Change, Emerging Structures, Privatisationand The Challenge Of Leadership In The New Labour Movement

BY

Comrade Hyginus Chika Onuegbu*JP, ACTI, FCA

STATE CHAIRMAN

TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF NIGERIA (TUC)

RIVERS STATE COUNCIL

Presented to the

Labour Writers Association of Nigeria (LAWAN)

Capacity Building Workshop

 

VENUE: Ibadan,       Nigeria                                                           DATE: 9^th April, 2014

Abstract

The labour movement the world over is constricting and on retreat and much more so in Nigeria; a country with weak institutions and feeble archaic legal frameworks to address the challenges facing the operations of people – based organisations such as the trade unions. Increasing and accelerated pressures arising from change at the micro and macroeconomic levels ,including globalisation and privatisation have been brought to bear on the movement from diverse forces most of which are orchestrated and some of which are incidental to the natural dynamics of social and economic forces. These intervening forces have created monumental changes in the operational environment of the labour movement generating new structures with corresponding influences in the process. However, it is the response of the movement through its major actors to these pressures that determines the way forward for the trade unions. These core actors remain the leadership at different levels and we can then confidently say that it is the capacity and capability of the leadership to respond sufficiently and appropriately to these forces that indeed determines what the dynamics and state of the movement both in the near future and in the long-run will be. Therefore, the  aim of this paper is to highlight how changes in the economy,  polity and society are giving rise to the emergence of new structures such as privatization; highlight the implications of these emerging structures on trade unions and how unions can effectively address the leadership challenges that they create.

 

Keywords: Change, Emerging structures, Privatisation, Leadership, Labour Movement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Comrade Hyginus Chika Onuegbu JP, FCA, is the State Chairman, Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) Rivers State and the National Industrial Relations Officer of Petroleum & Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN). He is a member of the International Labour and Employment Relations Association (ILERA) and a Justice of the Peace (JP).  He is also  a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN) and an associate of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria(CITN) trained by the now Akintola Williams Deloitte(Chartered Accountants) .He holds a B.Sc. Degree in Accounting  (University of Port Harcourt) and an  M.Sc. Economics degree  from the University of Calabar . Last year he completed an MA Leading Innovation and Change Programme from York St. John University, United Kingdom. He can be reached on: Tel 08037404222/ Email: chikaonuegbu@yahoo.com/ secretariat@chikaonuegbu.org. For more information on Comrade Chika Onuegbu, please visit my website www.chikaonuegbu.org. Also for more information on TUC Rivers State, please visit our website: www.tucrivers.org. For more information on PENGASSAN, please visit: www.pengassan.org

PROTOCOLS!

“Management is about coping with complexity. … . Leadership, by contrast, is about coping with change. Part of the reason it has become so important in recent years is that the business world has become more competitive and more volatile…The net result is that doing what was done yesterday, or doing it 5% better, is no longer a formula for success. Major changes are more and more necessary to survive and compete effectively in this new environment. More change always demands more leadership” (Kotter, 2001, p. 88)

1.     Introduction

I want to thank the leadership of the Labour Writers Association of Nigeria (LAWAN) and the organisers of this programme for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts on this very important topic. This topic is very significant and apt in view of the fact that in today’s dynamic world, change is constant and everywhere. There are new technologies, new ideas and innovations, new and improved ways of doing things, new products that outperform existing products, new demands from customers and stakeholders, new legislations, new competitors and even new substitutes.

 

There are also changes at the macro level- changes in the social, economic and political systems.  For instance, at the economic level and within the context of ownership of the means of production in Nigeria, we have moved from indigenisation and nationalisation to privatisation and denationalisation. Elsewhere, there is the movement back to nationalisation due to the global financial crises (Kawai, Mayes, & Morgan, 2012; Economist, 2008).

