|
New Page 1
The Labour Bill
IN
forwarding the labour bill to the National Assembly, President Olusegun Obasanjo
stated that its objective is to democratise the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC),
in harmony with the constitutional provisions on fundamental rights and the
standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). In reality, however,
the bill seeks to amend the existing Trade Unions Act of 1976 such as to break
up the NLC into splinter trade unions and allow workers to belong to unions of
their choice, and the unions to be affiliated to any federations of trade
unions.
Dismembered in this way, the NLC is bereft
of not only the big monthly check-off dues accruing from a large number of trade
unions nationwide but also their loyalty would cease to exist. Put differently,
the president’s bill seeks restoration of the multiplicity of trade unions of
the pre-1976 era. At the time, there existed in this country more than 100 trade
unions, which affiliated to multifarious federations allied to the East or West
bloc of the Cold-War period.
To all intents and purposes, the proposal
for the disintegration of the NLC is in bad faith, and cannot serve workers’
interest. Rather it is wielded as a decisive weapon in the long-drawn battle
with the workers over the increases in the pump price of petroleum products. It
is evident in the timing of the bill, and on two occasions the president has
presented the bill.
The first time was shortly after the NLC
was persuaded last October to shelve its planned nationwide strike over the pump
price of fuel. The President castigated the leadership of the NLC, and denounced
the organisation as a parallel government. Earlier, his government had failed to
convince the law court that the NLC has no right to protest fuel price or any
other matter other than worker’s salary. Thereafter, he despatched to the
National Assembly the labour bill as an ultimate instrument of keeping the NLC
in check.
Following severe public condemnation of
it, the bill was withdrawn or suspended. But, on June 8, this year, a day before
the commencement of yet another workers’ strike over the same festering problem
of pump price, the president revived the bill and represented it, for the second
time in about eight months, to the National Assembly.
The proposed law is not even justifiable
on the grounds of expediency. Because the issue of increases in the pump price
of petroleum products, which has consistently precipitated workers’ strikes, has
festered for five years or so. The government would have been long advised to
find a durable solution to the perennial problem.
Equally, the government’s claim that the
bill is aimed at democratising the labour movement is pretentious, if not
slippery. Moreso, by the proposal, ministers reserve the right to recommend
which federations of trade unions the civil service union, etc. will be
affiliated to. By attempting to democratise the NLC in this way, the President
assumes that he knows what is good for the workers, contrary to the precept of
democracy that the people, or groups of people, know what is good for
themselves.
So far, the Nigerian workers have not in
any way indicated any dissatisfaction with the NLC, or their intention to
withdraw from the congress, which is the umbrella of trade unions in the
country. Nor is the claim that the bulkanization of the NLC is to bring it up to
the ILO standard authentic and verifiable. The labour movement as it exists
today in this country does not violate in any way the ILO rule.
Dismissing the NLC as a parallel
government is an exercise in desperation, which skips the circumstances in which
the NLC inevitably finds itself. The truth is that the NLC was by chance
compelled to take up the role of the sleepy opposition political parties. And
the Nigerian populace, members and nonmembers of the NLC alike, have found in
the workers’ organisation a solid platform and spearhead, to fight their causes
with this or any other government. They have embraced the NLC, heeded its strike
calls, because it has identified with the people and creditably fought for
enhancement of their welfare.
Really, it is quite difficult to see what
useful purpose the bill is meant to serve. The government must begin to worry
that its labour bill intended to defang the NLC and sweep away strikes might
backfire. It was for the convenience of his military regime that Gen. Obasanjo,
the then military head of state, decreed all trade unions into the central
organisation called NLC. It was easier then for it, through the NLC to deal with
the worker-induced headaches, including strikes.
But that has not achieved the intended
objective as we now see. What is evident is the inability of the government to
handle strike by one trade or professional union.
Roundly the labour bill is superfluous,
vindictive and of questionable credibility and should instantly be rejected by
the National Assembly. It is not intended to serve, and will not serve, workers’
interest. Nor will it resolve the arbitrary increases in the pump price of
petroleum products.
|
