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-mail:folawumi@yahoo.co.uk

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 2002:29).

• 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, 2001:7).

• 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.

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, 1997:37), 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, 1995:7).

• 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).

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, 2007:1-2).

•These four challenges are a further confirmation of the decent work deficit as identified by the ILO (2001:8) 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, 2001:17).

• There is no doubt that all these shortcomings are the direct outcomes of the philosophical foundation of capitalism, which thrives on man’s 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.

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.

        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 Workmen’s 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?

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.

However, some issues are worth

examining here and these are; i. how far reaching are these

provisions, ii. do the regulatory institutions have

the capacity to play their roles, iii. does the state have the will to

protect the weaker partner in the employment relationship, and

iv. 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, 2005:19). By the Ministry’s 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 Ministry’s admission as at 2005, there was not a single vehicle for inspection yet 63 vehicles are needed (FMELP, 2005:20).

• 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 kid’s 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.

On the lack of will on the part of governments of developing countries to protect their citizen-workers,

Blackett(2007) has this to say:

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, “[t]he majority lack the resources, institutional capacity, international support and, in some instances, the political interest on the part of their ruling elites.”(Blackett, 2007:5)

• 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.

A few examples will suffice here.

o 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.

o The various attempts of the two unions in the industry to organise workers have met with stiff resistance of the employers.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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!!!

o If the agencies of the State are not doing enough, what has been the response of the workers’ own institution, the trade unions?

o Since the unions interact with the labour administration bodies, what have they been able to secure the rights of their members?

o 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.

o 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.

Conclusion

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

o 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.

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.

o 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.

o Workers, their organisations and allies within the labour movement should develop appropriate strategies and means to ensure that people work in dignity.

o 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.