utility and the electricity must be maintained as a public good.

NUMSA wants to remind the people of South Africa that individuals such as Professor Anton Eberhard have a dreadful, right-wing track record of consistently championing the privatisation of Eskom.

He participated in the 1998 and 2003 White Papers on Energy Policy and Renewable Energy, as well as the Electricity Regulation Act, which paved the way for the entry of Independent Power Producers (IPPs).

It is no secret that these very same pro-privatisation demagogues have been doing work for the World Bank. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that Anton Eberhard is nothing more than a rented lackey of the World Bank.

This individual has developed the guts to attack the Eskom leadership which has been doing extremely good work of moving Eskom away from loadshedding.

It was them who were the corner men of former Eskom CEO Andre De Ruyter. It is their ideas that collapsed Eskom’s quality maintenance of power stations to be below the 75% energy availability factor, which is critical for the reliability of supply to keep the lights on.

Clearly their arrogance is driven by their proximity to the presidency of Cyril Ramaphosa and National Treasury through their DG. We reject this cheap capitalist manipulation with the contempt it deserves!

Their arguments and the agenda they continue to pursue represent nothing except to manipulate public opinion as if such a decision of breaking up Eskom into three separate entities has the interest of the people at heart.

In essence it is a proxy argument to represent the interest of the private sector in the form of Independent Transmission Projects.

NUMSA wants to be on record that the Eskom board under the leadership of Mr. Mteto has successfully turned around Eskom achieving impressive operational and financial performance.

Under his tenure of leadership, we have now achieved 453 days without loadshedding compared to the disastrous era of Andre De Ruyter, supported by Anton Eberhard who subjected the country to 329 days of loadshedding within a single financial year.

Eskom recorded an after-tax profit of R16 billion for the 2025 financial year—its first full-year profit in eight years—followed by an unaudited profit of R24.3 billion in the first six months of FY2026.

Against this incredible success, why would anyone call for the Eskom board Chairperson to go?

It goes without saying that individuals such as Anton Eberhard are desperate soldiers of fortune who are deeply hurt by what has been successfully achieved by Eskom over the past two financial years.

Their mission is nothing but to act as agent provocateurs who are working 24/7 to set systems that will ensure that the Eskom that has been successful under Mteto is destroyed and its ownership and control as a business is handed over to his capitalist class, the private sector.

As NUMSA, we are clear that we reject this desperate attempt by “World Bank Inkabi” Professor Anton Eberhard to call for Mr. Mteto to go.

NUMSA, as a union that is organising workers at Eskom remains in full support of the current Eskom board led by Mr Mteto Nyathi and executive led by Mr Dan Marokane.

Hands off Eskom Leadership, Hands off!!!

Issued by:

Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary
073 157 6384

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Press Statement in Defence of Eskom Board Chairperson – Mr. Mteto Nyati

For decades, cities throughout the world have based their mobility programmes on a misguided assumption: that car ownership will only keep growing. But as more cities challenge the auto-centric model and embrace “multimodality”, a new paradigm is emerging. Bringing about this alternative vision requires not only bold, innovative solutions, but also robust new planning institutions.

For many of us, having to juggle work, school, and other daily obligations, getting stuck in traffic is a daily nuisance. In order to carry out our responsibilities, we participate in the traffic system, which costs us a lot of time and money and harms our physical and mental health.

Some of these consequences, such as safety and stress, are easy to recognise. But research tells us that daily urban mobility also has a great impact on rates of obesity, diabetes, heart complaints, respiratory illnesses, dementia, and depression, amongst other health problems. These health conditions are also linked to common harmful transport emissions, such as particles resulting from the friction of tyres on asphalt, exhaust fumes, and general noise pollution created by vehicles. What’s more, traffic also causes greenhouse gas emissions, which are directly linked to the climate crisis and other related social and ecological problems.

In order to improve urban mobility and address its problems, modern cities put special care into the planning of their urban mobility systems. To this end, one of the main goals they aspire to is becoming a “multimodal” city – a place where inhabitants can choose and combine high-quality methods of mobility, and where owning and using a car is the last option, not a compulsion. This means prioritising more active forms of movement, such as walking and riding a bicycle, especially for journeys of only a few kilometres. For longer journeys around the city, the mobility system must offer a variety of complementary combinations using high-quality public transport, such as buses and trams for short journeys, and underground trains and regional train lines for longer trips and transporting large numbers of people.

In practice, however, many cities still struggle to establish effective new planning institutions to achieve this desired result due to a variety of reasons.

Firstly, following the influence of the North American urban planning paradigm, many cities in the previous century gave priority to private cars – by dedicating street space as well as setting aside large areas for car parks – instead of, say, green spaces. This outdated planning approach assumed that the level of motorisation (i.e. the number of private cars per inhabitant) would increase and that, as a city’s population grew, more and more infrastructure would need to be dedicated to this very inefficient form of urban mobility.

Now, cities find themselves at a turning point between old and new paradigms of urban mobility planning. As the problems with the old system become clearer, a new paradigm is still developing and trying to find its way into practice. So far, it appears in cities that have been brave enough to leave behind old ways of thinking and create new, modern planning institutions. These cities, including Paris, Vienna, Helsinki, and Ljubljana, are leading by example. Although the emerging paradigm is not yet clearly defined, five main elements can often be found in their planning institutions.

This outdated planning approach assumed that the level of motorisation (i.e. the number of private cars per inhabitant) would increase and that, as a city’s population grew, more and more infrastructure would need to be dedicated to this very inefficient form of urban mobility.

The pillars of good planning

The first and most fundamental consideration in planning for multimodal cities is to have a far-reaching outlook. When it comes to urban mobility, even short-term interventions should follow long-term priorities. Taking a long-term view means considering possible future scenarios at least 20 years from now, and ideally even 30 to 50 years. Moreover, innovative thinking should be an inseparable part of this exercise to ensure that expectations of the future are not just a continuation of past trends. In concrete terms, this means we shouldn’t just assume that the rate of motorisation will grow, and that the number of cars on the road will increase as the population increases. Instead, cities must imagine alternative scenarios in which most journeys are made on foot, by bicycle, and by public transport. In other words, such a vision of the future must have citizens’ wellbeing at its heart.

This must apply to different types of people with different needs, constraints, and daily experiences of the transport system. 

In addition, a strategic planning perspective requires understanding the difference between costs and investment. Changing public transport infrastructure (and especially rail) requires millions of euros in investment, but the investment is well worth it when it is considered over 50 or even 100 years’ time – its usual length of service.

A key insight in modern planning courses entails that land use is the first and most important public policy for urban mobility. This brings us to the second pillar of multimodal city planning: the integration of spatial planning into urban mobility as part of a wider package of public policies.

As soon as you have a beginning and end point for any planned movement, you are defining a mobility system. Therefore, to realise the desired vision of the city, the spatial plan and the urban mobility system must be closely connected. This means viewing public space as a whole and considering factors like population density, planned activities, land-use diversity, and the design of all elements that make up the streetscape.

Beyond these infrastructural considerations, an integrated plan must also address economic factors, such as how public transport services, as well as educational and medical infrastructure, will be paid for. In practice, this means public policy needs to consider a package of complementary measures: those that encourage walking, cycling, and public transport, as well as measures to discourage unnecessary car use. Here, complementarity also means measures which relate to other areas of public policy, such as education, health and employment systems.

The third element crucial in successful urban planning is having quality data about mobility systems for different groups of people. The basic idea taught in traffic management courses for decades is that cities must follow a digital-numerical model of urban transport systems. This enables the modelling of a series of steps – from how the need to move around develops to how movement equates to traffic flow on this or that street or line of public transport. A computer model like this is ideal for examining the complex consequences of different intervention packages, because it not only allows us to understand the problems that exist today, but also enables us to explore different future scenarios relatively cheaply. Urban mobility models should be built based on relevant data about people’s daily travel habits as well as their characteristics and desires. This kind of analysis is usually done through questionnaires that ask residents about their current and desired travel patterns.

