Femi Aborisade
Centre for Labour and Development Studies
&
The Polytechnic, Ibadan
Appreciation and Introduction
I wish to express
profound gratitude to my Union, the Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics (ASUP)
for inviting me to deliver a paper on ‘Trade Unionism in the 21st
Century: Issues, Challenges and Solutions’. I derive personal satisfaction,
fulfilment and meaning from life only when I engage in reflections on the
emancipatory struggles of the working class, not only within the national
frontier but also on a world’s scale, without borders.
WHAT IS THE
MOST DEFINING FACTOR THAT CHARACTERISES THE 21ST CENTURY?
The most defining factor that characterises the 21st
century, as far as labour is concerned, is the fundamental paradigm shift which
formally occurred since July 1986 (in the case of Nigeria) but whose effects
are just unfolding in the current century. The paradigm shift has posed
enormous challenges to trade unions, compelling them to undertake a rethinking
of the goals of trade unions and the ways in which they organise in order to be
more effective and socially relevant.
The paradigm shift consists of the role assigned to the
state in the societal development process. From the perception that the state
represented the engine of economic growth, the predominant perception now is
that the private sector is the engine of economic growth. As far as Nigeria is
concerned, this change formally occurred in July 1986 when the policy of
privatization was formally declared through the introduction of Structural
Adjustment Programme (SAP).
Let
us periodise the history of Nigeria’s development process into two broad
epochs, in order to capture the paradigm shift:
·
1962 – the early 1980s: an era of
economic nationalism or state centrism, and
·
1986 – till date: era of
liberalisation, privatisation, commercialisation, etc.
The national development plans up to the early 1980s
were informed by the intention to attain certain development objectives. A
taxonomy of the objectives reveals the following: attainment and maintenance of
the highest possible rate of increase in the standard of living, more even
distribution of income, social welfare, a just and egalitarian society, a land
of bright and full opportunity for all citizens, reduction in the level of
unemployment, increase in the supply of high level manpower, self dependence
and less of dependence on external resources, balanced development,
indigenization of economic activity, diversified economy, a free and democratic
society, etc.
In the early post-colonial period, the state in the
periphery had to adopt a legitimation
strategy, which placed key role on the state being the engine of economic
growth. It was not feasible to put the
burden of production of strategic goods and services on profit-seeking private
capitalists and expect the ordinary people to enjoy the benefits of the newly
won political ‘independence’. To earn
legitimacy from the standpoint of the average citizen, the state had to sustain
previous investment and make additional investments in public enterprises in
order to make ‘independence’ meaningful to the people.
Thus, for example, in 1959, the National Economic
Council came to the conclusion that:
A National Development Plan be prepared for Nigeria
with the objective of the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible
rate of increase in the standard of living and the creation of the necessary
conditions to this end, including public support and awareness of both the
potentials that exist and the sacrifices that will be required (FRN, 1970).
The 1st National Development Plan (1962-68)
had the aim of achieving:
‘a modernized economy consistent with the democratic,
political and social aspirations of the people’[1]
The 2nd
National Development Plan (1970-1974) accelerated indigenization with the goal
that ‘it was vital for Government ...to acquire, by law if necessary, the
greater proportion of the productive assets of the economy’[2]
Swanson and Worlde-Semait[3]
established that about 600 enterprises and 900 smaller ones were operating at
the Federal and State/Local government levels, in the 1980s, respectively[4].
The
international environment in the age
of state centrism was also favourable to the development of pro-people economic
plans. For example, the 1962 UN General Assembly Resolution on the Permanent Sovereignty over Natural
Resources (PSNR), Resolution 1803, provides in Paragraphs 1 and 2, for the right of permanent sovereignty over
natural resources, in the interest of national development and wellbeing of the
people of the state concerned, and under conditions, rules, restriction or
prohibitions deemed desirable, as follows:
1.
The
right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth
and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development
and the of the well-being of the people of the state concerned;
2.
The
exploration, development and disposition of such resources, as well as the
import of the foreign capital required for these purposes, should be in
conformity with the rules and conditions which the peoples and nations freely
consider to be necessary or desirable with regard to the authorisation, restriction
or prohibition of such activities.
Paragraph 4 of the Resolution (PSNR) indeed permitted
nationalisation and expropriation of private companies, for reasons of public
interest, over purely individual or private interests, both domestic and foreign, subject only to payment of compensation in
accordance with the rules in force in the sovereign state.
Paragraph 8 of same Resolution (PSNR) also recognises the need for observance of contracts freely
entered into, but on the condition that:
‘states
and international organisations shall
strictly and conscientiously respect the sovereignty of peoples and nations over
their natural wealth and resources in accordance with the Charter and the
principles set forth in the present resolution’.
The UN, particularly in the ‘60s and 70s, up till the
early part of the ‘80s, actively advocated and pursued economic and political
principles that supported economic sovereignty for the ultimate benefit of the human person. For example, in 1974,
the UN adopted the Charter of Economic
Rights and Duties of States (CERDS).[5]
The CERDS provides, among others, for the following
rights and duties of the State:
‘the
sovereign and inalienable right to choose its economic system, as well as its political, social and cultural
systems in accordance with the will of its people, without outside
interference, coercion or threat in any form whatsoever’ (Article 1);
the
right of every state ‘to nationalise,
expropriate or transfer ownership of foreign property’ provided appropriate
compensation is paid based on appropriate laws of the state adopting such
measures (Article 2(2(c).
In fact, the 1986 Resolution of the UN’s General
Assembly on the Right to Economic Development of States[6] (the
Resolution on the Right to Development, for short) recognises economic
development as:
an inalienable human
right by virtue of which every human person and all people are entitled to
participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and
political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can
be fully realised (Article 1 (1).
