MORE than a week ago, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) embarked on a seven-day warning strike to press home their demand for a fairer minimum wage for workers. The strike, however, lasted for only three days before it was suspended. No one can tell at the moment, not even the NLC, what would be a fair minimum wage. There was talk among the unionists of N65,000; then N56,000; and then, in the spirit of give and take, N35,000. Whatever is finally decided upon — and a decision will have to be taken anyway — is unlikely to satisfy everyone given the state of the economy. The current minimum wage is a paltry N18,000, so small that it not only cannot take care of basic needs, it really did not need any wage agitation for the government and the legislature to angrily take the initiative to raise it appreciably.
But responding to accusations of foot-dragging on the minimum wage agitation, the government has alleged that states were in fact the foot-draggers, as they can’t seem to have the courage to come up with a harmonised position. If states are unable to reach an agreement, says the federal government championing the executive side of the negotiation, any deal will be futile because states have to bear the higher burden of paying the new minimum wage once a settlement is reached. States, on the other hand, have been deeply sceptical, if not quite adamant, of any new wage. The economy does not admit of any wage flexibility, they argue, considering that some 26 of them have been struggling unsuccessfully for some time to meet up with their wage obligations.
In turn, recognising that states have stalled wage negotiations, the NLC has vowed to campaign against such states, political parties and governors that fail to pay salaries as and when due, and the new minimum wage once a decision is reached. Consequently, most governors who had been vociferous in arguing the impracticability of a new wage have out of fear begun to sing a new tune, regardless of the fact that no amount of miracle in their states or prioritisation of salary payment could make the difference. The states are cowed, the federal government is non-committal but desperate for industrial peace in an election year, and Labour is flush with enthusiasm based almost wholly on illogic.
Notwithstanding what happens eventually at the negotiating table, the debate will almost invariably shift to the saner and more practical issue of which state can or cannot pay. About 30 of the country’s 36 states record miserable internally generated revenue (IGR) that is so low as to be practically useless for the purpose of meeting small and sundry basic state needs, let alone salary bills. The implication is that they all unreasonably depend on their portions from the federal allocation to meet salary and developmental needs. It is simply untenable in the short or long run.
While many states do in fact demonstrate no understanding of how to meet the needs of their workers, nor why those needs ought to be met, the NLC itself has been indifferent to arguments that seek a better understanding of state economies and the structures that would make regular and decent wage payment sustainable. The unions appear to have forgotten that negotiations raised minimum wage to its present unsustainable level, and that a raise, when it is coaxed from the government, does not necessarily make wage payment foolproof, as everyone now knows. Even if an agreement can be reached on what is fair, there is nothing in the states to indicate that it can be paid on a sustainable basis.
It is tragic how the NLC, states and the federal government miss the point that the current structure of the country makes it difficult if not impossible for a decent wage to be paid sustainably. It won’t happen. Raising wages will only lead to more crisis. Oil, the main revenue earner of the country, is subject to price volatility and, increasingly, low or at best fluctuating demand due to technological advances in alternative energy sources. If the country is not restructured in such a way as to run efficiently and sustainably in line with the true practice of federalism, states will depend unreasonably on federal allocation, structure their administrations and costs unwieldily since someone else is picking their bills, and embark on irrational and wasteful projects they have no business delving into in the first instance.
The country is tilting at windmills to imagine that by prioritising salary payment it can pay the new fair wage despite struggling unsuccessfully with the paltry old wage. Without restructuring the country, possibly merging or regionalising states, and matching its costs with its revenues, it will be futile to expect industrial peace now or in the future. Sadly, restructuring is unattractive to the country’s leaders, as they hope for the foolish miracle of having their cake and eating it. They are in short creating a paradox no mathematician can solve, not ever.