Globalisation, Labour Standards and the Challenge of Decent Work in Nigeria

About This Presentation

Title:

Globalisation, Labour Standards and the Challenge of Decent Work in Nigeria

Description:

Since 1998 when the ILO declared the Fundamental Rights and Principles at Work, ... of the Soviet bloc and the ascendance of neo-liberal economic policies since the ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:141

Avg rating:3.0/5.0

Slides: 68

Provided by: drfunmi

Category:

more less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Globalisation, Labour Standards and the Challenge of Decent Work in Nigeria

1
Globalisation, Labour Standards and the
Challenge of Decent Work in Nigeria

Funmi Adewumi, Ph.D.
Department of Industrial Relations Personnel
Management,
University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
e-mailfolawumi_at_yahoo.co.uk

2
Introduction

Since 1998 when the ILO declared the Fundamental
Rights and Principles at Work, the issue of
decent work has been put in the fore front of
discourse regarding the conditions under which
workers supply their labour power to capital.
Promoting decent work has been the main thrust of
the agenda of Juan Somavia when he assumed office
as the Director-General of the ILO in 1999

In 1998, the International Labour Conference
adopted the Declaration on Fundamental Principles
and Rights at Work and its Follow-up which
states, in part, all Members, even if they have
not ratified the (fundamental) Conventions (),
have an obligation, arising from the very fact of
membership in the Organization, to respect, to
promote and to realize, in good faith and in
accordance with the Constitution, the principles
concerning the fundamental rights which are the
subject of those Conventions (quoted in ILO
200229).

Ten years after, efforts at ensuring fundamental
rights and principles at work as well as
implementing the decent work agenda seem not to
have made appreciable impact.
Already there is the talk of a decent work
deficit across the globe, both in developed and
developing countries (This is attributed by the
ILO to the diverse inequalities of our
societies (ILO, 2001).

Nothing can be truer as these inequalities are
the hallmark of the capitalist society and
economy. This explains the deprivations and
degradations to which workers are exposed.
The obsession of the capitalist owners of the
means of production and exchange for profit at
all costs means that little or no regard is paid
to the humanity and dignity of workers (In actual
fact the establishment of the ILO in 1919 was
essentially meant to devise means of protecting
the worker from extreme abuse)

The Declaration of Philadelphia of 1944
also among others affirms the right of everyone
to conditions of freedom and dignity, of
economic security and equal opportunity.
The above underscores the importance ensuring
a just share of the fruits of progress to all
and in the words of the Director-General of the
ILO, that is the foundation of decent work
(ILO, 20017).

For a very long time the ILO succeeded in this
task. Unfortunately, the collapse of the Soviet
bloc and the ascendance of neo-liberal economic
policies since the mid 1980s meant the continued
subjugation of workers to the dictates of market
forces and in the process, the erosion of
previous gains recorded in the quest for decent
work
The decent work agenda represents an attempt by
the ILO to go back to its original mandate and
mitigate the adverse consequences of
neo-liberalism on hapless workers.

Labour standards, entrenched in ILO Conventions
and Recommendations as well as national laws
remain the essential tools for promoting decent
work.
In light of realities within countries, there is
the need to complement these with some political
action, especially by workers and their
organisations, who have more to gain if work is
really decent. This is the major thrust of this
paper. Of course there is the argument that we
need to go beyond formal institutions in ensuring
compliance with labour standards and enthroning
decent work.

9
Globalisation and the imperative of decent work

The imperial character of capitalism means
that it cannot but be a global project.
Globalisation which is defined as the increasing
integration of regions and nations into the world
market, the overcoming of borders and the
lowering of transaction costs as frontier
barriers are eliminated (Altvater, 199737), has
its antecedents in the exploits of those
explorers who embarked on voyages of discovery as
far back as the 15th century, the slave trade,
the missionary activities and formal colonialism.