Indeed, Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Resolution on the
Right to Development declares that:
1. The human
person is the central subject of development and should be the active
participant and beneficiary of the right to development (emphasis mine).
2. All human beings have a responsibility for
development, individually and collectively, taking into account the need for
full respect for their human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as their
duties to the community, which alone can ensure the free and complete
fulfilment of the human being ...
Article 2 (3) of the Resolution on the Right to
Development declares that:
States have the
right and the duty to formulate
appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being
of the entire population and of all individuals, on the basis of their active,
free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution
of the benefits resulting therefrom (emphasis mine).
A
fundamental paradigm shift from state centrism to the private sector being the
engine of economic change occurred in July 1986 when the policy of
privatization was formally declared through the introduction of Structural Adjustment
Programme (SAP).
The process
is represented in a tabular form below:
FROM STATE
CENTRISM TO PRIVATE SECTOR AS ENGINE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH
1986-1993
|
1st phase of privatisation: Total
proceeds: $740m from 88 of 111 companies slated for privatisation.[7]
|
1999-2005
|
2nd phase of privatisation: total
proceeds: $323.4m, as at 2005[8].
|
1995
|
The Nigerian Enterprises (Repeal) Act abolished
restrictions to foreign shareholding
|
1995
|
The Nigerian Investment Promotion Commission Act
(No. 16 of 1995) allows 100 per cent foreign ownership of firms in any sector
(S.17), except in the enterprises
tagged as ‘negative list’, e. g. production of arms and ammunition (S. 18),
for security reasons.
|
The NIPC Act also provides guarantee against expropriation and nationalisation as
follows: ‘no enterprise shall be nationalised or expropriated by any
Government of the Federation’ (S. 25(1)(a), except for national interest and
on the condition of payment of adequate compensation(S. 25(2)(a) and no law
shall compel any investor to surrender his interest in any enterprise to any
other person(S. 25(1)(b).
|
In 2003 the
National Economic Empowerment and
Development Strategy (NEEDS), as well as its versions at State and Local
Government levels, the SEEDS and LEEDS, was
introduced. It placed responsibility for all sectors on the private sector, as
follows:
A TABULATED
ANALYSIS OF THE REFORM AGENDA IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (NEEDS) DOCUMENT[9]
RESPONSIBILITY
|
SECTORAL RESPONSIBILITY
|
PAGE(S)
|
Agriculture
|
Private Sector
|
69-70
|
Job creation
|
Private Sector
|
XV – XVI, 44
|
Health
|
Private Sector
|
XVI, 39-40
|
Housing
|
Private Sector
|
XVI, 43, 44
|
Education
|
Private Sector
|
XVI, 35, 38
|
Water
|
Private Sector
|
XIX, 61
|
Power
|
Private Sector
|
XVIII, 60
|
Transport - Roads, Railways, Sea
|
Private sector
|
59 – 60
|
Environment
|
Private Sector
|
66
|
Industry
|
Private Sector
|
XIX, 70-71
|
Information & Communication
Technology
|
Private Sector
|
73
|
Tourism
|
Private Sector
|
74
|
Film Industry
|
Private Sector
|
74-75
|
Oil & Gas
|
Private Sector
|
76-77
|
Social Development
|
Private Sector
|
58
|
Unity of Nigeria
|
Private Sector
|
58
|
Cultural Development
Moral Development
Social Development
|
Private Sector
|
58
|
Source: F. Aborisade (2006).
Labour and Socio-Economic Rights Development and Nigeria’s Commercialization
and Privatization Policy: A Descriptive Appraisal (Research Report Submitted to Centre for Civil Society, CCS,
School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (July)
The goal of the NEEDS document to practically hand
over the country to the private sector is also unequivocally stated as follows:
The
private sector will be the engine of economic growth under NEEDS. It will be
the executor, investor, and manager of businesses. The government will play the
role of enabler, facilitator, and regulator, helping the private sector grow,
create jobs, and generate wealth. Deregulation and liberalization will diminish
governmental control and attract private sector investment... NEEDS aims to
restructure the government to make it smaller, stronger … the number of
government jobs will decline…[10]
For the avoidance of any doubt, the
Federal Government makes it explicitly clear that the ‘primary goal of the
NEEDS strategy is to build the private sector’[11]
The strategic policy thrust specified
in the NEEDS document to attain the above private-sector driven world is for
government to first invest in infrastructures with a view to upgrading and developing them
before privatization[12].
Other policy thrusts include right sizing and eliminating ghost workers[13];
complete deregulation and liberalization of the downstream petroleum sector and
privatization of the refineries[14];
monetization of in-kind benefits such as subsidized housing, transport, health
and utilities for civil servants[15],
which amounts to government abandoning responsibility for provision of such
social services to the entire society; providing long term credit to the
private sector[16],
contrary to the official rationale for privatization based on expectation of
injection of funds into the economy by the private sector.
The ‘Vision
20:2020’, the Yar’Adua’s ‘7-point
Agenda and Jonathan’s ‘Transformation Agenda’ are all built on the same class
agenda: promotion of the private, at the expense of public good.
Privatisation has been
described by David Harvey[17] as primitive accumulation, which is not
based on free and fair market exchange or capital-labour relations but a form
of accumulation based on dispossession
of the society as a whole through state coercion, to benefit a few. Simply,
put, privatisation is looting.
David Harvey’s conceptualisation of
privatisation as accumulation by
dispossession or primitive accumulation has been borne out in the Nigerian
experience. In a study carried out by this author[18],
it was found that:
·
the
total proceeds realised from privatisation between 1999 and May 2006 was only $2.38bn or N49.70bn.