 

Accordingly, today we hear about globalisation and the global shift from public ownership to private ownership of the means of production. This change of ownership has also spurred the transfer by government of the ownership of its enterprises and corporation to private sector participants, and the advancement of capitalism. This has also been observed by many writers. For instance, Jose (2002,p.3) notes that:

“Competitive pressures generated by globalization have led to a decline in the capacity of the state for resource mobilization, an increased reliance on austerity measures and a government retreat from Keynesian approaches to full employment and expansionary economic policies. Besides, the historical alliance between the labour movement and social democratic regimes seems to have weakened over time. The new emphasis is on privatization and downsizing of public sector enterprises and on liberal economic policies to encourage private enterprises in areas traditionally reserved for the public sector. Liberal economic policies coupled with supply side pressures have resulted in a widespread adoption of flexible labour market policies. Practices such as subcontracting, outsourcing and the hiring of temporary and part-time workers, long considered as atypical work, are becoming more common especially at the lower end of the labour market.”

 

 

 

Also, this has led to and will continue to lead to big changes as to how those enterprises are run. For instance, in the case of the transfer of ownership of State owned enterprises (SOE) to the private sector, the workers in those organisations who hitherto were used to public sector modus operadi, will begin to adjust to commercial focus and profit – oriented mind-set.

 

These new structures  in the political, economic, cultural and ideological space within the international system have all combined to hold the movement in a grip that is gradually but steadily, asphyxiating life out of the labour movement as it is presently known. For instance, the change from public ownership of State enterprises to private ownership poses new challenges which require that unions change their approach to labour relations.

 

For example, in SOE, right to freedom of association and membership of trade unions is almost a given. However with private ownership and the Trade Unions (Amendment) Act 2005 on voluntarism, the Unions will have to convince each employee on why s/he should join the union. In addition, the union may also have to convince the employer that a union in the workplace brings advantages in terms of increased efficiency and profits without resort to exploiting the workers. Otherwise the employer may do everything possible including threatening the employees to abandon the union, and also victimize those who joined the union as a deterrent to those who may contemplate joining the union.

 

 

The fact remains that change on its own poses a big challenge to every organization and defines to a very large extent the issues of sustainability within the organization. However for the labour movement, change and emerging structures in the polity, economy and society have led to a dramatic decline and diminishing roles of trade unions in the polity, economy and workplaces. In fact, scholars like Rosenfeld are beginning to focus on the economic, social, and political consequences of the dramatic decline of trade unions in United States of America (USA) (See, Rosenfeld, 2014).

 

Currently, the US trade unions have greatly reduced dramatically their advocacy for better working conditions, weak in their support for immigrants’ economic assimilation, and ineffective in addressing wage stagnation among African Americans (Rosenfeld, 2014). In short, unions are no longer instrumental in combating inequality in American economy and politics, and the result is a sharp decline in the prospects of American workers and their families (Rosenfeld, 2014). Nevertheless, workers unions in Nigeria may ironically commend trade unions in America. Yet a closer reflection of the situation in Nigeria and Africa generally will reveal similar trend. For instance, you will recall that trade unions in Nigeria and Africa generally, since colonial times, have been more than being mere medium for bargaining for the improvement of the welfare of their members.

 

Historically, the contributions of trade unions in the struggles for independence (Ananaba, 1979); democracy and resistance to military dictatorship (Ogunniyi, 2004) in Nigeria cannot be overemphasised. Trade unions have whenever the need arose provided a platform for workers and ordinary citizens to resist oppressive and obnoxious government policies anchored on exploitation. This is in furtherance of the role of trade unions in the advancement of the socio-economic and political interest of their members and ordinary citizens, as well as social justice generally.

Presently, alterations in the economic policies, legislations and society have led to a steady decline in the Nigerian trade unions, their roles and influence.              The worst of them is the internal challenges within the labour movement. For instance, there is diminishing solidarity among and within labour unions; increasing divisions, cartelism and internal power struggle amongst union leaders and between trade unions; disconnect between Union leaders and Shop floor members and general Politicisation of Trade Unions. There is also growing corruption and decline in integrity among labour leaders (Anyim, Ilesanmi, &Alaribe, 2013; Onuegbu, 2013b).

