Germany Chancellor plans lithium deal with Serbia after Rio ruling
Olaf Scholz plans to visit Serbia this week to secure supplies of lithium that are critical for the nation’s energy transition and auto industry.
The world’s largest platinum producer has announced losses to revenue of $126 million as result of protracted labor disputes in South Africa.
AFP reports that Anglo American (LSE:AAL) reported the losses on Friday, as well as declared force majeure for its chrome deliveries due to the month-long strike involving thousands of its workers.
In an official statement Anglo American said the strikes “will adversely the company’s delivery obligations regarding the supply of chrome ore and as a result force majeure notices have been issued to its chrome customers.”
The wildcat strikes which are now in their fourth week have caused production losses of 67,000 ounces at the company’s immense Rustenburg mine, which is responsible for a quarter of global platinum output. The production loss translates into around $126 million in revenue.
The illegal strikes are part of a wave of labor strife in South Africa which have caused severe headaches for both the incumbent government as well as the country’s mining sector.
28,000 of the company’s workers at Anglo America have taken part in the strikes, with the company firing 12,000 workers last week.
Standard’s and Poor’s also announced the downgrading of South Africa’s sovereign debt rating on Friday from BBB+ to BBB on account of country’s unquelled labor unrest.
2 Comments
Dylan McFarlane
I agree. I don’t know what the pay structure is for South African drillers and other employees, but that logic makes sense – in retrospect. Management must smooth labor costs over the long-run, and any adjustment always risks sparking another adjustment, etc. etc. – the saying “give an inch, and take a mile” applies. I’ve heard that’s what happened when Botswana diamond miners were given a pay rise – a few months later, they demanded a 25% pay raise and they got it!
mazana
If revenue losses are such huge, why dont company shareholders and management mitigate against them by paying salary increases. On average, it appears revenue losses through strikes are high than cost incurred by increasing the wage bill. Then which one is a better devil between paying and suffering revenue losses through strikes? In my opinion, if this estimated cost was spread per each month and decisions made, strikes would not have been allowed to occur.