·
buyers
of four of the public enterprises
had only paid 30% of the bid price;
·
three of the buyers had only paid 10% of the bid price;
·
14 had not paid anything at all;
·
the
buyer of one of the companies, which has eight (8) sub divisions had paid only the entry fee;
·
Only one of the ‘investors’ had paid up to 50% of the bid price;
·
where payments might have been made, the enterprises
were sold at ridiculously low prices;
·
Some of the privatized enterprises were closed down by the buyers immediately after
‘purchase’. For those of them who did not close down production of goods
and services after purchase, privatization means that while the new
capitalist owners spend little or nothing on fixed capital, land, buildings,
and machinery, they are in a position to earn super profit.
The Report of the House of Representatives’ Ad-HOC
Committee on the Investigation of the Privatization and Commercialisation
Activities of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) from 1999 to date[19] has
also confirmed that privatisation in
Nigeria is nothing but looting. Based on established corrupt practices, the
Ad hoc Committee recommended, among others, that the sale of the following
enterprises/concessions should be rescinded and re-advertised for sale:
1.
Volkswagen
Nigeria Ltd (now VON Automobile Nigeria Ltd).
2.
ALSCON
3.
Delta
Steel Company
4.
Jos
Steel Rolling Mills
5.
Tin
can Island Port Terminal ‘A’ (Concession)
6.
Koko
Port (Concession)
7.
Port
Harcourt Terminal ‘B’ (Concession)
8.
Transcorp
Hilton Hotel
9.
Sheraton
Hotels and Towers, Abuja
10. Abuja International Hotels Limited
11. Daily Times of Nigeria PLC
12. Sunti Sugar Company
13. Bacita Sugar Company
WHAT IS THE
IMPACT OF THE PARADIGM SHIFT ON NIGERIA’S DEVELOPMENT?
The
declared commitment to public good, which informed the establishment of public
enterprises (PEs) under the developmental interventionist state phase, was
reflected in the 1979 Constitution and retained in the 1999 Constitution. For
example, the 1999 Constitution provides in section 16(1)(c) that the state
shall manage and operate what it calls the ‘major sectors of the economy’ and
that wealth shall not be concentrated in the hands of a few [S. 16(2)(c)] so
that suitable and adequate shelter, food, reasonable national minimum living
wage, old age care and pensions, unemployment and sick benefits and welfare of
the disabled are provided for all citizens [S. 16(2)(d)].
The 1999 Constitution
also contains provisions espousing the following values: state policy to observe
the sanctity of the human person and to maintain and enhance human dignity,
[S.17(2)(b)]; humaneness of governmental action [S.17(2)(c)]; provision of
adequate transportation facilities [S.15(3)(a)]; opportunity to secure adequate
means of livelihood as well as suitable employment [S.17(3)(a)] or unemployment
benefits [S.16(2)(d)]; just and humane conditions of work [S.17(3)(b)];
protection of health, safety and welfare of all persons at work [S.17(3)(c)];
adequate medical and health facilities for all persons [S.17(3)(d)]; adequate
facilities for leisure and for social, religious and cultural life
[S.17(3)(b)]; protection of children, young persons and the aged against
exploitation and against moral and material neglect [S.17(3)(f)]; provision of
public assistance in deserving cases or conditions of need [S.17(3)(g));
provision of equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels
[S.18(1)]; provision, as and when practicable, of free, compulsory and
universal primary education [S.18(3)(a)]; free secondary education
[S.18(3)(b)]; free university education [S.18(3)(c)]; free adult literacy
[S.18(3)(d)], the primary purpose of government is the welfare and security of
the people [S. 14(2)(b)] and the state shall fight corrupt practices and abuse
of office [S. 15(5)].
In contradistinction to constitutional provisions,
values had started to change fundamentally with the introduction of
privatization of public enterprises as a component of the neo-liberal policy of
Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP), in July 1986. With the change in values
is cascading collapse in living standards. The welfare provisions in the 1999
Constitution are now being observed in the breach. Ability to pay is the
fundamental criterion to access critical goods and services.
Contrary to the prevailing predominant practice of
labour casualisation in the civil and public services, Rule 02210 (of the Civil
Service Rules, formerly called General Orders) abolished daily paid system and
all daily paid staff as at January 1980 were absorbed into the permanent
establishment.
Against the prevailing monetization of health care,
the Civil Service Rules prescribe free medical services under various
situations (Rules 09201, Rule 09203,
Rule 09206, Rule 09207, Rule 09208(a) and (d), [Rule 09208(a)], [Rule
09208(d)] and [Rule 09307 (iii) and
(iv)].
In contradistinction to the policy of monetization of
housing, sale of government housing units and the forceful ejection of civil
servants, the Civil Service Rules make provisions for government quarters,
hotel accommodation for newly recruited officer and an allowance in lieu of
hotel accommodation (Rule 13102, Rule
13212 and Rule13213 (a).
CORRUPTION
AND POVERTY
Although Nigeria is an oil-rich country, majority of
Nigerians are poor. According to the IMF[20], over $700bn had been realized in oil
revenues alone since 1960. Eighty five
per cent (85%) of this sum accrues to only 1% of the population and about 40% or more of the national wealth has been
stolen.
Also, Ribadu[21] asserts that ‘Between 1960 and 1999,
Nigerian officials had stolen or wasted more than $440billion. That is six times the Marshall Plan…’ - the total
amount that was used to rebuild the whole of Western Europe after the massive
destruction produced by the 2nd World War. In spite of the oil wealth, there is
an alarming incidence of poverty. The total number of the poor in the world is
estimated to be 1bn. Africa is host to about one third (i.e. 300m). Nigeria
alone is host to about half of the poor in the whole of Africa, if the figures
by the NBS above are correct.