That said, models and surveys are not enough on their own. A modern planning institution needs to collect large amounts of automatic data, as well as data that enables deeper analysis. One example would be information collected anonymously and automatically by smartphone, through analysis of telecommunication network signals or various applications using GPS or other telephone sensors. Another useful strategy would be collecting data about reasons for travel, such as attitudes and beliefs, as well as information about the characteristics of movement for particular groups of people – data obtainable only through carrying out surveys or interviews with the relevant population sample.

Perspective is key

You may have noticed that this text does not use the traditional term “traffic planning”, but instead talks about mobility planning. This is one of the important assumptions that a modern urban planning institute should have. The aim of planning is not to enable traffic flow or prevent traffic congestion. Those are important elements to consider, but the primary concern is creating a system that enables people to move around the city and gives them access to all the various activities a city can provide within a certain timeframe. This must apply to different types of people with different needs, constraints, and daily experiences of the transport system. Therefore – and this is the fourth pillar of good planning – evaluating different scenarios must include systemic perspectives as well as those of citizens themselves.

The city’s inhabitants themselves should be included in the planning process – not only at the end, when the alternatives are being evaluated, but already in the early stages, when alternative scenarios of the future are being created.

On the one hand, it is necessary to show with a model what the cumulative effects of any mobility infrastructure will be, for example in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the transport system, or the overall level of noise on one street. On the other hand, it is necessary to assess whether an alternative system can offer a functional and high-quality daily experience of mobility infrastructure. The model mentioned in the third pillar is a way to achieve this, but we can also use other methods. One of these solutions, which can be called the “person method,” evaluates mobility systems from the perspective of specific groups, such as children, older people without access to a car, or young parents with limited financial means.

It must be noted that high-quality planning focuses not solely on the content, but also on the infrastructure development process itself. The essence of a modern planning institution is a carefully considered process that develops through a series of clearly defined activities over time, with shared and clearly defined responsibilities for all participants. It is vital to include a range of experts, in addition to those who traditionally take part in urban mobility planning projects. For example, a high-quality process should include experts in regional economics, sociology, psychology, and the environment. What’s more, the city’s inhabitants themselves should be included in the planning process – not only at the end, when the alternatives are being evaluated, but already in the early stages, when alternative scenarios of the future are being created.

A planning process that explicitly includes different perspectives – the last of the five pillars – makes it possible to develop solutions that take into account citizens’ needs and experiences, rendering the various public policy measures more acceptable to them. Citizen participation itself can be organised using traditional methods, such as workshops and public hearings, as well as through modern digital tools like online questionnaires which use interactive maps. These tools provide valuable data, comments, and suggestions from citizens which can be directly linked to concrete locations in the city. Such an inclusive approach demands robust cooperation and entails constructive conflict between different values and assumptions about life in the city.

Towards a 21st-century paradigm

Cities have always changed and will continue to do so, along with humanity itself. New forms of mobility will appear in the transport system, as we have recently witnessed with the arrival of electric scooters on streets across the world. People’s habits will also change and diversify, leading to ever-increasing demands on urban mobility systems. Thanks to the rise of remote working, we are also seeing a change in people’s mobility habits.

Even though the majority of these and other aspects will remain extremely difficult to predict, one thing is certain: planning institutions need to change. They need to rise to the challenges of the 21st century in order to respect the needs of citizens as well as the environment. New institutions will also have to think carefully about how to invest in effective, applicable interventions that fulfil the desired objectives of new mobility paradigms. Only through the development of visionary and brave planning institutions can a city of wellbeing emerge.  

This article first appeared in Serbian in Omorika. It is republished here with permission. Translated by Alex Melbourne | Voxeurop 

NUMSA Press Statement

6 August 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) is proud to announce that, after good-faith collective bargaining, we have concluded a new wage agreement with Wonderfontein Mine (Pty) Ltd for the period 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026. The agreement was signed on 5 August 2026 and covers all employees in the bargaining unit (Paterson grades B1 to C5).

A key economic gain for workers includes, an across-the-board wage increase. All covered employees will receive a 4.5% increase on their individual basic salary as of 31 December 2025. The increase is retroactive to 1 January 2026, and all back-pay will be paid no later than 25 August 2026. This directly improves the real incomes of our members – a recovery of value that capital has long extracted from their labour.

Another key gain is that there will be a substantial increase in all allowances. All major allowances have been raised by 4.5%, effective 1 January 2026:

• Transport allowance (within 50 km): R1,825.62 per month
• Transport allowance (outside 50 km): R2,313.63 per month
• Living-out allowance: R7,371.43 per month
• Employer medical aid contribution: R3,564.50 per month

These increases directly ease the burden of the costs of social reproduction – transport, housing, and healthcare – which are systematically inflated under the capitalist system.

Another key gain is new renumeration structure with additional allowances. From 1 August 2026, a revised salary structure introduces two new allowances for qualifying employees in Plant, Engineering, Marketing, and Logistics departments who work full continuous operations rosters:

• Hot-Seat Allowance: 2% of basic salary – compensation for the demanding shift-change handover system.
• FULCO Allowance: 13.5% of basic salary – a significant premium for workers committed to continuous operations.

What does this victory mean?

Collective bargaining remains the key tool to improve the conditions of workers in every workplace. Our strength is drawn from our collective unity and the power of our labour. As we say: united we stand, divided we fall.

Wonderfontein Mine, as a representative of capital, derives its profit solely from the surplus value created by the workers. Through collective bargaining – a vital form of class struggle – NUMSA compelled the company to concede a portion of that surplus value back to the workers in the form of higher wages, improved allowances, and a fairer remuneration structure.

NUMSA maintains that every wage agreement is merely a battle won in the broader struggle for working-class emancipation. We do not mistake a tactical gain for ultimate victory; instead, we leverage each breakthrough to strengthen our organisation and build collective working-class power for greater battles ahead.

While this agreement represents a significant step forward, it is not our final destination. Workers can never be truly free under capitalism, and total liberation requires dismantling the entire exploitative system.

NUMSA reaffirms its revolutionary commitment to organise, mobilise, and lead the working class—not only for better wages and working conditions, but for a socialist South Africa that is free of oppression and economic exploitation.

As this agreement runs through 31 December 2026, we have already begun preparations for the next round of negotiations. Every victory, no matter how incremental, serves as a crucial building block in our ongoing fight against capital.

Issued by:

Collen Mahlangu
NUMSA Mpumalanga Regional Secretary
083 253 7408

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: Numsa Welcomes the 2026 Wage Agreement with Ndalamo Coal at Wonderfontein Mine as a Concrete Victory for the Working Class

NUMSA Press Statement

31 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), representing over 300,000 metalworkers, stands shoulder-to-shoulder in solidarity with our comrades of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU)—specifically Warehouse Local 6 and Longshore Local 10—in their heroic battle against C&H Sugar Refinery in California.

NUMSA recognises this fight for what it is and we resolutely stand with our comrades in defence of the ILWU’s right to strike in order to win this battle. This is an attack by the world’s largest sugar refinery to force a poverty-wage contract onto its workforce. By stripping healthcare benefits, slashing overtime, and demolishing the seniority system, C&H Sugar has declared an open war on workers. In South Africa, we are all too familiar with greedy bosses who prioritise profit over human lives.

Capital knows no borders in its pursuit of profit, and neither does our international working-class solidarity.

C&H Sugar’s attempt to unload the vessel Tai Herald—carrying sugar extracted from Negros Island in the Philippines—is a profound outrage. In April this year, state armed forces slaughtered 19 people on Negros Island, including sugarcane workers. That sugar is drenched in the blood of our fallen Filipino comrades.