It is therefore obvious that labour unions must as a matter of utmost urgency innovate and transform themselves to arrest the decline in membership,  influence and roles if they must survive these changes in economy, polity and society. Unfortunately empirical evidence suggests that unions are difficult to change (Craft, 1991). Craft further argued that:

“Although unions may recognise major changes in their environment, they often seem unable to respond effectively until a major threat or crises has occurred” (Craft, 1991, p. 393).

 

This should not be a surprise. Obviously, people generally resist change for many reasons (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Kotter, 2008; Kanter, 2012). Also empirical evidence suggests that about 70 % of major change and transformation efforts fail (Kotter, 1995;Beer &Nohria, 2000).

 

The truth remains that driving successful organisational change requires not just any kind of leadership, but effective leadership (Nadler & Tushman, 1990; Onuegbu, 2013b). Moreover, the bureaucratic structure of trade unions (Craft, 1991; Onuegbu, 2013b) means that organisational change can only be successfully driven by the leadership (Onuegbu, 2013b; Voss & Sherman, 2000).  Also, Kelloway and Barling, (1993) in their study conclude that members’ loyalty, sense of responsibility and participation in union activities are significantly influenced by their perception of their leaders.

Undoubtedly, leadership is central to the achievement of organisational goals and objectives (Drucker, 1954) and is one of the greatest needs of our time (Burns, 1978). More so, the eventual outcome of the challenges confronting the labour unions is greatly a function of the response of the various leadership of the labour movement both at the level of philosophy and practice within the various levels of the trade unions. The character and stature of leadership within the movement therefore is at the heart of the quest for sustainability within it. It queries and interrogates all countervailing forces intruding into the operational environment of the movement and its strength to a very large extent gives direction to eventual outcomes despite the path these forces chose.

This greatly underscores the need for not just any kind of leadership but effective leadership of trade unions. The fact remains that, ‘More change always demands more leadership’ (Kotter, 2001, p. 88). Therefore, trade union movement in Nigeria and anywhere in the globe cannot be different.

 

 

But what is leadership? Unfortunately this is not  an easy question because

‘There are almost as many definitions of leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept’ (See, Stogdill, 1974).

 

Nevertheless, based on my experience as a labour leader, I am convinced that leadership is the articulation of vision and goals for the organisation and the process of influencing and engaging the followers to ensure that they are successfully actualized (Onuegbu, 2013b). This definition shares similar views with that of Gary Yukl, who sees leadership as ‘the process of influencing others to understand and agree what needs to be done and how it can be done effectively, and the process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish the shared objectives’ (Yukl, 2002, p. 7).

 

In this paper, we will  therefore , adopt the definition by Yukl as the working definition of leadership.  The aim of this paper is to highlight how changes in the economy, polity and society are giving rise to the emergence of new structures such as privatization; highlight the implications of these emerging structures on trade unions and how unions can effectively address the leadership challenges that they create.

 

2.     KEY CONCEPTS

At this point, we want to seek an understanding of the key words that have presented themselves within the context of our presentation. We have in the introduction explained the meaning of leadership. It is only reasonable that we also throw more light on other key concepts and their probable implications for the Labour movement. It is also important that we note our assumption that everybody in this hall today has a general understanding of what the Labour movement stands for and so we decided not to bother us with its functional definition here.

2.1 Change:

The imperativeness of change as a continuous process in every organisation is underpinned by the dynamics of the operational environment of organisations that are constantly in a state of flux. The demands this fluidity makes on organisational survival and sustenance makes it exigent that all its facets are analysed and better understood.

 

The success or effectiveness of any change process is a function of the entire gamut starting from the conception and vision of the change process in the hearts and minds of the initiators of the project, to the design, initiation and overall implementation including measures put in place to make it sustainable.