The fact of growth
without development was pretentiously lamented recently by the Minister for
Finance and Co-ordinating Minister for the economy, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala who
sheds crocodile tears that whereas the GDP for last year (2011) grew by 7.63 per cent, it has not resulted in
job creation as over 1.8 million job seekers join the pool of the unemployed
every year:
We
are happy that the economy is growing. But we are not satisfied with the
growth. It is not inclusive. It is not creating jobs. We have over 1.8 million
job entrants every year. The quality of that growth is not what we want...[22]
Nothing can perhaps best illustrate the contradictory
phenomenon of growth without development than the rising poverty level, as
shown clearly below.
Though there is no single acceptable definition of
poverty, there appears to be a consensus in all the definitions that poverty is
‘a state of long-term deprivation of
well-being, a situation considered inadequate for decent living’[23]. The
trend in Relative Poverty in Nigeria, covering various years, is presented
below.
TREND IN
RELATIVE POVERTY[24]
IN NIGERIA
Year
|
Poverty incidence (%)
|
Estimated Population (Million)
|
Population in poverty (Million)
|
1980
|
28.1
|
65
|
18
|
1985
|
46.3
|
75
|
35
|
1992
|
42.7
|
91.5
|
39
|
1996
|
65.6
|
102.3
|
67
|
2004
|
54.4
|
126.3
|
69
|
2010
|
69.0
|
163
|
112
|
2011
|
71.5(NBS forecast)
|
168
|
120
|
Source:
Compiled from Reports of the National Bureau of Statistics, NBS.
From the Table above, the compelling conclusion that
can be drawn is that the proportion of Nigerians living in poverty has been
increasing, from year to year. From 18 million Nigerians who were living in a state of long-term deprivation of
well-being, a situation considered inadequate for decent living in 1980,
the figure rose to 120m by 2011. The NBS[25] found
that poverty levels have been rising by the year, for all types of measurement
of poverty, whether based on relative poverty, absolute poverty, subjective
poverty or Dollar-per-day[26], even
though the percentage for each type of measurement varies slightly.
Opposition
to Unionization
In the interest of keeping down wage bills and maximizing profit, there is a mounting
hostility to unionization, under globalization. The rule in the privatized
enterprises tends to be ban on trade union membership and activity. In new
tertiary institutions of learning being set up, unions as well as strikes are
purportedly outlawed. For example, Governor Olagunsoye Oyinlola of Osun State
in his inaugural speech[27] at the
take off of the Osun State University,
outlawed strikes and by extension, unions.
What the foregoing means is that the paradigm shift
represents an unprecedented epochal collapse of values – abandonment of concern
for the welfare of the vulnerable and weak members of the society.
But it should be appreciated that the rolling back of
the state occurred under the pressure of the so called international community
and supranational organisations such as the IMF and World Bank. For example, in
2002, the US urged that market
system should be embraced world-wide:
The
lessons of history are clear: market economies, not command-and-control
economies with heavy hand of government are the best ways to promote prosperity
and reduce poverty. Policies that
further strengthen market incentives and market institutions are relevant for
all economies –industrialized countries, emerging markets, and the
developing world[28]
(emphasis mine).
But in case of resistance or reluctance to adopt
pro-business policies anywhere in the world, then the US imperialism is
prepared to use force:
While
the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the
international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary… It is
time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. We must
build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge. Our military’s highest
priority is to defend the United States. To do so effectively, our military must ... deter threats against U.S. interests,
allies, and friends; and decisively
defeat any adversary if deterrence fails[29]
(emphasis mine).
Joseph Stiglitz[30] has
confirmed the tendency of supranational organisations such as the IMF,
controlled by the US and other imperialist countries, to undermine the
sovereignty of governments in the ‘developing’ countries. He suggests that the
IMF tends to view all matters of domestic policy as capable of causing economic
instability in order to justify its ‘input into a very wide range of domestic
structural issues’.
Therefore,
the civil society, including the academic community, equally has a role to play
in advocating sustenance of positive values, which informed government policies
in the past.
THEORISING
TRADE UNION GOALS AND METHODS OF ORGANISING
Part of the challenges confronting trade unionism in
the 21st century is the need to rethink trade union goals and how
best to organise to attain them.
Historically, trade union goals can be conceptualised
within the framework of two extremes – pure trade unionism and radical or
revolutionary unionism. The goal, which characterises a particular trade union,
tends to define its organisational methodologies, effectiveness and social
relevance.
To this extent, trade union goals and methods of
organising to attain them may be broadly classified into two:
1.
Apolitical
pure or economistic trade unionism, and
2.
Social
Movement Unionism, which has different variants, including:
a.
Partnership
unionism
b.
(Traditional)
democratic political unionism
c.
Cosmopolitan
(broad-based, alliance seeking) unionism
d.
Moral
and ethical unionism
e.
Radicalized
political unionism
Let us briefly examine each of the above.
1.
Apolitical pure or Economistic Trade Unionism
The economistic theory
looks at trade unions as purely organisations concerned with the employment
relations. It therefore denies workers or trade unions of political
consciousness. To this theory, workers
are and should just be concerned with ‘negotiable’ employment issues – wage
increase, improvement of working conditions, etc. To this spurious theory, trade
unions should just be concerned with collective bargaining, lobbying
legislators and government to pass favourable legislation, embarking on
‘responsible’ strikes aimed at settling terms and conditions related to
problems arising out of the employment relationship. This kind of reasoning informed successive
governments in Nigeria labelling strikes against increases in the prices of
petroleum products as ‘political’ and therefore outside the scope of ‘trade
unionism’.