The transnational corporations (TNCs), who are
major players in the emergent global economic
order, have been active for many centuries in
different countries/regions of the world.
The TNCs that are now touted/promoted as the
driving force of globalisation have long been
active across national borders under one guise or
the other and had always been in control of the
world economy. Companies such as Unilever, UAC,
CFAO, PZ, LONRHO, et.c, as far back as the middle
ages, have been trading across national borders
(Adewumi, 2004).

The TNCs who owe no allegiance to any particular
nation state and locale relocate where they
consider there is competitive advantage (see
Hirst Thompson, 1999).
It is this desperation for competitive advantage
and increased profitability that make them pay
little or no attention to workers rights and
labour standards, particularly in developing
countries.

The emergence of a complex system of worldwide
subcontracting of, and specialization in, the
production of goods and services (Scherrer and
Grenven, 2001) have further helped in subverting
the control of national governments over the
activities of TNCs
In the prevailing neo-liberal global economic
order, nation states, especially the developing
countries have virtually been forced to surrender
the control of their economies (or sovereignty)
to private corporate interests (deregulation)
that is, the TNCs.

Globalisation is essentially an attempt at
accommodating growing corporate interests in
exports and investment opportunities in the
developing countries (Haggard, 19957).
The economic package that is being implemented
under globalisation is similar to those policies
foisted on African countries under the various
Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) in the
1980s.

In looking at how the various neo-liberal
economic packages affect employment relations and
the quest for decent work in particular, the
point of departure is the argument that
employment and wages matters are best left to
the working of market forces and that external
policy interventions to allocate and remunerate
labour will lead to inefficiency and
misallocation of labour use on the long run
(Plant, 1994).

When the emphasis was on the setting up of Export
Free Zones to promote industrialization, the
export free zones gave TNCs the possibility to
tap into the labour reserves of the Third World
without being obliged to adhere to labour laws,
environmental and tax regulations in force
(Scherrer and Greven, 2001).
This is equally true of the demands of
globalisation on the same set of countries.

It is, therefore, correct to say that these
policies have direct and indirect consequences
for decent work.
The perennial threat of loss of employment
arising from privatisation and low capacity
utilization is not good for the mental health of
workers
Low(starvation) wages that are not regularly paid
as well as rising cost of living cannot guarantee
decent existence, mass unemployment is also not
conducive to the promotion of decent work

Under the regime of globalisation, investors
(foreign) have been frontal in insisting on
labour market flexibility and exception from
compliance with existing labour
legislation/standards.
In actual fact, the tendency in the economic
literature is to refer to labour standards and
legislation as constituting part of the
rigidities and distortions that impede the
smooth functioning of the labour market (see
Scherrrer Greven, 2001 Plant, 1994 and
Panford, 1994).

Specifically, existing body of labour legislation
guaranteeing some rights and protection for
workers are considered obsolete. In Nigeria
labour laws are observed more in the breach.
Two examples are the use of casual and contract
labour which has been grossly abused by many
expatriate firms as well as the refusal of
employers to allow their employees to freely join
trade unions of their choice.

From the foregoing, it can therefore be concluded
that globalisation is a major threat to the
realisation of decent work defined by the ILO as
work that takes place under conditions of
freedom, equity, security and dignity, in which
rights are protected and adequate remuneration
and social coverage is provided(ILO, 1999).

20
Already some challenges to the realisation of the
decent work agenda have been identified.
Barrientos (2007) identifies four of such. These
are

the employment challenge which arises from the
diversity of employment generated by global
production systems. Some of this work is
permanent, regular and secure. But even within
the same firm there is often simultaneously
employment that is flexible, insecure and
informal

the rights challenge relates to the difficulty of
organisation or representation amongst such
workers. Without collective power to negotiate
with employers, workers are not in a position to
access or secure other rights
the social protection challenge relates to the
lack of access many flexible and informal workers
have to a contract of employment and legal
employment benefits. They are therefore often
denied access to other forms of protection and
social assistance by the state

the social dialogue challenge arises from the
lack of effective voice or independent
representation of such workers in a process of
dialogue with employers, government or other
stakeholders (Barrientos, 20071-2).