Since Local 6 took to the picket lines on 15 June, C&H Sugar has deployed every dirty tactic in the union-busting playbook. The company shamefully used scab labour to bypass Local 10’s picket lines at private industrial dock, Levin’s Terminal in Richmond.

Then they mobilised the police—the armed wing of the ruling class—to protect scab labour and attack comrades picketing at the C&H facility in Crockett. During the powerful Bay Area port shutdown on 21 July, police issued dispersal orders and arrested ten union members and supporters.

Yet, in shutting down the ports that day, ILWU demonstrated the collective power of organised labour. You showed the world that not a single wheel turns, not a single light shines, and not a single ton of cargo moves without the consent of the working class! It is us, the working class, who ultimately produce the wealth!

NUMSA condemns the police for acting as C&H Sugar’s private security force. History has repeatedly taught us—from the dark days of apartheid in South Africa, to the docks of California today—that the state apparatus will always unleash violence to protect capitalist profits.

Over the years NUMSA and ILWU have shared a special relationship built on internationalism and solidarity.

To President Mike Villeggiante, the leadership of ILWU Local 10, the courageous striking workers of Local 6, and every supporter on the picket line, we say:

Your fight is our fight! An injury to one is an injury to all!

Issued by:

Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary
073 157 6384

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Stands in Solidarity with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union—An Injury to One is an Injury to All!

NUMSA Press Statement

30 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) welcomes the landmark judgment handed down on 27 July 2026 by Acting Judge Tyuthuza in the High Court of South Africa (Northern Cape Division, Kimberley). NUMSA has successfully halted the rushed, callous liquidation of Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and secured a court order placing the diamond mining company under supervision and business rescue. This judgment is a decisive victory for the working class over cold corporate indifference. Workers lives and livelihoods are not disposable and must come before corporate interests!

Before outlining the details of this judgment, NUMSA dips its red flag to half-mast in remembrance of the five workers who tragically lost their lives 890 meters underground at Ekapa mine following the catastrophic mudslide in February this year. This is a painful reminder of the human cost paid by workers in the mining sector. We extend our deepest solidarity to their grieving families.

On 3 March 2026, Ekapa announced it had applied for provisional liquidation on an ex-parte basis. As NUMSA we immediately rejected this rushed attempt to liquidate the company, condemning management for taking such a drastic decision without even consulting the Union or the government, and while the bodies of our fallen workers remained underground.

For months, over 1,000 workers at Ekapa were left stranded without salaries, while over 300 workers suffered unilateral layoffs. When NUMSA proposed that management opt for Business Rescue instead of liquidation to save jobs, the company flatly rejected our constructive proposal.

Rushed liquidations disproportionately serve shareholders and directors while leaving workers destitute. In March 2026, NUMSA initiated urgent legal proceedings to force the company into Business Rescue to defend job security and the livelihoods of the local community.

On 27 July 2026, the Kimberley High Court ruled on the following key issues in favour of NUMSA:

1. The High Court endorsed NUMSA’s application as inherently urgent, recognising that the protection of workers’ livelihoods and the rescue of distressed companies cannot wait.

2. The provisional liquidation order granted on 3 March 2026 has been officially suspended, putting an immediate stop to the forced destruction of the mine’s assets.

3. The High Court confirmed NUMSA’s right as a recognised trade union and majority representative of the workers to apply for Business Rescue.

4. The High Court rejected the arguments presented by the employer and liquidators, who claimed the mine had no future. The Court satisfied itself that the business rescue plan prepared by interim Business Rescue Practitioner (BRP) Mr. Marius Van Tonder demonstrates clear, viable prospects.

Crucially, the evidence proved that the mudslide was localised to specific underground levels (Level T890) and that other operational areas (including Wesselton, Surface Mining, and upper levels T580, T555, and T760) remain intact, fully functional, and commercially viable.

5. The court recognised that liquidation would cause catastrophic value destruction—including the automatic lapsing of the valuable mining right under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act.

Business Rescue preserves the mining right, unlocks a substantial receivables base (including over R400 million owed by group entities), and leverages post-commencement financing of R25 million to maintain operations as a going concern.

6. Under the proposed restructuring, approximately 500 direct jobs will be saved immediately on a scaled-down model, with independent creditors positioned to receive a significantly higher return (up to 100 cents in the Rand over 36 months) compared to a forced-sale liquidation.

To those who ask what happens if the BRP cannot ultimately “turn the ship around”: the Companies Act explicitly allows the BRP to terminate proceedings, at which point suspended liquidation takes effect.

However, as the High Court noted that plain logic and the evidence presented proved that the employer’s opposition failed to persuade the court against trying to save the mine. Law and constitutional values dictate a clear preference for saving viable businesses, preserving economic activity in the Kimberley region, and protecting workers lives and livelihoods over an unnecessary liquidation.

Following this landmark judgment, NUMSA calls for the liquidators and management of Ekapa to immediately co-operate with the appointed interim BRP, Mr. Marius Van Tonder.

NUMSA salutes its members at Ekapa for their resilience throughout this difficult period and commends our legal team, Lerato Lenyehelo Attorneys, for delivering this victory for the working class.

NUMSA remains committed to fighting for every single job and ensuring that workers lives and livelihood always come before corporate profit.

A feedback meeting for NUMSA members will take place on Friday 7 August at Galeshewe Hall to report back on the business rescue proceedings at Ekapa Mine.

A luta continua! The struggle continues!

Issued by:

Andile Zitho
NUMSA Northern Cape / Free State Regional Secretary
083 253 8561

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Wins Kimberley High Court Battle to Save Jobs at Ekapa Mine: Liquidation Suspended and Business Rescue Granted

JUDGMENT DOWNLOAD: JUDGMENT- NUMSA v Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd Others (2026-119276) 27 July 2026

NUMSA Press Statement

25 July 2026

NUMSA condemns the Trump allies in Congress who have subpoenaed Breakthrough News and The People’s Forum, together with other progressive organisations. On 21 July 2026, the House Ways and Means Committee demanded both organisation’s internal communications, records and finances by 7 August.

This attack is not just about these organisations. This fascist action follows a propaganda document issued by the U.S. State Department titled “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism.” This fraudulent report is a weaponised tool of empire designed to vilify, intimidate, and target progressive organisations like The People’s Forum and Breakthrough News. It advances sweeping lies aimed at criminalising international solidarity, and falsely framing anyone who opposes the illegal, criminal blockade against the heroic people of Cuba—or who fight for social justice—as “left-wing terrorists.” The Report even openly references Senator Joe McCarthy’s witch-hunt for the destruction of a robust socialist movement that existed in the United States until it was crushed following World War II.

This is clearly a political attack on organisations that speak truth to empire. It falls part of an escalating crusade against all progressive organisations and any group or person who expresses opposition to the ultra-right, racist, and pro-war, imperialist policies of the Donald Trump administration. We recognise this method. In South Africa, the United States kept our own liberation movement on its terrorist list while it bankrolled the racist apartheid system. This is the desperate application of apartheid style Red Scare tactics!

The empire is tightening its brutal blockade against Cuba. Working-class children are the first to suffer. Total blackouts of electricity have become the order of the day. Before the Cuban Revolution, the island was a playground for US elites. Under the dictator Batista, they gambled and propagated the vices their own society rejected. The Cuban Revolution reclaimed the dignity of the Cuban people. Under the heroic leadership of Fidel Castro, Vilma Espin and others, Cuba built a socialist society where healthcare and education are human rights that are accessible to all, not commodities centred on profit for an elite few!