In fact, a court judgment has
backed up this economistic perspective of the role of trade unions. This was the case in the June 2007 nationwide strike
action. As recorded in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Adams Oshiomhole and Nigeria Labour
Congress V. Federal Government of Nigeria and Attorney-General of the Federation[31],
the court declared the strike illegal. The major issue in the case was the
imposition of a N1.50 fuel tax with effect from 1st January 2004 by
the Obasanjo regime. Labour and other civil society organizations declared a
strike against it. The court held that the Nigeria Labour Congress had no right to call out workers on strike
against general economic and political decisions of the Federal Government
because such have nothing to do with breach of individual contracts of
employment with various employers as envisaged in the Trade Disputes Act.
The above decision of the court however runs counter
to the principle established by the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association,
which stated that the occupational and economic interests which workers defend
through the exercise of the right to strike do not only concern better working
conditions or collective claims of an occupational nature, but also the seeking
of solutions to economic and social policy questions[32]. In the
same spirit, the Committee stated that workers and their organizations should
be able to express their dissatisfaction regarding economic and social matters
affecting workers’ interests in circumstances that extend beyond the industrial
disputes that are likely to be resolved through the signing of a collective
agreement[33].
The classical definition of
trade unions offered by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, almost a century ago also
subscribes to this view of trade unions as economistic organisations: ‘a
continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of maintaining or
improving the conditions of their working lives’.
The Nigerian legal
definition of trade unions in The Trade Unions Act also restricts the role of
trade unions to the economic disputes/issues at the workplace. The Act defines
a trade union as ‘any combination of workers or employers … the purpose of
which is to regulate the terms and conditions of employment of workers’.
From the foregoing, those
who restrict unions to economistic roles do so for either of two reasons as
Lenin (1970) pointed out: hypocritical screen for counter revolution or a
complete lack of class consciousness.
This means either a conscious attempt to ideologically enslave
the working class to the bourgeoisie, or (ii) unconscious enslavement of the working class to the bourgeoisie.
The latter reflects a low level of class consciousness.
However, the weakness and
bankruptcy of the economistic theory is that
economic decisions are products of political decisions. The wage structure
and pricing of petroleum products, prospects for job security, pension and
gratuity matters, elongation of retirement age, and so on, are politically
determined. Why then should the workers
and their unions not be involved in conscious political activity to reshape
their future? In situations where the oppressed classes are not significantly
involved in political decision making processes, meeting basic needs and
solving poverty issues will remain a mirage.
2. SOCIAL
MOVEMENT UNIONISM (SMU)
Social movement unionism is a reflection of the tendency
of trade unions to change their strategies as the environment in which they
operate changes. There tends to be a relationship
between trade union methods of struggle and the operating context. As the
environment in which trade unions operate become more hostile, unions tend to develop an orientation
towards societal justice movement in which trade unions assume the role of the
tribune of the downtrodden against state and corporate injustice. In a hostile environment, trade unions often
find out that to retain the loyalty of their own immediate members and wage
successful strike actions, they need to build
some form of alliance or show social relevance or sensitivity towards wider
socio-economic cum political issues affecting the generality of the society
as a whole.
WHAT IS
SOCIAL MOVEMENT UNIONISM (SMU)?
Tattersall (2005) has drawn attention to heterogeneous terminologies, which
refer to variants of SMU. These include ‘union-community coalitions, social
unionism, community unionism, social justice unionism or citizenship movement
unionism’, and so on. However, a central feature of SMU
is coalition-building with organisations
beyond the workplace.
Bronfenbrenner and Juravich (1998) have identified a
variety of organising approaches, which typify SMU. These include:
1.
anti-corporate
campaigning,
2.
union-community
coalitions and alliances,
3.
internationalism,
and
4.
outreach
to non-traditional members.
The social movement orientation is recognised to be most strongly associated with trade unions
in the Global South, where workers’ organisations have often been central to
widespread societal justice movements. In particular, workers in societies
which lack state or institutional social security support and where trade
unions are subject to hostile employers tend to adopt SMU[34].
Apart from the Global South, Social Movement Unionism
(SMU) has also been central to struggles and debates in the USA. At the
background of the crushing of the New Deal by Reagan’s Presidency (1981-’89) in
the 1980s, many unions, in consequence, were forced to re-examine their ways of
working in order to survive in a more hostile environment. (Brecher and
Costello 1999; Robinson 2000, 2002).
President Reagan’s crushing of the New Deal and
hostility to labour unions perhaps need some elaboration in order for us to
appreciate the necessity for SMU in the US.
The New Deal is historically divided into two phases -
"First New Deal" (1933–34) and a "Second New Deal"
(1935–38). However, what characterized the New Deal was state institutional
social support for labour and the poor. The Second New Deal for example
included a national work program (the Works Progress Administration, WPA) that
made the federal government by far the largest single employer in the US. It
also involved enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (1935), also called
the Wagner Act (which promoted labor unions, guaranteed
workers the rights to collective bargaining through unions of their own choice.
Other New Deal legislation and programs included the Social Security Act, new programs to aid tenant farmers and
migrant workers, the creation of the United States Housing Authority, Farm
Security Administration, and the Fair Labor Standards (1938). The Fair Labour
standards set maximum hours (44 per week) and minimum wages for most categories of workers. In
addition, it prohibited child labour for children
under the age of 16 and children under 18 years were forbidden from working in
hazardous employment. The influence of
the New Deal was such that by 1936 the term ‘liberal’ became used for
supporters of the New Deal, and ‘conservative’ for its opponents[35].
In
President’s Reagan’s First Inaugural Address on January 20, 1981, he argued
that the country’s economic malaise was
caused by government involvement in the economy: "In this present
crisis, government is not the solution
to our problems; government is the problem."