23
These four challenges are a further confirmation
of the decent work deficit as identified by the
ILO (20018) and these are

i) absence of sufficient employment
opportunities
ii) inadequate social protection
iii) denial of rights at work and
iv) shortcomings in social dialogue

As if to confirm how bad the situation is, the
ILO further submits that there are many people
for whom decent work is a reality but world wide
these workers are a minority. And daily ground
that seemed secure is being eroded (my emphasis,
ILO, 200117).
There is no doubt that all these shortcomings are
the direct outcomes of the philosophical
foundation of capitalism, which thrives on mans
exploitation by man and this makes the decent
work agenda imperative.

The standards embedded in national laws and
international instruments remain the best option
and the minimum to achieve the lofty agenda of
decent work.
Given the desperation of international finance
capital for survival, the least that workers and
their allies can do is to compel compliance with
existing labour standards, both national and
international.

26
Labour standards and decent work points of
convergence

Since the inception of paid/wage employment a
combination of sustained struggles and appeals to
the conscience of the rest of society workers,
using the platform provided by their
organisations(trade unions), have been able to
secure for themselves a number of rights.

These rights are meant to protect workers not
just as producers of national wealth, but also as
free citizens. Such rights are conferred on
workers and their organisations taking into
consideration their special role and the need to
protect them from extreme abuse and exploitation
in the hands of profit-conscious employers often
backed by a collaborative state.
In the course of the last millennium (20th
century) both national and international
instruments have been devised to give effect to
the various provisions on workers rights and to
compel national governments and individual
employers to respect these rights.

Since its establishment in 1919, the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) remains
the major international and inter-governmental
body driving the need to ensure that workers,
individually and collectively, enjoy some minimum
rights.
These have come in the forms of Conventions and
Recommendations which member countries are
expected to comply with.

29
The need for these rights was also
reinforced by Article 23 of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. It
says

Everybody has the right to work, to free
choice of employment, to just and favourable
conditions of work and to protection against
unemployment. Everyone, without discrimination,
has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Everyone who works has the right to just and
favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and
his family an existence worthy of human dignity,
and supplemented if necessary by other means of
social protection. Everyone has the right to form
and join trade unions for the protection of
rights (cited in CDHR 1996, Annual Report 113).

Workers rights, labour standards, and the
underlying principles represent the minimum
requirements under which workers sell their
labour power to the employer.
They are meant to ensure that members of the work
force are available for further exploitation and
that potential workers are not scared away
because of life-threatening conditions of work.
The 1998 declaration by the ILO was meant to
ensure that governments do much more than they
are willing to, to protect workers in the course
of employment.

Some of the international instruments which are
meant to protect workers in the employment
relationship include Convention 87 on Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to
Organise of 1948, Convention 98 on the Right to
Organise and Collective Bargaining of 1949
Labour Inspection Convention 81 of 1947 and
Maternity Protection Convention 103 of 1952.
The various Conventions prescribe minimum
standards which workers can lay claim to for
protection and to ensure that work do not demean
the workmen and women.

As mentioned earlier some local (Nigerian) laws
confer certain rights on workers. The Trade Union
Act , Cap 437(LFN, 1990), The Labour Act, Cap
198(LFN, 1990) and the Wages Board and Industrial
Councils Act, Cap 466(LFN,1990) variously
recognise the right to organise, the right to
collective bargaining as well as the right of
unions to act on behalf of their members. Added
to these are The Factories Act, Cap 126(LFN,
1990), and Workmens Compensation Act, Cap
470(LFN, 1990) which seek to protect workers from
work-related hazards and diseases as well as
making provisions for compensation for injuries
or disabilities suffered in the course of
employment.

Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria recognizes the
freedom of association by Nigerian citizens while
it also recognizes the right to life (a position
that can be invoked against employers who
endanger the lives of workers under their
employment)
The provisions of these laws equally represent
the minimum for any employer of labour.

Many of these are provisions, particularly those
relating to freedom of association and the right
to organise and collective bargaining as well as
tripartite consultation, are breached with
impunity by employers in Nigeria, with the
banking and finance, telecommunication and
hospitality sectors most guilty.
From the foregoing, it is safe to conclude that
both at the international and national levels
there are enough laws and standards to ensure
that workers offer their services in dignity.

In totality the provisions of these instruments
constitute the irreducible minimum, at least in
theory that must be observed in respect of the
employment relationship and in particular as
workers are concerned.
They are meant to ensure that workers are not
treated just as mere factors of production.
In other words, if the provisions of these
national and international instruments are
complied with, they are capable of promoting the
ideals of decent work.
However, it is pertinent to ask what the reality
is?

36
Institutional capacity and enforcement of
workers rights and labour standards

Given its disadvantaged position in the
employment relationship it appears, at least on
the surface, that the enactments mentioned in the
preceding paragraphs are to offer some succour to
the worker.

37
However, some issues are worth examining here and
these are

how far reaching are these provisions,
do the regulatory institutions have the capacity
to play their roles,
does the state have the will to protect the
weaker partner in the employment relationship,
and
what can the trade unions do to protect their
members.

The first issue to engage here is the right to
organise which can also be related to the freedom
of association guaranteed by the Nigerian
Constitution.
These two can be said to be the most fundamental
of workers rights. This is because in light of
the weak position of the individual worker, it is
only by combining with others in similar
circumstance that s/he can hope to mitigate the
adversities of the employment relationship.

The collective strength of workers has always
been helpful in their struggles with
international finance capital. This is where the
trade union advantage comes in.
The collective platform of the union presents a
good avenue for workers to press for, and demand
for other rights. This is largely because the
trade unions are officially recognised as the
representatives of their members.

As such, if the right to organise is circumvented
it diminishes the capacity of workers and unions
to defend other rights. This is the problem with
the Nigerian situation. Increasingly employers
are resisting attempts of the unions to organise
potential members and this is in spite of the
relevant provisions of the law.
The second issue has to do with institutional
capacity. Apart from legislation, the formalized
employment relationship is regulated and mediated
by a number of structures and institutions which
are located within the framework of the labour
administration system.

Article 1 of the ILO Convention150 defines labour
administration as public administration
activities in the field of national labour policy
(incorporating labour, employment and vocational
training) while the system of labour
administration covers all public administration
bodies responsible for and, or, engaged in labour
administration whether they are ministerial
departments or public agencies, including
parastatal and regional or local agencies or any
form of decentralized administration and any
institutional framework for the coordination of
activities of such bodies and for consultation
with and participation by employers and workers
organizations(see ILO,1978 for details). This is
the institutional framework for ensuring
compliance with laws and standards as well as
protecting workers rights.

It is the essential duty of labour administration
to enforce labour legislation and to offer
solutions to the various and complex problems
that arise in the world of work.
Some of the components of the labour
administration system that are relevant for this
discussion include the Federal Ministry of Labour
and Productivity, particularly the Departments of
Trade Union Services and Industrial Relations
(including the Industrial Arbitration Panel) and
Inspectorate, the National Industrial Court and
the National Labour Advisory Council.

Apart from governmental bodies, the trade unions
are also relevant as institutions to the extent
that they officially interact with the government
agencies.
In spite of the political allegiance of
government to the ruling class whose members
constitute the bulk of the employers of labour,
it is still expected to protect the interests of
all irrespective of class affiliation or social
standing. As such within the employment
relationship, government, through relevant
agencies are expected to ensure that parties
involved get a fair deal.

The image and effectiveness of labour
administration systems across the continent,
including Nigeria, have not been helped by the
low priority accorded their operations as
reflected in paltry budgetary allocations.
This development has, in turn, reduced the
capacity of the system to deliver even when there
is the will.