The same United States leaves close to 40 million of its own people in dire poverty. Simultaneously it continues to support the spread of racist Zionist ideologies throughout the world and the genocide of the Palestinian people. It has extorted 13 billion US dollars from its colonial seizure of Venezuela’s oil. Thirty-two Cuban soldiers died in January defending the independence of Venezuela when President Nicolas Maduro and First Combatant Cilia Flores were illegally kidnapped by US imperialism.

Following the devastating earthquake in Venezuela that completely collapsed nearly 200 buildings and killed over 5000 people, the U.S. has not lifted any sanctions – severely restricting the country’s ability to respond to the disaster. This month, the empire sanctioned Cuba’s Ministry of Tourism. It has wasted more than 40 billion dollars on a failed attempt to bring Iran to heel. That is the morality of a system that punishes dignity and rewards greed.

Here in South Africa, we are under the same threat. Right-wing Afrikaner nationalists see the end of apartheid as an unfortunate hiccup. They have teamed up with the right-wing political establishment in the United States. They demand that South Africa surrender its sovereignty to the likes of Elon Musk, and they peddle lies and imperialist propaganda about a white genocide taking place in our country. NUMSA says no! We will not trade our freedom for the interests of racist capital.

NUMSA stands with all peoples who are rejecting tyranny. We stand with the brave journalists at Breakthrough News and the young activists leading The People’s Forum in New York, where our General Secretary has spoken. The People’s Forum is being attacked for raising levels of consciousness through successful political education programs and progressive cultural work that unite people across historic lines of division.

The People’s Forum has played an important role since October 2023 in mobilising mass opposition to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, and in the mobilisations against ICE’s terrorist assault against immigrant families, and the brutal US blockade that is designed to destroy the people of Cuba.

Breakthrough News is being targeted for reporting on Washington’s crimes and those who organise and resist imperialism around the world – from the Palestine solidarity movement to the Congo, Sudan and the Alliance of Sahel States. NUMSA’s struggles have been broadcast on Breakthrough News many times where the struggles and victories of workers take centre-stage.

At a time where majority of the media we consume around the world is controlled by five profit-driven mega corporations, media like Breakthrough News which feature organisations like ourselves, are more important than ever!

An attack on The People’s Forum and Breakthrough News is an attack on the international working class. Hands off The People’s Forum and Breakthrough News!

Issued by:

Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary
073 157 6384

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Stands in Solidarity with The Peoples Forum and Breakthrough News in the United States of America

NUMSA Press Statement

24 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) confirms members are on strike at Atlantis and Townland Mine, based in Botshabelo Local, Mpumalanga. NUMSA members submitted demands to the employer on 15 April 2026. Having received no adequate response, our members downed tools and embarked on strike action from 15 July 2026.

NUMSA demands the following:

1. Transport: The employer has failed to provide transport for workers, particularly for night shift workers and those who reside in Doornkop and have no means of transport to and from work.

2. Basic Rate of Wages: A revised monthly basic rate across all occupational categories:

• General Worker (R15 000 p/m)
• Articulated Dump Truck (R19 000 p/m)
• Canter (R16 000 p/m)
• Tractor Loader Backhoe (R17 000 p/m)

3. Housing Allowance: R 3 500 per month.

4. Night Shift Allowance: R 100 per night.

5. Production and Safety Bonus: R 5 500.

6. Medical Aid/Medical Insurance: 100% employer contribution.

7. Long Service Monetary Recognition: For workers with long-standing service to the company.

8. Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment Payment: In line with the company’s transformation obligations.

9. Skills Development: Access to structured training and skills development programmes.

10. Access to Production Target Figures: Full disclosure to workers of production targets used to determine bonuses and performance.

Despite these demands being tabled since April, the employer has responded only on wages, offering a mere 4.5% increase, while failing to respond to the remaining nine demands. This selective engagement is a clear demonstration of bad faith and arrogance on the part of the employer.

While our members are on a legitimate and protected strike, the employer is continuing production through the employment of undocumented foreign nationals. This is not incidental — it is a deliberate strategy of capital to exploit the most vulnerable layer of the working class – workers without documentation or legal protection.

This happens in order to break strikes, suppress wages, and undermine the collective power of organised labour. This practice exposes the real face of super-exploitation: capital does not care about the nationality of the worker it exploits, only about the cheapest and most easily disciplined labour it can find.

The employer has further compounded these violations by:

• Blocking non-union members from participating in the strike;
• Failing to provide workers with proper access to water and toilets, in violation of the agreed picketing rules;
• Failing to place pickets in the correct picketing areas, as set out in the picketing rules;
• Failing, to date, to respond to any of the outstanding demands.

NUMSA condemns in the strongest terms an employer that responds to legitimate worker demands with silence, that uses undocumented foreign nationals to break a protected strike, and that violates the basic rules of engagement during industrial action.

Our members will not be intimidated, divided, or starved into submission. We call on all relevant authorities to take note of the employer’s conduct regarding undocumented labour. We further call on all progressive forces to stand with our members at Atlantis and Townland Mine until all demands are met.

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Issued by:

Collen Mahlangu
NUMSA Mpumalanga Regional Secretary
CollenM@numsa.org.za
083 253 7408

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Members Embark on Strike at Atlantis and Townland Mine Over Employer Arrogance and Unresolved Demands

NUMSA Press Statement

23 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) salutes the heroic, unyielding NUMSA members at First Battery in East London! When management targeted 125 workers with forced retrenchments, NUMSA did not back down. We issued a 48-hour strike notice on 2 July 2026 and launched direct, powerful strike action on 6 July 2026.

Through the unified, militant action of workers, combined with unwavering solidarity, together we have forced management to concede! On 22 July 2026, NUMSA signed a groundbreaking Memorandum of Agreement that converts our collective power into a decisive victory for all affected workers.

Management thought they could push workers out with standard, bargain-basement packages. This NUMSA-led strike changed the game. We have forced First Battery to agree to terms that directly cushion and protect our members.

What exactly has this secured for workers?

• Enhanced severance packages: Retrenched workers will receive 3 weeks’ remuneration per completed year of service for their first six years, plus one week per year thereafter.
• R70,000 ex-gratia payment: In addition to severance pay, every retrenched worker will receive a massive R70,000 lump-sum ex-gratia payment.
• Full July salary and statutory pay: Retrenched workers remain employed until 31 July 2026 and will receive full July remuneration, along with pro-rata annual bonuses, accumulated leave payouts, and long-service awards.
• Fast-tracked payments: Management is bound to immediately request SARS tax directives without delay, ensuring funds are transferred into workers’ bank accounts within 10 working days of receiving the directives.
• Challenging unfair selection criteria: Management has been forced to investigate bona fide concerns regarding unfair selection, LIFO (Last-In-First-Out) applications, and skill retention manipulations.
• Voluntary Severance Packages (VSP) going forward: Following a two-month operational review, the company must offer a VSP process on these exact same improved terms before contemplating any further retrenchment processes.
• Upcoming Workers Indaba: Metair senior management will conduct an employee engagement session to present the company’s strategy and provide employees with an opportunity to raise suggestions and improvement initiatives, in the form of a NUMSA and First Battery Conference Workers Indaba over 2 days (preferably over the weekend without disrupting production).

The outcomes of such an Indaba will be addressed by both the senior leadership of NUMSA and senior leadership of Metair and could be facilitated by an external third party. The ultimate intent of the initiative will be to find solutions that are mutually beneficial to both parties.

This agreement demonstrates once again that when workers stand united under the red flag of NUMSA, bosses are forced to listen. As majority representative at First Battery, this agreement covers all affected workers under Section 23(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.

Having secured these critical victories, NUMSA has officially suspended the strike, and workers are expected to return to work and normal shifts by Thursday 23 July, 2026.

Striking employees who return to work by this date, will be provided with a R2 000 (two thousand Rand) advance, to assist with transport costs. The advance will be recovered in four equal monthly deductions, commencing in August 2026.