Reagan’s
anti-labour policies were fully demonstrated during the Air traffic
Controller’s strike in 1981. In that year, PATCO, the union of Federal Air
Traffic Controllers went on strike, an act which violated a federal law
prohibiting government unions from striking. Reagan declared the strike as an
emergency, following the description in the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act and stated
that if the air traffic controllers "do
not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be
terminated". On 5 August, 11,345 striking air traffic controllers were
fired for ignoring his order. Supervisors and military controllers were used to
handle the nation's commercial air traffic until new controllers could be hired
and trained[36].
The treatment of the Air traffic controllers in the US
reminds us of the recent treatment of Lagos
medical doctors and it is a lesson for all unionists of the direction in
which industrial relations may take in the coming period.
2 (a). PARTNERSHIP UNIONISM
AS A VARIANT OF SMU
Partnership Unionism is
characterised by entering into a kind of Partnership with the management or
government as an employer of labour. It often occurs where a government that is
perceived to be pro-labour is in power. The goal of the partnership is often to
restrict trade union action since it is perceived that government is more or
less jointly run with the inputs of labour. This kind of unionism tends to lead
to employer-inspired/Management-inspired/Government-inspired
unionism.
This method of union organising does not tend to see much
need for Social Movement Unionism. Alliance building with civil society
organisations is therefore highly restricted. The leadership that embraces this
kind of union organisation tends to rely
more on the goodwill of management rather than the loyalty of members to
achieve members’ demands. In the final analysis, once the membership knows
that the concessions they enjoy are borne out of the goodwill of management
rather than the organisational muscle of the union, their loyalty will shift
from the union to the management/government. The long-run implication is a
weakened union.
2 (b). (TRADITIONAL)
DEMOCRATIC POLITICAL UNIONISM
The traditional democratic
political unionism, unlike economistic unionism, recognizes the role of power in human relationship. It recognizes that the balance of forces
within individual enterprises and the larger society is largely determined by
the political decision at the level of the larger society. The perspective therefore encourages alliance building on the
recognition that unions have a role to
play in extending workers’ rights to have a say in decisions which affect
them both in the micro and macro environments.
However, the political role
assigned to labour by the ‘Democratic’
perspective does not give room for the aspirations of the workers to seize
political power and re-organise the whole society on a new basis. The political role expected of labour by this
perspective is to be within the framework
of existing production relations and power structure.
We can establish examples
of concern for wider national issues (which have nothing to do with employment
relations) at every stage of labour’s history in Nigeria. The point is that while it has a lot of
value, the ‘democratic’ perspective concedes
the right to govern to some so called professional politicians while labour’s
role is restricted to pressure group activity asking the government to rule
with some humaneness. However, the class that wields political power would
usually use it to advance its own interests. Therefore, unless the working
class and the poor are politically empowered, sustaining the welfare of
ordinary people, in terms of basic needs cannot be guaranteed.
2(c). COSMOPOLITAN (BROAD-BASED, ALLIANCE SEEKING) UNIONISM
Cosmopolitan unionism encourages full blown alliance
building with workplace and non-workplace, civil society organisations in mobilising
support for workers and community struggles. However, because of the
heterogeneity of the goals of the organisations involved in the alliance, it
tends to become depoliticised, lacking political agenda. An example in Nigeria
is the LASCO – Labour and Civil Society Coalition.
While SMU may succeed in building groundswell of
support for unions in actions, it is doubtful whether a depoliticised movement
could engender an enduring change, without a political ideology focused on
regime and system change. At the same time, it is recognised that an
ideologically and politically committed social movement that lacks the capacity
to build social support for popular workers’ and community struggles can hardly
succeed in winning the confidence of the downtrodden.
2 (d). MORAL AND ETHICAL
UNIONISM
This perspective of
unionism essentially assigns a role to trade unions from a religious and moral
point of view. It is based on the belief
in the ‘brotherhood of man’ and the consequent mutual obligations based on
compassion for the unfortunate and the belief that evil in society emanates
from incessant accumulation of riches and interpersonal competition.
From the point of view of this perspective, the emergence of trade
unions, the idea that binds unionists together, the tonic that keeps the union
going and sustains it, the rationale and justification for the existence of the
union is the extent to which it is committed to upholding and defending certain
societal ethics and morals, which make the welfare of the disadvantaged the
focus of its activity.
What sustains the loyalty
of some members to the union could be its commitment in defence of the
poor. The Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi, in
an interview with the Tell magazine expressed this religious factor to
explain his commitment to the people’s cause:
By all
standards I am not a poor man. I am convenient and comfortable and I believe
that if I don’t do what I am doing for those who are not as opportune as
myself, God will punish me. Apart from that, I am always at home fighting for
the deprived, the neglected, the repressed and the oppressed. If I have no cause to fight for, I am like a
fish out of water. What sustains me is
the struggle. What gives me blood is my
conviction and what propels me is my dedication to that conviction. And so, if
I have no genuine cause to fight for, I die[37].
Although the influence of
religious beliefs has waned in explaining the character of trade unions in our
time, it has transformed into concern for ‘justice’. Flanders points out that the capacity of the
trade unions to survive the hostility of the State and sustain the loyalty of
union membership is hinged on commitment
to justice:
The trade union movement deepened its grip on
public life in its aspect as a sword of justice. When it is no longer seen to
be this, when it can no longer count on anything but its own power to withstand
assault, it becomes extremely vulnerable.
The more so since it is as a sword of justice rather than a vested
interest that it generates loyalties and induces sacrifices among its own members
and these are important foundations of its strength and vitality (Cited in
Aborisade, 1994).