Organisational inertia has become the biggest bane of growth and one of the main reasons why great organisations fail (Sull, 1999). Also the fear of what may happen or go wrong keep many leaders from taking the desired step for the transformation of their organisations in response to change. They recognise the need for change but are lethargic in kick starting the process within their organisation. As a result of this, the organisation sits on a ‘keg of gun powder’ that is ready to explode anytime either in the near future or in the long run, drowning it out of existence.

Change is generally viewed with suspicion as it does bring uncertainties within organisations though it contains the seed for constant organizational renewal. It does create manifest difficulties to any organization that is unprepared and cannot thus respond creatively to its various facets. It can lead to the demise of the organization when handled negatively.

The Labour movement must therefore be prepared at all times for the inevitability of change both internally and externally and even within the characters of their strategic partners as this to a large extent determines its continuous survival as a mass movement and voluntary organisation.

Organisations and this includes the labour movement can become complacent and resistant to change, sometimes even without knowing (Kotter, 2008) .And this is very fatal. The movement must therefore be constantly aligned to keep it stable within the ambits of the buffeting pressures from all corners. It must be kept in a balance by the leadership so that it can manoeuvre safely through the constant tide of fluctuation within its operational parameters.

 

2.2 Emerging Structures:

The intention here is not about physical structures but about the various pillars and blocks that dot the operational environment of the trade union movement. They are those elements upon which the movement stands and which determines its character and trajectory continuously. We are not therefore going to talk about the structures of the trade union movement in terms of the various spatial aggregations and administrative organs designed for organizational control and effectiveness but about those structures that determine the environment of labour relations.

 

As we are all aware, labour relations does not take place in a vacuum. It is impacted by the political, economic and social structures of the society where it is practiced. Also by the international political and economic order. If we take the ownership structure of the means of production in Nigeria for instance, in view of the theme of this workshop, we will see the several changes that have taken place.

 

First was that following the colonialisation of Nigeria and the introduction of industrial capitalism , over 70% of the industrial organisations operating in Nigeria were owned by foreigners. The post-independence consciousness led to the introduction of the   indigenisation policy of 1972 under which the Nigerian government issued an indigenization decree, that barred foreigners from investing in specified enterprises and reserved participation in certain trades to Nigerians. This was later followed by the Nationalization policy in 1975. Nationalisation is a policy of government that directs that ‘private foreign firms to sell or transfer all or part of their equity to the government’ (WilsonIII, 1990, p. 402). These two policies of government eventually led to the public sector domination of the Nigerian economy.

 

Unfortunately,

“During the mid – 1980s, the industrialized economies were going through a period of stagflation. Because the Nigerian economy is an integral part of the global system, it follows that depression in the industrialized countries will affect Nigeria. Therefore, Nigeria experienced the depression as a client given her dependent nature” (Ekpo, 2004, p.12).

 

Consequently, various prescriptions and attempts were made to correct the Nigerian economy such as the Austerity Measure of the Shehu Shagari administration. However, these policies were unsuccessful and Nigeria needed assistance and loan from the Bretton Wood institution. The Bretton Woods institution prescribed the Structural adjustment programme (SAP) as conditionality for the assistance and loan. Consequently, the Ibrahim Babangida administration implemented all the conditionalities of the IMF through the structural adjustment programme but did not take the loan (Ihonvbere, 1994). The loan was rejected because of the outcome of the great IMF loan debate that showed that Nigerians were opposed to additional loans (Barnes, et al., 2008). It is important to note that commercialisation and privatization programmes are part of the IMF conditionalities and the SAP (Azubuike, 2009).

 

It is no longer news that SAP gave a fatal blow to Nigerians and the Nigerian economy. In fact SAP has been described as the ‘globalization of poverty’ by World bank and IMF (Chossudovsky, 1997). This underscores the need for Nigerians and Nigeria to take a critical view of the economic prescriptions of the World bank and IMF before adoption of such policies.