The Ministry is short staffed, even in very
critical areas. For example, as at 2005 the
Factory Inspectorate was made up of only 47 staff
(FMELP, 200519). By the Ministrys own
calculation a minimum of 250 inspectors are
required for effective inspection. There is
nothing to suggest that the situation has changed
appreciably for the better. There are about 1,000
labour officers in the same Ministry. Needless to
say facilities such as vehicles to facilitate
inspection visits to the work establishment are
hard to come by. Again, by the Ministrys
admission as at 2005, there was not a single
vehicle for inspection yet 63 vehicles are needed
(FMELP, 200520).

Agencies such as the Industrial Arbitration Panel
(IAP) and the National Industrial Court (NIC)
still have 12 and 5 members respectively.
Closely related to the above is whether there is
the will on the part of government to enforce
labour standards.
The reality is that government does not have the
will to protect workers from the excesses of
employers. It would appear that at best
government is paying lip-service to ensuring the
protection of workers and this explains why it
finds it difficult to deal with infringement of
statutory provisions.

Violations/infringements are treated with kids
gloves. Of course this disposition should not be
surprising if the fact government, which has been
described as the executive committee of the
capitalist state, is more interested in
protecting the interests of the propertied class.

This class bias has been clearly manifested in
the emerging global economic order in which the
interests of international finance capital
determine the fate or treatment meted out to
workers. Governments in developing/dependent
countries such as Nigeria easily capitulate to
the arm-twisting tactics of foreign investors who
virtually insists on lowering labour standards
(euphemistically referred to as labour market
flexibility) as one of the pre-conditions for
investing locally.

49
On the lack of will on the part of governments of
developing countries to protect their
citizen-workers, Blackett(2007) has this to say
50

While in the post WWII period into the 1980s,
policies linked to embedded liberalism ensured
that industrialized countries could provide
social welfare systems including labour
regulatory mechanisms that offered protection to
the worker-citizen, the case has not been the
same for developing countries. Rather, for
developing countries, the privilege of
cushioning the adverse domestic effects of market
exposure was never theirs. As Ruggie observes,
the majority lack the resources, institutional
capacity, international support and, in some
instances, the political interest on the part of
their ruling elites.(Blackett, 20075)

As mentioned earlier, the apostles of market
driven economic development insist on labour
market flexibility as a means of encouraging
investment, particularly foreign.
Unfortunately the Nigerian government readily
give in to such demands and unnecessarily
indulging these investors to the extent that they
disregard extant labour laws.

52
A few examples will suffice here.

The flagrant disregard of employers for the right
of workers to form or join unions of their choice
is a good case in point. Out of the 25 banks in
Nigeria it is in only 15 of them that
unionization is allowed.
The various attempts of the two unions in the
industry to organise workers have met with stiff
resistance of the employers.

Sometime in 2004 and in response to picketing
campaigns by the unions, the Minister of Labour
facilitated a meeting of all parties involved at
the end of which an agreement was reached to the
effect that unions must be allowed to organise
workers in the industry.
Three years after the agreement is yet to be
implemented. In fact sometime in September 2007,
the Labour Minister had cause to remind employers
in the banking sector not to obstruct the efforts
of the unions at organizing workers in the
sector. Two weeks later when the unions were
contemplating a line of action against the
intransigence of employers, the same Labour
Minister warned them not to take laws into their
own hands.

Yet he is not forthcoming to help the cause of
the workers. This would appear the style of the
Ministry in its mediatory role in labour
administration.
On many occasions when employers refuse to honour
agreements signed with workers and the unions,
instead of compelling them to honour the terms of
agreement, the Ministry would rather persuade the
unions to consider a re-negotiation of the
agreements. This has happened on a number of
occasions to the Academic Staff Unions and
workers in the oil industry.

