The dispute between employer and employee over wage has existed before
even the term ‘wage’ was coined. One of these notable disputes held in
France where workers complained that they could not afford bread and
Marie Antoinette, a member of the royalty would claim(in translation)
“if they can’t eat bread, let them eat cake”. Of course, there is no
need to have much knowledge of the economy in France as at then to
understand that cake would have been more costly than bread. The
protesters and the Queen operated on two different types of reasoning
which are both correct. For the Queen, should she wake up some morning
and not desire to eat bread, she can call the bakers and tell them to
make cake. For the protesters, however, cake is not an option but the
cheaper bread has always been what the entirety of their existence is
rooted upon. This mentality has reemerged in virtually all trade
disputes.
On one side of the conflict table are ‘cake’ people who
no longer understand the microeconomic because they have been soaked
for too long in wealth either gotten legally or through corrupt means.
The cake is an option for these ones if there is no bread and they
simply would not understand how harsh the national conditions are or if
they even do, they still believe the dustpoor can continue to manage
little while they feed them with stories of their reward being in heaven
or excuses of how the poor need to sacrifice for national advancement.
The
‘bread’ side of the conflict table has workers who have daily demands
from their immediate families and are faced by an economy where the
price of everything entirely has increased including the costs of
individual transportation, the salary can no longer do what it used to
and living on the same amount of work in the past has become harder.
Thus, they reason, if my work has fed me in the past and the same amount
of work no longer does there should be an increase in not the amount of
work I do but the amount of pay that I used to be given.
The
people on the ‘cake’ side of the table are those who would oppose wage
increase yet have no fundamental issues with the high cost of funding
elected public officers who despite the relative national poverty still
get to take home very large sums of money. When the salary of public
officers is compared internationally, Nigeria jumps up the list and can
be prominently seen. When the wage of workers internationally is
compared, Nigeria runs down the list to hide on the last lines as very
great difference exists in international minimum wage comparisons to the
negative while positive great difference exists when renumeration of
elected public servants are compared.
According to a report by
the Brookings Institution “at the end of May 2018, our trajectories
suggest that Nigeria had about 87 million people in extreme poverty,
compared with India’s 73 million. What is more, extreme poverty in
Nigeria is growing by six people every minute, while poverty in India
continues to fall”. Also, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its
latest report on Nigeria, averred that despite the recovery of the
nation’s economy from recession, more Nigerians were sliding into
poverty.
The argument exists that the payment of minimum wage may
lead to an inflation which is a rise in the general price level of
commodities. It is argued that when it is increased, producers from the
primary to the secondary levels would also increase the shelf price of
their products by raising costs acting in the belief that the increase
of the minimum wage(which affects all levels of civil servants
positively including those not on the minimum wage) has also increased
the purchasing power of the consumer. Thus, should this be the case, the
money injected into getting the minimum wage increased would only court
more trouble and severe inflation. This argument is quickly refuted by
those who insist that the economy can only be better when people spend
more and businesses can generate more profit and the government more
revenue.
Both arguments quite overlook the important fact that a
lot of the consumer goods in Nigeria are not locally produced. In event
of an increase in minimum wage, the main profiteers would be foreign
companies and the local economy will be deprived of more as people
commit funds to the purchase of imported goods. This creates a major
issue for concern as local production should receive a boost before
minimum wage increase to ensure funds stay within the economy. However,
who would explain to a Labour that hears frequent news of corruption
that their minimum wage cannot be increased because the government needs
to prioritise the development and encouragement of local production?
Among
the myriad of issues that Nigeria faces is the trust that has been lost
in government. As it stands presently, a lot of states cannot cope with
the 18,000naira minimum wage structure. Nigerian Labour Congress just
some months ago insisted on 65,000 naira but have now reviewed their
call downwards by more than half to a 30,000 naira call. The country has
suffered financial crises of late which include recession, inflation
and a rise in unemployment vis-a-vis underemployment. Can Nigeria pay
the minimum wage? There is a real absence of facts to use to answer this
as the civil service maintained by the state and Federal governments
are separate and a general answer cannot be found with the exception of
states such as Lagos and Rivers where one can feel confident on their
ability to pay an increased wage.