 

 

3.     EMERGING STRUCTURES AND PRIVATISATION

That the society is constantly changing is no longer news. What is important for us is that these changes lead to the emergence of new political, social and economic structures. One of such new structures is the transfer of government owned enterprises to private sector participants, which is popularly referred to as privatization (Carter, 2013). This is however a restrictive view of privatization and perceives privatization as comprising the following namely: the complete or partial sale of assets by the state; the transfer of assets to the private sector through leasing arrangements; and the introduction of management contracting arrangements (Ros & Banerjee, 2000). More broadly, privatization refers to all policies and programmes aimed at expanding the role of the private sector in the economy (Obadan, 2008; Ghigliani, 2010). Some of these policies and programmes include deregulation, liberalisation and franchising (Bishop & Kay, 1989).

 

 

The history of privatization in Nigeria, in the broader context, can be traced to the structural adjustment programme foisted by the Bretton Woods institutions on Third World countries (Obadan, 2008). This led to the promulgation of the Privatisation and Commercialisation Decree No. 25 of 1988 and the setting up of the Technical Committee for Privatisation and Commercialisation (TCPC) chaired by Dr. Hamza Zayyad with a mandate to privatize 111 public enterprises and commercialize 34 others by the administration of General Ibrahim Babangida.

 

In 1993, having privatized 88 out of the 111 enterprises listed in the decree, the TCPC concluded its assignment and submitted a final report. Based on the recommendation of the TCPC, the Federal Military Government promulgated the Bureau for Public Enterprises Act of 1993, which repealed the 1988 Act and set up the Bureau for Public Enterprises (BPE) to implement the privatization program in Nigeria. Later the Administration of General Abdulsalami Alhaji Abubakar promulgated the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Decree of 1998 into law. The Decree later became Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act of 1999 following the inauguration of the democratic government in 1999.  The Act repealed the BPE Decree 28 of 1993.

 

Presently, the Public Enterprises (Privatisation and Commercialisation) Act Cap P.38 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004 provide the extant legal basis for privatisation and commercialization in Nigeria. The Act establishes a National Council on Privatisation (NCP) to determine political, economic and social objectives for privatisation and commercialisation of public enterprises.

 

It is imperative to note that section 14 of the Privatization and Commercialization Act, Cap 369, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, now repealed, defined privatization as the relinquishment of part or all of the equity and other interests held by the Federal Government or its agency in enterprises whether wholly or partly owned by the Federal Government. This definition agrees with the restrictive view of privatization as aforementioned. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the word ‘privatization’ in the Public Enterprises (Privatization and Commercialization) Act, Cap P38, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).Section 33 of the Act defines a ‘public enterprise’ as any corporation, board, company or parastatal established by or under any enactment in which the Government of the Federation, a Ministry or extra Ministerial department or agency has ownership, or equity interest and includes a partnership, joint venture or any other form of business arrangement or organization.

 

From economic theory, scholars like Megginson (2005) insist that the main reason for privatization is the search for increase in the efficiency of the firms.  However there are also other reasons why the policy may be pursued by policy makers. For instance, the January 11th, 2014 edition of the Economists notes that:

“Politicians push privatisation at different times for different reasons. In Britain in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher used it to curb the power of the unions. Eastern European countries employed it later to dismantle command economies. Today, with public indebtedness at its highest peacetime level in advanced economies, the main rationale is to raise cash.”

This has also been corroborated by the literature on privatization. Here in Nigeria, similar reasons have been given for privatization. For instance El-Rufai (2012)[1] asserts that the main reasons for privatization are:

“improving a government’s cash flow or reducing budget deficits; enhancing the efficiency and performance of the State Owned Enterprises; promoting “popular capitalism” through wider share ownership; curbing the power of labour unions in the public sector; redistributing incomes and rents within society; and satisfying foreign donors’ preference for redefining the role of government in the economy”.

Essentially, economic theory of privatization is hinged on the market efficiency theory. Paradoxically, it is also the failure of that theory that justifies government intervention such as regulation and nationalization. It is therefore important to state here that there are divergent opinions among economists regarding the effectiveness of privatization as an economic policy.