We remain vigilant. We will closely monitor the execution of every cent owed to our members and ensure the company strictly investigates every selection grievance.

Let this be a warning to employers everywhere: NUMSA will fight relentlessly to defend and advance the interests of the working class!

Issued by:

Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary
073 157 6384

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Secures Major Settlement Victory for First Battery Workers After Militant Strike Action!

NUMSA Press Statement

8 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) is making an urgent, call to all relevant stakeholders to intervene immediately and halt the impending slaughter of jobs at Transalloys—South Africa’s last remaining manganese smelter in the Emalahleni Municipality in Mpumalanga Province.

The company’s suspension of operations and shutdown of all furnaces on 1 July 2026 has placed over 600 direct jobs on the chopping block, directly threatening the livelihoods of thousands of working-class families who depend on this plant for survival.

Transalloys CEO and General Operations Manager, Mr. Theo Morkel, has stated that the company is engaged in negotiations with Eskom over skyrocketing electricity tariffs. Management has made it clear: if a sustainable tariff is not secured, they will permanently shut down operations.

While management claims the retrenchment consultation process with organised labour has concluded, the Board of Directors has not yet taken the final decision. They claim to remain hopeful for an Eskom breakthrough. However, the working class cannot afford to live on hope while our livelihoods hang by a thread.

NUMSA warns that the permanent closure of Transalloys will deal a devastating, irreversible blow to the local economy. Beyond the immediate destruction of 600 direct jobs, an estimated 10,000 indirect jobs across the supply chain may be obliterated.

We refuse to fold our arms and watch eMalahleni be turned into another economic ghost town, following the catastrophic closure of EVRAZ Highveld Steel! The working class cannot continue to pay the price for skyrocketing energy costs and state failures.

We demand that Eskom, the Department of Electricity and Energy, and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) stop dragging their feet. They must urgently lock heads with the company and organised labour to hammer out an immediate rescue package to secure the future of Transalloys.

NUMSA believes a temporary electricity tariff relief package—similar to bailouts previously granted to other energy-intensive smelters—is a non-negotiable, practical necessity while a long-term strategy is formulated to address the energy crisis suffocating the ferroalloy industry.

NUMSA remains committed to defending every single job. We urge all stakeholders to act with maximum urgency before another strategic industrial asset is sacrificed at the altar of high electricity costs, leaving hundreds of workers stranded in poverty.

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Issued by Collen Mahlangu

NUMSA Mpumalanga Regional Secretary
CollenM@numsa.org.za
083 253 7408

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Demands Immediate Intervention To Save Transalloys And Halt The Brutal Destruction Of Working Class Jobs! 

NUMSA Press Statement

7 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) confirms that members at Nigel John Riley (NJR) Steel Potchefstroom have embarked on an indefinite protected industrial action at employer’s premises on 6 July 2026. This action follows a protracted dispute and deadlock.

The employer arrogantly refused to accede to workers’ legitimate demands. After conciliation failed, the Commissioner issued the Certificate of Non-Resolution, which legally entitled workers to exercise their constitutional rights to strike. In compliance with the Labour Relations Act (LRA), NUMSA issued 48 hours’ notice on 3 July 2026 for strike to commence on 6 July 2026.

In a desperate and unlawful attempt to intimidate workers, the employer retaliated on the same day by issuing a “Lock Out Notice” and threatened to lock out all workers wishing to participate in the protected strike. This is clear victimisation and a direct attack on the worker’s constitutional rights.

The employer has rejected every demand and is further pushing that workers withdraw all demands before they will even table an offer. This is bad faith bargaining of the highest order.

Below are NUMSA’s demands:

1. 10 % wage increase across the board.
2. Payment of backpay from the expiry date of the previous agreement.
3. Introduction of funeral cover without any clause that compromises workers and their families.
4. Introduction of Operator Assistance in all areas where single operators are exposed to safety risk and excessive workload. No workers should die in the name of profit.
5. Introduction of medical aid with the company contributing 80% and workers contributing 20%.
6. The payment of meal allowance for all drivers required to work away from workplace or overtime.

NJR Steel Potchefstroom continues to maximise profit year after year while treating the very workers who create wealth as disposable. The management is intent on keeping workers and their families in perpetual poverty and refuses to afford them basic dignity.

This is not just about wages. This is about an employer that believes profit must come before the livelihoods of the workers who sustain and create that very profit. This is about ending an era in which capital gets richer while labour grows poorer and is then blamed for its own exploitation.

NUMSA rejects this super exploitation. We also reject any attempt by an employer that seeks to force us into negotiating with a gun to our heads. We reject an employer that would rather lock workers out than pay them a living wage.

We call on the community, customers and all progressive forces to support NUMSA members at NJR Steel at Potchefstroom.

This strike will continue until management returns to the table with a reasonable offer that addresses all demands in full. Workers are not asking for charity. They are demanding their fair share of the wealth they produce.

An injury to one is an injury to all!

Issued by Kabelo Ramokhathali

NUMSA Sedibeng Regional Secretary
KabeloR@numsa.org.za
083 461 5918

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA Members at NJR Steel Potchefstroom Embark on Indefinite Protected Strike Over Wage Exploitation and Employer Greed

NUMSA Press Statement

6 July 2026

The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) condemns in the strongest possible terms the decision by First Battery to proceed with the retrenchment of 165 workers. These job losses could have been avoided. They are the direct consequence of poor decisions by a management team that completely lacks the vision required on how to position its business strategy within the Automotive industry. This is the very same management that has failed to position First Battery to meet the specifications of the Automotive industry, leaving the company unable to supply batteries that meet necessary competitive standards.

As a result, under the watch of its management, First Battery has lost its market share and no longer supplies companies such as BMW SA, MBSA, Ford SA, Toyota SA. Not only has this management failed to take the necessary measures to continue to supply the Automotive Industry but instead it has adopted strategies that are contrary to Masterplan Vision 2035, which encourages all companies to drive localisation with a target of reaching 60% localisation by 2035. Instead of driving localisation this company decided to dump imported batteries in South Africa and supply imported batteries to BMW which are manufactured in Germany. NUMSA rejects this.

We call on BMW SA and our members in BMW to call on BMW to review its decision to use imported batteries that are dumped into SA instead of making sure the batteries are manufactured locally.

NUMSA is clear that the 165 workers earmarked for retrenchment are the innocent victims of wrong decisions made by an arrogant management team that relies entirely on unilateral actions and management prerogative For a sustained period of more than five years, First Battery has continually retrenched workers—the very people who did not create this crisis, yet are being forced to pay for a company that is consistently losing its market share due to a visionless leadership.

During the Section 189 consultation process, NUMSA put forward reasonable alternatives. As required by the Labour Relations Act (LRA), an employer must disclose relevant information to enable the Union to advance informed alternatives. Instead, senior management rejected NUMSA’s alternatives without even considering them. This is a clear sign that the company had already taken a cold corporate decision to dismiss these workers, rendering the entire consultation process nothing but a sham.

Consequently, after First Battery management issued termination letters, NUMSA was left with no choice but to issue a 48-hour notice for a legally protected, indefinite strike, which will commence on Monday, 6 July 2026.

This strike has been taken by NUMSA as a last resort because of First Battery management and the Metair group senior leadership which completely refused reasonable alternatives. For instance, NUMSA demanded and placed for consideration to the company the following alternatives to avoid forced retrenchments:

1. To deal with the dumping of batteries that are eroding the market share of First Battery, we demanded that both NUMSA and the company must have a discussion with both the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) and the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) to discuss counter measures at an industrial policy level such as increasing tariffs to protect the local market.

2. We were very clear to First Battery, that when we deal with cost cutting measures for a turnaround of a company there should be no holy cows. All costs incurred by the company must be disclosed. For instance, we demanded to know their total cost for electricity per annum for the past 3-5 years.