The ethical and moral
theory means that the strength of the
trade union movement in its activities and struggles lies in its capacity to win popular support.
Winning popular support is also predicated
on the types of issues taken up by the trade unions.
Sam Omatseye, writing in The Nation[38]
gave us the practical lesson in the electoral victory of Obama as President of
the United States
‘I think Obama is also being rewarded for being
good to his fellow people. After a Harvard law degree, he could have earned
millions of dollars on Wall Street. But he abandoned all of that and went into
community organizing, helping people who could not find meals or homes or get
education. It was the benefit of that experience that helped him to craft the
spectacular victory for the ages. Nigerians should learn that money is not
everything. Only love for your fellow human can even give us the success we
want.
That is the lesson of Obama’s triumph. We must
ponder this while we celebrate’.
If fighting for the
vulnerable classes can earn an individual such victory, how much more could the
trade union movement advance the cause of fighting to win basic needs for all?
2 (e). RADICALISED
POLITICAL UNIONISM
Radicalised political unionism is a variant of the Marxist
perspective, which encourages trade unions to fight for reforms (improvement in
the day-to-day material lives of the working masses) as a way of building the
organisational capacity of an alliance of the oppressed classes, led by the
working class, to bring about a revolutionary overhauling of the existing
capitalist social order.
As Marx and Engels (1971)
wrote in the Communist Manifesto, every class struggle is a political
struggle. Therefore, the question for any trade union or
unionist is not whether or not to be involved in politics, the question is
which type of politics: politics to influence those in government or politics
to seize political power?
The Marxian theory of the state maintains that the
state is an instrument of class domination. Whichever class wields political
power uses it to advance the interests of its members by oppressing the other
class. In a capitalist society, the state is ‘the executive committee of the
bourgeoisie’; it protects the property of the capitalist classes and adopts
whatever policies, including violence, to sustain the status-quo. Within the
capitalist context, the property-less class is taught to understand that it is
in its interest, and within the limits of its capability, to revolt, in the
striving to defend its interests by fighting against political and/or economic
exclusion. Hence, to Marx and Engels, classes seek to protect the self
interests of their members:
The
bourgeoisie …has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked
self-interest, than callous ‘cash payment’. It has drowned the most heavenly
ecstasies of religious fervor, of chilvarous enthusiasm, of philistine
sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation (Marx and Engels,
1933:62).
Friedrich Engels expresses similar idea in explaining
that social classes pursue the self-interest of their members:
Bare-faced
covetousness was the moving spirit of civilization from its dawn to the present
day; wealth, and again wealth, and for the third time wealth; wealth, not of
society, but of the puny individual was its only and final aim (cited in Bober,
1948:72).
The foregoing underscores the reality of life that in class societies, the ruling class
struggles to retain political power and protect the economic wealth of its
members while the expropriated, the disadvantaged are compelled to struggle to
end their exploitation and repression. Therefore, the source of development and general wellbeing of the ordinary
people in a capitalist society like Nigeria is not the ruling class but
organized labour – both the waged and unwaged when they form joint platforms
for struggles.
That is why Ake (1989:43) argues that development is agency-determined: ‘somebody has to determine
that development is desirable, that a particular kind of development should be
pursued and in a particular kind of manner’. This shows that desirability of
development, the kind of development and the manner of attainment are neither
accidental nor objectively determined. According to Ake (1989), since the
capitalist state is a specific modality of capitalist domination, the ability to maintain the capitalist
hegemony on society and the capacity of the dominated and oppressed classes to
deploy effective counter force in reaction to their domination goes a long way
to condition the possibility of development. The degree of resistance put
up by the dominated tends to determine the extent to which the state uses
scarce resources, which should have been invested in developmental programs
into maintaining opulence for the bourgeoisie and building the arsenal of
terror and a militarized state.
CONCLUSION
AS SOLUTION
The central
message I wish to pass with this paper is that certain principles inform the
praxis and practice of trade unionism. It is risky to have unionists who do not
understand the world views of the employers and the working class as well as the
principles influencing the activities they have freely chosen to engage in, at
every point in time.
Generally,
trade unionism may be approached with two optional mindsets:
·
trade unionism as opportunism
·
trade unionism as a mission
Depending on
the mindset of individual unionists, the import of this paper is that adopting
appropriate organisational and political strategy might indeed be a necessary
weapon in unions’ arsenal if they are to strengthen their power and influence
in the 21st century.
The
alternatives open to trade unions may then be displayed on two dimensions,
which have been developed by Upchurch and
Mathers[39]
1.
On the first dimension, trade
unions may either choose an integrative approach, which
involves coalitions and social pacts with governments and employers or an oppositional
approach, involving combative and militant mechanisms of protest and dissent.
2.
The second dimension involves
either the continuance of a national orientation to
problem-solving, which relies on the maintenance or creation or recreation of
sympathetic Government support for the aims and objectives of organised labour,
or an international orientation,
which supplements national initiatives to organizing with establishing
solidarity with working class organizations internationally and learning from
them.
The
two operational dimensions are presented in the diagram below:
ALTERNATIVE TRADE UNION FUTURES
(Reliance on the maintenance or
(re)creation of sympathetic Government support for the aims and objectives of
organised labour)
NATIONAL
Productivity coalitions with employers Developing
combative and militant
and social pacts with governments mechanisms
of protest and dissent
Productivity
coalitions with employers Developing combative and militant
and social
pacts with governments mechanisms
of protest and dissent
INTERNATIONAL
(Supplementing national initiatives with adoption of
better forms of struggle from the international arena and establishing
international solidarity with working class organisations)
[1]
Cited in Ajakaiye, Ajakaiye, D. O. (1984). Economy-wide
Effects of Privatizing and Re-organizing Nigeria’s Public Enterprises: Some
Critical but Neglected Issues.