There was also the case of an Asian company that
virtually locked up its employees on night duty,
with only one exit available. When there was an
outbreak of fire in the night, many of the
workers were roasted to death. Three years after
nothing has been done to this employer and it is
still in business!!!
If the agencies of the State are not doing
enough, what has been the response of the
workers own institution, the trade unions?

Since the unions interact with the labour
administration bodies, what have they been able
to secure the rights of their members?
The truth is that the unions, in spite of
themselves, have not been able to do much. A
combination of factors, internal and external,
including the conspiratorial indifference of a
consuming public that is quick to condemn any
collective action of workers because of possible
inconveniences without being commensurately
bothered about the plight of the workers.

A good case in point was the strike action of
organised labour in June 2007 against some
government policies. After less than one week of
the strike action there was enough public outcry
against the action with appeals to labour to
consider the plight of the people.

At this juncture the question to pose is that if
the institutions are not forthcoming, what are
the options available to ensure compliance with,
and enforcement of, labour standards and workers
rights? These will be addressed by way of
conclusion.

59
Conclusion

The dictates of capitalist political economy mean
that employers and the state would be ready to
trample on the rights of workers, as this would
further engender the exploitation of the
labouring class.
In view of this, the task of defending workers
and trade union rights cannot be left in the
hands of state institutions and agencies that
cannot do much.

The best the agencies can do is to prevent
extreme abuses but not to eliminate them. This
means that there is a need to look beyond formal
institutions if workers are to be protected in
the course of employment.
If it is realised that the rights being enjoyed
today are the outcomes/products of popular
struggles then there is the need for renewed
struggles to maintain, and expand the frontiers
of rights, particularly in the face of the
rampaging onslaught of the world capitalist
system.

61
It is against this background that the following
options are suggested.

(1) The starting point is the unions who need to
let their members as well as the general public
know the rights of workers. Awareness on the part
of the workers is likely to reduce the likelihood
of infringement, while it may reduce the
hostility of the consuming public. The truth is
that some of the infringements thrive on the
ignorance of workers of the legislative
protection available to them. As such the unions
should devote a lot of efforts and resources to
awareness raising and advocacy.

Even if the unions are strong, the struggle to
enforce workers rights should not rest on the
shoulders of workers and their unions alone. This
is largely due to the fact that workers alone
cannot take on the might of the capitalist state
and employers, particularly the transnational
corporations. Non-state actors such as NGOs that
are interested in widening the scope of human
rights should be involved. This is particularly
necessary given the prevailing circumstances in
which Nigerian workers and trade unions find
themselves today. We have gone past the stage at
which the state and private employers appeal to
some base national sentiments as justifications
for abridgement of workers rights.

If the society truly values the contribution of
workers to the economic development process, such
should be acknowledged by according them basic
human dignity and adequate compensation for their
efforts in generating the commonwealth. This
should be reflected in a regime of humane and
fair conditions of work and terms of employment.
Anything short of this amounts to begging the
issue.

i) (iii) To complement the above, I strongly
believe the human rights groups and activist
should be interested in public interest
litigation such that they can take up cases, on
behalf of workers, against employers who
routinely breach provisions of the relevant laws.
The costs of litigation and negative publicity
generated may also serve as a deterrent to the
employers. In addition to litigation, advocacy on
workers rights should be taken as a major plank
of the work of the NGOs.

From the issues raised in this paper, our
conclusion is that the state and its
institutions/agencies are incapable of protecting
workers rights and as such there is the need to
look beyond these institutions in ensuring
compliance with and the enforcement of the rights
of workers.
Workers, their organisations and allies within
the labour movement should develop appropriate
strategies and means to ensure that people work
in dignity.

Finally, as long as the world panders to whims
and caprices of operators and beneficiaries of
the system, the quest for decent work will remain
a mirage. There is no reason why transnational
corporations cannot observe prevailing standards
in Nigeria which in most cases are lower than
what obtains in their home countries.

67
(No Transcript)

Write a Comment

User Comments (0)