3. We told them that we can see management is clearly targeting labour costs by retrenching ordinary workers, yet they have failed to clarify what they are doing about skyrocketing scrap costs that are severely bleeding the company’s balance sheet. High scrap costs are a clear indicator that a factory is in the hands of deadwood management that lacks the capacity to run efficient production processes. As usual, ordinary workers are made the sacrificial lambs so that a greedy, untransformed layer of management can maintain their gravy-train salary packages and unjustified bonuses.

The exorbitant factory scrap costs that should have been addressed before even thinking about retrenchments are detailed below:

• The company’s scrap is mainly caused by poor process management, old machinery (+20 years) and poor maintenance.
• Total Factory scrap 2026 YTD = R49 million (Jan – June 2026).
• Total Factory scrap 2025 = R104 million (Jan – Dec 2025).
• Total Factory scrap 2024 = R92 million (Jan – Dec 2024).

The fundamental question that First Battery could not answer is this: What is the total wage cost of these 165 workers, who are paid starvation wages, compared to the lifeless cost of scrap? Stopping this internal wastage was entirely within management’s purview, and the savings could easily have secured these jobs. This is one of the concrete alternatives we put to them which was rejected.

4. We demanded concrete information through a legal application process. In the presence of a CCMA commissioner, the company initially agreed that NUMSA could file this application for disclosure. However, once they received our application, management started all sorts of technicalities despite having agreed that the application must be filed, citing that the 60-day period was over, and the information we were demanding was irrelevant.

This is a clear stance of a company that is not prepared to give information to the union so that we can be able to advance meaningful alternatives from an informed position. NUMSA responded to their sham response as follows:

“NUMSA further records that the mere expiry of the 60-day period referred to in section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act does not relieve the Company of its continuing obligation to engage in a meaningful joint consensus-seeking process, particularly where material information remains outstanding and where NUMSA has formally invoked the disclosure mechanism contemplated in the Facilitation Regulations.”

5. The Company refused to disclose strategic decisions. Below is what we demanded and what the company refused to disclose:

• The decision to import batteries instead of manufacturing locally for BMW: The rationale, objective criteria, cost comparisons, and why the company refused to invest in the capital infrastructure required to meet BMW’s specifications locally. We demand a full cost breakdown of the financial benefits the company claims to derive from these imports.
• The abandonment of other Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs): Whether the company supplied manufactured batteries to MBSA, Ford SA, VW SA, Isuzu, or Toyota SA in the last five years; whether they are currently supplying them with imports or locally manufactured batteries; and the financial considerations underlying the decision to shift away from local production – this must include a full breakdown of cost comparisons and financial considerations.
• The shift to aftermarket only: The projected income for the next five years focusing strictly on the aftermarket versus a scenario where local OEM manufacturing was maintained.
• Cost Drivers: Full financial details on profitability factors, including water and electricity costs over the last five years so as to enable a proper comparison, management interventions to reduce these costs and what was the success rate in doing so, current senior management and executive remuneration (salaries and bonuses) compared to the total wage bill, savings from unfilled executive positions in not filling vacant senior management positions, operational costs for the Benoni and East London manufacturing plants (as well as the Cape Town and Durban branches), and the total projected cost of the currently contemplated retrenchments.

6. NUMSA as a Union is well-informed that even if the company had agreed to engage jointly with NUMSA in pursuing countermeasures to protect the market of First Battery and other companies whose market share is being eroded by the dumping of batteries that add absolutely no value in the local market, these measures sometimes take time.

As such, it is always important to find ways and means to alleviate pressure from a distressed company like First National Battery, as they claim to be. We put forward an alternative to alleviate their plight, noting that NUMSA has always worked with the DOL. Given their situation of reducing costs, we proposed that we could jointly apply through the CCMA and the UIF for a training lay-off scheme which would pay the salaries of workers while we look at other alternatives that the union and company can negotiate on, especially if the company is prepared to disclose information.

As if it is not funny, this company rejected all the alternatives we have advanced. Their passion represents a backward attitude which reminds us of the old apartheid order, where Black people were not regarded as people who can think. That is why we have no reason to think otherwise; we can only conclude that the only reason NUMSA’s alternatives and our well-thought-through process to work with the company to save jobs was rejected is because NUMSA is a Black majority union and the workers who are being retrenched are Black and African workers.

7. We wrote to Metair Group CEO Paul O’Flaherty calling for his intervention to ensure that he organised a meeting that can find a solution to the current impasse and dispute. He didn’t object to meet with us. However, he was only prepared to meet with NUMSA after workers had been retrenched.

We reject this stance from the CEO of such a big strategic group in the economy of South Africa. NUMSA demands, and it is our position, that it is in the best interests of all parties that Paul must wake up and smell the coffee. He must be prepared to meet with NUMSA.

That includes that as a leader of the group it cannot be that they are only prepared to give workers starvation wages and a severance package of R10 000. That baseline was only grudgingly offered after NUMSA leadership personally flew to East London to salvage the consultation process. The cost of NUMSA staff who participated in this process since it started, far exceeds R100 000 with officials flying between Johannesburg and East London. Some had to land in Port Elizabeth because there were no flights and hire a car.

8. Yet a company whose cash flow has consistently improved refuses to give workers, who will never have a job again, a decent Voluntary Severance Package (VSP) lump sum of R200,000. Settling at these higher thresholds is standard practice across various stable companies we negotiate with. Yet they have guts to tell us that these workers deserve R10 000!

Our analysis of their financial cash and availability in the past couple of years can be defined as follows: We made this submission on numbers, calling on them to make a VSP lump sum amount of R200 000 so that there is no need for them to go for forced retrenchments. Instead, they must put together a decent package which must be offered to workers based on the VSP.

We rejected the lie that the company is bankrupt as the figures do not correspond with the lies. It is a matter of fact that this company is financially stable. Their argument that they want to retrench because they are not financially stable is not confirmed by numbers. Below is their financial cash flow year after year which is ranging between:

• The cash generated from operations increased by more that R100 million between 2024 and 2025. In essence this is a 67% increase.
• So, net cash flow from operating activities increased by more than R90 million from 2024 and 2025 which is in essence an 82% increase.
• Cash and Cash equivalent increased by more than R100 million between 2024 and 2025, which is a huge improvement compared to the negative of R40 million in 2024.

The key take away from this deep NUMSA assessment is that there is absolutely no reason why workers should be thrown into the streets to join the sea of poverty, unemployment and inequality.

The least First Battery could have done is to agree with the Union and make an offer of a decent package targeting workers closer to retirement in some companies. Usually, we would offer such packages to workers aged 55 and above. If we are not making the required number, parties by agreement can offer the same package to workers below offering them a VSP.

Such a package should have been negotiated and agreed with the Union if they were not driven by a backward, primitive attitude that is anti-worker and union bashing.

Instead of First Battery senior management seriously engaging on any of these proposals, management has chosen to rush ahead with retrenchments. On Friday, 26 June 2026, the company informed NUMSA that it intends proceeding with the retrenchment of 165 employees from 1 July 2026.

Indeed, workers have now been issued with retrenchment letters. NUMSA demands that First Battery immediately withdraw these notices. This decision is both unacceptable and unnecessary, and management must return to the negotiating table instead of showing the Union the middle finger.

The evidence presented during the consultation process demonstrates that management has consciously allowed the company’s Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) business to decline. Rather than supplying locally manufactured batteries to vehicle manufacturers, First Battery increasingly imports batteries to service major automotive customers, such as BMW and the rest of the 7 OEMS.

This means that products which South African workers have the skills, experience and capacity to manufacture are instead imported into the country. This is exactly how de-industrialisation has taken place in this country for the past three decades to date. As a Union we condemn any company in South Africa that takes a path that champions further de-industrialisation of our economy.