Ibadan: NISER.
[2] p.
289, cited in (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and
Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf (at p.
3) and accessed on 20 May 2012.
[3]
Swanson, D. and Worlde-Semait T. (1989). Africa’s
PEs Sector and Evidence of Reforms. World Bank Technical Paper No. 95.
[4] Similar findings
were made by (UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New York and
Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf (at p. 3) and accessed on 20 May 2012.
[5] (CERDS)http://shr.aaas.org/article15/Reference_Materials/Charter_of_Economic_Rights_and_Duties_of_States_Eng.pdf.
[7]
(UNCTAD (2009). Investment Policy Review: Nigeria. New
York and Geneva: UN. Available online at http://archive.unctad.org/en/docs/diaes/diaepcb2008_en.pdf, pp. 7 & 11, accessed on 22 May 2012.
[8]
Id.
[9]
Nigeria National Planning Commission, (2004). National
Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS). Abuja: National Planning Commission, Nigeria.
[10]
Ibid., p. Xi.
[11]
Ibid., p. 52.
[12]
Ibid., p. 59.
[13]
Ibid., p. 87.
[14]
Ibid., p. 77.
[15]
Ibid., p. Xi.
[16]
Ibid., p. 24.
[17]
D. Harvey. (2005). A
Brief History of Neoliberalism.
Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
[18]
F. Aborisade (2006), op. Cit.
[19]
http://www.placng.org/home/Senate%20Order20Paper,%20Wednesday%20November%2030,2011.pdf accessed on 21 May 2012.
[20] Cited in M. Watts (2009). ‘Crude Politics: Life and Death on the
Nigerian oil Fields,’ (Working Paper No. 25). Washington DC: Institute of
International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA, available
online at
<oldweb.geog.berkeley.edu/ProjectsResources/ND%20Website/Nig...> accessed
on 22 May 2012.
[21]
‘Capital Loss and Corruption: The Example of Nigeria: Testimony before
the House Financial Services Committee, 19 May 2009, available online at www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs.../ribadu_testimony.pdf accessed on 22 May 2012.
[22]
http://www.sunnewsonline.com/webpages/news/national/2012/apr/28/national-28-04-...
(accessed on 28/04/12).
[23]
B. E. Aigbokhan (2008). ‘Growth, Inequality and Poverty in Nigeria’. Addis
Ababa: Economic Commission for Africa. (ACGS/MPAMS Discussion Paper No. 3).
[24]
The NBS defines ‘Relative Poverty’ as the level of living standards of the
majority in a given society.
[25]
NBS (2012). The Nigeria Poverty Profile 2010 Report. Press Briefing by the
Statistician-General of the Federation?Chief Executive Officer of the National
Bureau of Statistics, Dr. Yemi Kale, at the Conference Room, 5th
Floor, NBS headquarters, Central Business District, Abuja, on Monday, 13
February 2012 (Available online at http://resourcedat.com/resources/The-Nigeria-Poverty-Profile1.pdf
as at 16 May 2012.
[26]
NBS defines ‘Absolute Poverty’ as the ‘minimal requirements necessary to afford
minimal standards of food, clothing, healthcare and shelter’. ‘Subjective
Poverty’ refers to the proportion of the population who consider themselves to
be poor based on ‘self-assessment and sentiments’. ‘Dollar-per-day’ refers to
the World Bank’s Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index, which defines poverty as
the proportion of those living on less than US$1 per day poverty line.
According to the NBS, the current dollar rate is US$1.5.
[27]
Saturday
Sun, 22 September 2007:11.
[28]
US National Security Strategy, 2002, p. 17,
available online at http://merln.ndu.edu/whitepapers/USnss2002.pdf accessed on 23 May 2012.
[29]
Ibid., pp. 6 & 32.
[30] Cited in S. V. Sander, S. V. Sander (2011), ‘The
meaning of economic sovereignty: categorising sovereignty and the development
of an un-stretched concept’ (available online at 10021391-3953.pdf (student.statsvet.uu.se/modules/student/.../visadokument.aspxid=3572),
p. 4. Joseph Stiglitz is an American Professor of economics and was former
Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank
[31]
(2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1035) at page 58.
[32]
ILO,
1996a, para. 481, cited in Gernigon, Odero, and Guido, 2000.
[33]
ILO, 1996a, para. 484.
[37]
cited in Dateline,
No. 13, March 30, 1995.
[38]
10 November 2008:
back page
[39]
Upchurch, M. & Mathers, A. (ND). Social
Movement Theory and Trade Union Organising (Available online at www.mdx.ac.uk/Assets/SMTOrganisingAM.doc, accessed on30 July 2012)
A labour guru worth following. I must collaborate with you to organise seminar for labour leaders in Nigeria
ReplyDeleteGood Day Barr. Femi. Please my comment is in relation to your interview lately on the Access Bank lay-out of most of its 75% outsourced staff.
ReplyDeleteI and most of my folks who were affected, want to get insights as to the extent of this infraction; if there are and the implications therefore.
On May Day 2020, most employees were called on phone by outsourcers that their employment with Access Bank has been terminated. Its was simultaneously executed. Just like that!
In trying to exploit P.R and perhaps propaganda, the back has denied the facts of sacking its employees.
Again, the sacked employees were contacted with a counter advise of recall; not to Access Bank but to the status of fresh graduate applicants asked to wait by outsourcers for another opening (tentative opening)at another firm not Access Bank. Please what are the infractions?
How may we seek justice thus?
Sir your advise would be most appreciated. Thank you!