 

For instance, proponents of privatization like Boycko, Shleifer, & Vishny (1996) claim that:

“Public enterprises around the world have proved to be highly inefficient, primarily because they pursue strategies, such as excess employment, that satisfy the political objectives of politicians who control them… privatization leads to efficient restructuring of firms”( p. 309).

In the same vein, Kikeri notes that:

“The burdens that loss-making and inefficient enterprises impose on society are simply too large to bear. Continued government support for state enterprises and their employees comes at the expense of society as a whole, diverting scarce resources to subsidize loss-making operations—and benefit a small number of citizens— rather than to social sectors that benefit the economy and the poor”(Kikeri, 1998,p.ix ).

 

However, opponents of privatization like Obadan (2008) are quick to point out that:

 

“the empirical findings on privatization, especially outside Africa where they exist, do not portray the strategy to be a panacea that works in all circumstances in all branches of economic activity”.

 

For instance, Nellis observe, that:

“in far too many privatization transactions, in far too many transition countries, mass and rapid privatization has turned over mediocre assets to large numbers of people who have neither the skills nor the financial resources to run them well. Most high-quality assets have in one way or another (sometimes by “spontaneous privatization” that preceded official schemes…) gone to their resourceful, agile and politically well-connected few…These outcomes occur most acutely where the post-transition state structures are weak and fractured. This allows significant parts of government to become captured by groups whose major objective is to use the state to legitimate or mask their acquisition of wealth” (Nellis, 1999, p.16)

 

Furthermore,  Birdsall and Nellis disclosed in their study how privatization adversely impact on the society.  They  note that:

 

“at the heart of much of the criticism is a perception that privatization has been unfair—hurting the poor, the disenfranchised, and in some cases beleaguered workers, and benefiting the already rich, powerful and privileged. Privatization is seen as throwing large numbers of people out of work or forcing them to accept jobs with lower pay, less security and fewer benefits; as raising the prices of goods and services sold; as providing opportunities for the enrichment of the agile and corrupt, and generally making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The complaint is that, even if privatization contributes to improved efficiency and financial performance (and some contest this as well), it has a negative effect on the distribution of wealth, income and political power”(Birdsall&Nellis, 2002,p.2).

The debate on the impact of privatization is still ongoing. In fact, the Economist Magazine on February 2014 conducted a debate on privatization and the result still affirms that there are divergent views by economists on privatization as a policy. Let me however point out that the discussion of the political economy of privatization is beyond the scope of this paper. Those interested in the political economy of privatization may wish to refer to Bienen and Waterbury (1989);Clarke and  Pitelis(1993);Glaister  and Travers(1993);Hoopes (1997) and Ghigliani (2010).

 

 

4.     PRIVATISATION AND TRADE UNIONS

 

There appears to be an agreement among scholars that privatisation of State Owned Enterprises (SOE) has some adverse effects on workers and their trade unions. This should not be a surprise as the politicians have in many cases used privatisation as a punitive action against trade unions (El-Rufai, 2012). Not surprising , Kikeri(1998) had observed that trade unions gingered  especially  by their members in state owned enterprise and their philosophy of solidarity, are often among the most vocal and organized opponents of privatization, taking actions to deal or block reform.

 

Gupta et al, also observed that:

 

“Privatisation is one example of a structural reform that can have an adverse social impact, at least in the short run. For workers, privatisation can lead to job losses, reductions in compensation, and more stringent work conditions. The empirical evidence suggests that significant reductions in employment are indeed associated with privatisation… [It] often causes a move toward more performance based pay schemes, more flexible working conditions (less security of tenure, increased use of nonunionized contract labour, fewer benefits, and longer hours) and larger wage differentials. In summary, for state-owned enterprises, privatisation tends to reduce employment and wages, at least initially”(Gupta, et al, 2001).