The people on the ‘bread’ side
of the table are unlikely to listen to whatever the government has to
say. The workers are incensed by continued news of corruption especially
manifested in the brazen vote-buying episodes where politicians throw
money out in the festival of getting the masses through inducements and
leaving them afterwards to their poverty. Workers are also incensed by
the anti-people policies of the government which includes a speculative
increase of tertiary institution fees, an action the Academic Staff
Union of Universities has already taken moves against by starting a
nationwide strike.
In the face of this severe hardship, a call
for the increment of the minimum wage is coming quite late and should
have been made earlier. It is great surprise and wonder why Labour
actions in past attempts have proven unpopular but this NLC Nov. 6
action looks promising this time around especially fueled by the rising
political mood which has already made Nigerians pitch tents against or
with the government of the day.
Labour actions in the past might
have been unpopular due to the illusion held dear among Nigerian people
that the Buhari regime was encountering difficulties while trying to
create change. Presently, that mood has washed off to one of rage and
impatience. The only thing left holding back a nationwide revolt is that
the faith of the Nigerian labour and masses in the past NLC leaderships
have proven betrayed. Thus, the reception is there for the strike
action and nationwide sit-ins but the faith in the workers’ Union
leaderships are not so strong.
Trying again to view the issue
from the ‘cake’ side of the table, one finds that a minimum wage
increase may be unrealistic as there is still a struggle to meet the old
wage requirements. Again, there is the cost of oil in the international
market as the major revenue generation means of Nigeria which would
mean the government cannot plan to increase minimum wage anchoring it on
the unpredictable international oil market where prices can crash the
same way they have risen recently and is a market that is already being
threatened of extinction by the combined forces of
conservation/pollution-elimination and the force of developing newer
technology. There is also the concern that the funds will make their way
out of the economy should we consider that consumer goods are not
locally produced and minimum wage increase would mean more of these
items are purchased and the country is ultimately on the losing end.
Switching
to the ‘bread’ side of the conflict table, one finds that workers need a
living wage that copes with the current harsh economic realities.
Workers are justified in their actions because the government cannot
continue to spend so much for itself and elected public officials
through excessive legal renumeration and surplus illegal sharings yet
relinquish little to the masses and expect them to sacrifice even
further while sending their children to schools that have become far
costly than what the poor or average earner can afford. Should a person
who is on the proposed 30,000naira wage desire to educate his child, he
chooses between the dilapidated public institutions that are again
becoming costly to the tune of the recent proposed fee of 500,000 or
send them to private institutions where the costs are far above his
earnings for a combined 5 years assuming he does not do anything else
with his salary but to save it. There is a national hardship and the
call for the minimum wage increase is not really selfish on the part of
workers but is a desire for self-preservation in these hard times.
Despite
the court order, NLC can choose to proceed with her strike and make it
even more effective by ordering her component Unions such as
ASUU(already on strike), NAT, NUPENG, NUT, NASU and other unions to
declare their independent respective strikes. The court stops NLC and
not these component sister units. The NLC also argues that the
government has defied court orders severally and they claim they have
received no court order. The argument the government too has defied
court orders are only moral yet they are appealing.
To cast a
final glance at the entire issue, one hopes that a solution is found
somehow. The true finances of the government must be shown to the
Nigerian Labour and they must understand why the new minimum wage cannot
be funded should the government stand on this. The government must
further take steps that will aid the trust of workers by cutting bogus
salaries and jumbo take-home packages as this will ensure the workers
are at rest and can trust their government. The workers, on the other
hand, should try to be receptive in their talks and negotiations with
the consideration of supreme national interest. But at the same time,
they should not do what Nigerian street parlance describes as ‘sleeping
on a bicycle’. That is, they should not be too willing to drop their
agitation as it further reduces their credibility for future actions