As a Union we have consistently demanded the economic cluster of government led by DTIC under honorable Minister Tau, that is about time that government must be decisive. Companies like Goodyear, which closed its manufacturing plant last year while maintaining its lucrative local distribution network, alongside companies like ZF LIFETEC, must be banned from importing products that South African factories and workers have the skills, experience, and capacity to manufacture locally, retain jobs and supply the auto industry and the rest of other sector.

In our submission we even told the Minister the section of the act that can be used to justify the formation of such a position into law. We do not understand what is difficult about that when Trump makes the law to protect American manufacturing though his X handle on social media. Why can our government not to the same.

First Battery workers in Benoni, Cape Town, Durban and the majority in East London are effectively being retrenched to make way for imported products at the back of management’s failure to maintain the OEM business.

NUMSA demands that Metair CEO Paul O’Flaherty immediately fire the deadwood management in East London that has done nothing to grow this business.

Every single South African must understand that every imported battery represents production stolen from a South African factory—production that could have supported local jobs, put food on the table for local families, developed our industrial capabilities, and driven economic growth.

Instead, production and jobs are being shifted offshore, only for the finished products to be dumped back into our market, adding zero value to our economy while leaving our people unemployed.

Faced with this reality, the government, led by the DTIC, must accept responsibility for the rampant de-industrialisation facing our economy. Government must move swiftly to develop aggressive countermeasures to protect the local economy through tariffs, maximising our options within WTO rules. This includes imposing strict standards and homologation measures on imports.

Government must realize that there is no substitute for a rigorous, vibrant industrial policy centered on the state-directed ownership, control, and beneficiation of our country’s vast mineral endowments. We must use our mineral resources to champion local manufacturing, protect existing industrial capacity, create new jobs that pay a living wage, and build entirely new industrial sectors.

South Africa cannot continue speaking about industrialisation and localisation while allowing companies to replace locally manufactured products with imports. Every imported product that displaces local production weakens domestic manufacturing, destroys decent jobs and undermines government’s own industrial policy objectives.

The jobs we lose through retrenchments and plant closures are not a joke! Those jobs will never come back in whatever shape or form! We have seen this tragedy play out globally; it happened in Detroit and Chicago, where thriving industrial zones that once employed 40,000 workers were hollowed out, leaving nothing behind but museum pieces to show schoolchildren what manufacturing used to look like.

In the political chemistry we can conclude that it is what led to the rise of right wing political populism which delivered the right wing Donald Trump of today who is a champion of not well thought through imposition of tariffs to protect what he feels constitute a break between the present and the past, representing nothing of the interests of the working class.

NUMSA is not confused. If Paul the Metair CEO fails to intervene, work with NUMSA to resolve the current strike, and accept that their vision and business strategy must be influenced by the Union, this retrenchment of 165 workers will be a drop in the ocean.

Very soon, First Battery will close because the current adopted strategy amounts to committing class suicide in manufacturing. You cannot take clueless idiots, stubborn marketeers who have no clue of the position of a company that must drive manufacturing to drive critical sectors of the economy.

South Africa cannot build an inclusive economy by importing products that our own workers are fully capable of manufacturing. Every factory that closes, every production line that is replaced by imports and every skilled worker who loses a job weakens our country’s industrial future.

It is against this background that the Union demands First Battery immediately withdraw all hasty, opportunistic, and unprincipled retrenchment notices. This is not a company suffering from a shortage of money; these workers are the victims of a greedy, vicious capitalist system represented by managers who care only about maximising shareholder returns and securing their own executive bonuses.

NUMSA leadership remains ready to sit down with the Metair CEO Paul O’Flaherty and his leading detachment management. While we have absolutely no confidence in the local management team because of how it has conducted itself, we are the last ones to dictate solutions to challenges of this nature.

We remain very firm that we decided to embark on a strike as a last resort. We want to advise Paul and all his managers to withdraw all unnecessary veiled threats such as that they will dismiss workers because there are no signed picketing rules.

Such an attitude stinks and we absolutely reject it with the contempt it deserves. As such we have instructed NUMSA officials to approach CCMA and it must facilitate negotiations of picketing rules which parties can agree to in line with the accepted rules on what constitutes a strike.

The fact that the company is anticipating misconduct before our members have even set foot on a picket line shows they are looking for an excuse to manufacture a crisis. It is a tactic completely identical to the old, racist, paranoid Rooi Gevaar tactics of the past, and it will fail.

Issued by:

Irvin Jim
NUMSA General Secretary
073 157 6384

For more information, please contact:

Mbali Ngwenda
NUMSA Media & Communications
mbalin@numsa.org.za
078 458 0617

For more information:

NUMSA Head Office: 011 689 1700

NUMSA Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/NumsaSocial

NUMSA Twitter account: @Numsa_Media

NUMSA Website: https://numsa.org.za/

PDF DOWNLOAD: NUMSA condemns First Battery’s arrogant decision to retrench 165 workers and declares formally protected strike action from Monday, 6 July 2026

• The Trump administration is repealing a ban on roads in millions of acres of public land managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Allowing greater access by motor vehicles could disrupt numerous environmentally sensitive habitats. (Field and Stream)
• Traffic engineers could take advantage of aviation technology to detect and deter conflicts at intersections. (ITS International)
• The CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority blames increasing regulation for slow progress on the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line, 20 years in the works. (Fresno Bee)
• As the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority electrifies its trains, should it go with tried-and-true overhead wires or cutting-edge battery technology? (Commonwealth Beacon)
• A spike in serious crime on Charlotte Area Rapid Transit last year coincided with a drop in ridership (WCNC). Meanwhile, North Carolina’s state auditor is calling for gates or turnstiles at every light rail station to improve security and fare collection (Queen City News).
• Atlanta transit riders want the same impeccable service MARTA offered during the World Cup to continue on. (Appen Media)
• Amtrak’s Mardi Gras line along the Gulf Coast has served 150,000 passengers in its first year, twice the initial projection. (Transportation for America)
• Seattle shattered a record for bike and scooter trips across the Fremont Bridge in July, a sign that the pandemic dip is over. (Seattle Bike Blog)
• Stephanie Nahkleh argues that a car-centric zoning code, not greedy developers, is to blame for Santa Fe’s ugly sprawl. (We Can Have Nice Things)
• Smart Growth America highlights a quick-build road diet in Winchester, Kentucky.
• Lloyd Alter says he expected a Canadian appeals court to overturn a ruling calling Doug Ford’s anti-bike lane policy unconstitutional, but he didn’t expect the judge to sound like such a car-brained jerk. (Carbon Upfront!)
• A Dutch town built a chain-driven ferry for cyclists and pedestrians to pull themselves across a river. (Core 77)
• In Tokyo, visitors can ride on one of the few streetcars that survived the atomic blast at Hiroshima. (Japan Today)

Today, news outlets reported that Donald Trump plans to nominate White House Domestic Policy Deputy Director Dr. Heidi Overton — an anti-abortion extremist who celebrated the Supreme Court overturning the right to abortion — to serve as his Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner. The FDA plays a critical role in safeguarding the health of people across the country, including by making science-based decisions about medication abortion, birth control, and other essential reproductive healthcare.

Overton has an extensive anti-abortion record. She celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “huge victory,” and has advocated for the politicization of government agencies to help advance a nationwide anti-abortion agenda. She previously worked at America First Policy Institute, an extreme conservative think tank made up of former Trump administration officials, where she authored a brief pushing disinformation about the safety of medication abortion and calling for additional, medically unnecessary restrictions on access to mifepristone.

Overton’s nomination comes as the FDA rushes to advance a politically motivated, sham “study” of mifepristone, and remains under close scrutiny from anti-abortion groups and leaders who relentlessly demand that the agency takes decisive action to restrict access to medication abortion care.

Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement:

“Donald Trump is trying to put an anti-abortion extremist in charge of any agency that could seriously undermine reproductive healthcare—including the agency that could roll back access to mifepristone nationwide. Heidi Overton celebrated the fall of Roe, spread junk science about medication abortion, and openly called for remaking the FDA to serve a political agenda instead of the health of the country. Her nomination is another alarming step in Trump’s plan to weaponize every part of the federal government to restrict abortion nationwide.”

If confirmed, Overton would succeed Martin Makary, who resigned as FDA Commissioner in May. Initial reports of Makary’s departure from the FDA emerged just after a meeting between White House staff and anti-abortion groups, who expressed frustration the FDA has not sufficiently wielded its power to ban mifepristone outright. Anti-abortion groups then shifted their demands to acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas, who called anti-abortion leaders within hours of being appointed and said that accelerating the review was his top priority.

More than a century ago, American families could flip through a Sears, Roebuck and Co. catalog, pick out a house, and have nearly everything they needed to build it delivered to them at an affordable price. Tens of thousands of Sears homes are still standing today – a testament to an era when a starter home could be both attainable and built to last. Today, as more Americans are priced out of the housing market, Groundwork Collaborative released a new proposal to revive the Sears home model for the 21st century.

The Modern Sears Home: Resurrecting the Affordable American Starter Home for a New Generation, authored by Groundwork’s Noah Ball-Burack, Emily DiVito, and Alex Jacquez, outlines a federal initiative to deliver, over eight years, 500,000 high-quality factory-built homes directly to American families across the country for under $215,000.

Today, the national median home price hovers above $400,000, and the starter home – what used to be the first rung on the ladder to economic security – is all but extinct. In some communities, starter homes can cost $1 million or more, putting homeownership further out of reach for many families.

The Modern Sears Home Program would deploy the federal government’s purchasing power, land access, and ability to finance and site homes at scale to bring the cost of new, high-quality homes within reach. Furthermore, by guaranteeing demand for hundreds of thousands of factory-built homes, the program would also give private manufacturing firms the certainty they need to expand production, lower production costs, and increase housing supply. By bringing affordable homes directly to communities where the private market has fallen short, the Modern Sears Home Program could expand homeownership in rural areas and open the door for families who have historically been shut out of the housing market.

The idea has vast public support. New polling shows that three in four voters support the Modern Sears Home Program and the proposal enjoys broad support across party lines, including 80% of Democrats, 72% of Independents, and 74% of Republicans. Additionally, 69% of voters, including majorities across party lines, say the program would make homeownership feel more attainable.

By some estimates, Sears sold more than 70,000 catalog kit homes during the 20th century, many of which are still standing today in states like Ohio, Illinois, New York, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Groundwork’s Senior Advisor for Economic Policy, Emily DiVito, shared the following:

“For too many families, homeownership has gone from a milestone to a mirage. Decades of under-building have left us with an affordable housing shortage that’s pricing people out of their communities. Policymakers must pursue creative, tangible, and lasting solutions that bring homeownership back into reach. The Modern Sears Home program does just that.”

Lindsay Owens, President and CEO of Groundwork, reacted:

“I grew up in a Sears Home, and I know the comfort and stability these houses offer the families who live in them. That’s something far too many families can’t count on anymore, as Wall Street and corporate landlords squeeze every last penny out of homeowners and renters alike. Reviving the promise of a Sears home is a chance to make quality and affordable housing the rule, rather than the exception.”

In the paper, the authors write:

“Sears offered these homes for profit. The federal government – with greater resources, lower borrowing costs, and unmatched power to scale – can do it better...[with] the kind of public ambition that once sent 30,000-piece home kits rattling on rail cars across the country to families who otherwise thought homeownership a distant aspiration...The Modern Sears Home program is that ambition made actionable.”

The North American plains bison stands as a symbol of both rampant devastation wrought by colonizing powers and of the potential to bring a species back from the brink of extinction.

The legacy of that destruction, and the promise and perils of the recovery, are indelibly etched in the DNA of the survivors and their ancestors, according to research just published in Science.

“Ancient DNA is rewriting the story of one of America’s most iconic conservation successes,” said Beth Shapiro, a University of California Santa Cruz researcher and the paper’s senior author. The new results show “both what the 19th-century collapse actually did to bison genomes and what a smarter, genomically informed path forward could look like.”

For millennia, an ocean of bison numbering in the millions swept across the center of North America, shaping ecosystems and the Indigenous peoples who lived there. But by the early 20th century, there were just a few hundred left, their numbers depleted by overhunting, habitat loss and systematic slaughter sanctioned by the U.S government to help subjugate bison-dependent tribes.

Since then, conservation work by some of these same tribes, and others, has led to a modest recovery. Today, more than 20,000 bison live in the wild, largely in protected land such as Yellowstone National Park. More than 400,000 are raised for commercial uses such as meat.

But the recovery has been dogged by questions. Since current bison are descended from such a small population, have they lost genetic diversity or become inbred? Did a quixotic attempt to breed bison with domesticated cattle irreversibly tamper with their genetics? Similarly, did a decision to move thousands of plains bison into the territory of wood bison break down the genetic wall between the closely-related species?

To answer these questions, Shapiro and colleagues turned to the latest scientific tools for deciphering a species’ history in its DNA. They collected samples from 115 ancient bison, dating back as much as 20,000 years and as recently as 100 years ago, when the last survivors of the slaughter remained. They also gathered tissue from 45 modern-day bison.

When they sequenced the genomes, the results offered both good news and cautionary lessons about the current state of bison conservation.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:A three-decade study shows how reviving bison herds revives prairies . . even better than cattle

 

Among the ancient samples, the genetics of plains bison were remarkably similar regardless of their location. That suggests a genetic flow across the landscape relatively uninhibited by geography. By contrast, today’s wild plains bison are confined to small pockets of land. There are at least four groups with distinct, shared genetic fingerprint that differs from the other groups.

The findings point to the need for managing the remaining bison more as a single herd, the authors write. Given the geographic barriers, that could mean using modern reproductive techniques to help blend the DNA of these different herds, much as modern cattle are carefully bred using tools such as artificial insemination.

While this points to the potential risks of continuing with traditional management methods, the findings also show reasons to be hopeful. Although the modern herds are distinct from each other, collectively they contain levels of genetic diversity similar to their ancestors.

Fears of contamination from cattle also appear to be overblown. The analysis turned up traces of livestock DNA in roughly a third of the modern-day bison genomes. That means the majority of bison hadn’t been tainted. And in those that did contain evidence of cattle, it represented less than 2% of their genomes.

The news is slightly more complicated for wood bison, the larger relative of the plains bison that lives in Canada’s boreal forest. In the 1920s, the Canadian government moved around 7,000 plains bison into Wood Buffalo National Park, which at the time was home to the last surviving 1,500 wood bison.

The legacy of that transplant remains today. The study showed that wood bison are genetically distinct – having diverged from plain bison approximately 3,000 years ago. But it also revealed that today’s wood bison carry significant plains bison DNA. The individual wood bison genomes were between 7% and 64% from plains bison.

Despite this, the results show “that wood and plains bison are substantially distinct and should continue to be managed separately,” said Parks Canada bison ecologist Greg Wilson, a coauthor of the study.

Now, thanks to DNA, bison managers have a clearer roadmap for moving forward, and the tools to know if they are veering further off course.

“Until now, managers didn’t have a genetic baseline for what ‘healthy’ bison diversity looked like before the 20th-century collapse and management,” said Shapiro. The new study “is a great example of using ancient DNA to facilitate management decisions in the present.”

Oppenheimer, et. al. “Paleogenomic insight into the collapse, recovery, and management of American bison.” Science. Aug. 6, 2026.

Photo: Getty Images for Unsplash