Nonetheless,  Kikeri (1998) makes a couple of suggestions on how trade unions, especially strong unions,  can influence the privatisation process, to create welfare benefits for workers and the larger society. He however notes that these measures can only be applied if the unions are engaged early enough in the privatisation process as a strategic partner.

Whilst the arguments for and against privatisation rages, one thing is clear. Privatisation “remains widely and increasingly unpopular, largely because of the perception that it is fundamentally unfair, both in conception and execution”(Birdsall & Nellis, 2002).  Moreover, as aforementioned, politicians have many a times used privatisation as a vendetta against trade unions. A good example is the Thatcher administration in the United Kingdom. Whether as a deliberate policy to victimise unions or not, privatisation of state owned enterprises has several implications for trade unions , the sum total of which has been the decline in the role and influence of trade unions. However,  this is made worse by the inability of trade unions to also restructure and transform themselves .

 

It is therefore very important that the labour movement restructure and transforms itself to be better prepared for changes in the environment of labour relations such as privatisation .As aforementioned, this restructuring and transformation of unions can only be driven successfully by the leadership of trade unions.

 

5.     TRADE UNION LEADERSHIP

 

It is pertinent to note that

“(trade) Union leadership is fundamentally moral leadership. If leaders do not constantly articulate and act according to labor’s core values and vision of social and economic justice, inclusion, human development, and hope, they have little chance of successfully mobilizing their members over the long term” (Eaton,1992, p. 1).

 

This position has also been supported by Onuegbu, when he concluded that trade unions leaders must:

“pay special attention to the core values and ideology of the movement, and   lead with honesty  and integrity so that they  can improve on the trust between the followers and the leaders”(Onuegbu,2013a,p.60).

 

These core values distinguish a trade union from other organisations of men and women. They   underscores the: 

“basic underlying assumptions of trade unions and consists of the unconscious, taken for granted beliefs and deeply held values shared by members of a trade union. It is upon these ideals, consciousness , philosophy , deeply held values and principles that trade unions emerge”(Onuegbu, 2013, p. 4)

 

The importance of moral and authentic leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999; Avolio & Gardner, 2005) in the long term success of trade unions, especially in effectively mobilizing the members against obnoxious government and management policies during periods of great changes, as we have today in Nigeria, cannot be overemphasized. This is because authentic leaders build trust between the leaders and the followers by putting the interest of the followers above their own interest and therefore, accentuate the collective good of the organisation, the followers and the leader (Onuegbu, 2013b; Howell & Avolio, 1992).

 

Developing the capacity of trade union leaders in authentic leadership is particularly important since driving  successful change requires the trust and commitment of the followers (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979) . It also enables  good understanding of the challenges facing the organisation sufficient to create a sense of urgency needed to galvanise support for successful transformation of the unions  (Kotter, 1996;Kotter & Cohen, 2002).

 

Sadly, despite the several interests in trade unions  and their enormous contribution to the society, economy and polity,  “trade union leadership as a theme is a relatively unexplored area within the more general leadership literature” (Preece & Ward, 2012). And of course, as is written in the  Holy Bible, “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6.KJV).

 

We can all see why unions are being destroyed because their leaders lack the appropriate leadership knowledge and skills that will enable them drive successful change in the face of the many daunting challenges daily buffeting the labour movement.

 

This should not however be used as an excuse for corruption and lack of accountability by some labour leaders.

 

Please  permit me to point out some of the emerging nature and character of trade union leadership in Nigeria that are threats to the ability of the unions to effectively respond to the changes in the environment of industrial relations.

 

5.2 The Threatening Nature and Character of Trade Union Leadership in Nigeria

Having seen what change, privatization and emerging structures look like, it becomes exigent that we assess the nature and character of trade union leadership in Nigeria. This will help us to understand what the response of the movement will be to these countervailing forces. The criticality of this response is at the core of our discourse here today. Although there are notable exceptions, the landscape of the nation’s trade union movement is  somewhat  characterized by  many leaders that are:

5.2.1 Selfish and ego driven:

The trade Union movement in Nigeria has become largely dominated by men and women who no longer have the passion for the defence of workers’ rights and privileges. There seems to be a prevalence of a cadre of leadership that has moved away from the same kind of commitment to Nigerian workers shown by the movement’s leadership of yester years.

 

Sadly, this brand of union leaders  are more driven by interests that are can only be defined as personal. The movement being a mass-based organization that is built on trust and confidence, the prevalence of leadership with selfish interests over the interests of the workers and the majority of the citizenry is one of the major crises facing the nation’s labour movement.

 

This pursuit explains the present tardiness in handling certain affairs of the movement especially at the industry level. When the collective interest is sacrificed at the altar of the self, it is but a question of time for an implosion to occur as this becomes more pronounced for the wider membership to see.

 

How then can such a leadership engage some of the pressures that we have been talking about except to see it from the point where his interests becomes overriding? This gives room for increasing compromise of the ethics and mores of the movement. The outcome expectedly will leave a big question mark.

 

5.2.2 Prevalence of primordial sentiments

Just like in the wider Nigerian society where resort to these cleavages dictate most policies, programmes and governance actions, the leadership within the movement has largely resorted to this unfortunate elements to guide its actions. Promotions and advancement within the movement are mostly dictated by cronyism,  clannishness and this sacrifices merit and leaves the movement often operating at sub optimal levels.

 

There are Unions where you find a predominance of one particular ethnic group or religion in positions of leadership both at the administrative and elective positions. There are still others that are dominated by “gangs” of friends who continue recruiting and handing power over to members of the ‘gang’ down the line. In fact, I am aware of a particular union that has arranged leadership succession in such a way that they know who will succeed the present leadership up to the third regimes. Not the kind of arrangement you have in professional bodies driven clearly by proper succession planning. Here we are referring to an arrangement based solely on the degree of loyalty to the President of the union ( leader of the gang) rather than loyalty to the union.

 

This is an “arrangee” kind of leadership not different from the one Fela Kuti sang about in the 1980s- Army Arrangement  . The truth is that  such “arrangee” leadership thrown up by such frameworks can only think about the interest of those that made their emergence possible and not that of the workers who are the major contributors to the union.

 

5.2.3 Elitist bureaucracy

The Movement has also thrown up leadership that is mainly immersed in bureaucracy. It was easy to get things going within the movement before but the present leadership seem to have adopted the same leadership style prevalent in the public sector to run the affairs of the movement especially at the Industrial levels. Departments with specialized schedule are created to run some aspects of the unions and this compartmentalization has also meant that bureaucrats rather than activists are now running the unions.

 

There is also the emergence of elitist and anti-egalitarian leaders in the Nigerian labour movement.

 

This has implications for cohesion within the movement as there presently exists a disconnect between the leadership in such unions and the membership. You therefore find leadership that cannot be approached by the membership and therefore creates a distance both physically, psychologically and intellectually. This creates a communication gap,  and so while the leadership speaks a different language, workers say something else.

 

 

5.2.4 Corruption:

If the trade unions are placed under close scrutiny especially in their  financial dealings, the level of sleaze that would be unearthed would be mind-bogging as many leaders at many levels have been involved in cases of financial dealings that are largely not ethical.

 

In some cases, majority of the check-off dues within the movement end in the pockets of the leadership either through sleight of hand or through some administrative shenanigans. This explains why despite all the quantum of funds collected by some of the unions, you cannot find any concrete development in the unions in terms of both physical and social infrastructure including better human capacity.

 

This is worrying and this is one of the reasons the movement has found it challenging to effectively engage state actors in the area of corruption. Unfortunately the fight against corruption and the enthronement of good governance is the main reform that is needed in Nigeria. It is the ultimate prescription for the economic and political progress of Nigeria. And until the Nigerian labour movement together with her civil society partners embarks on a sustained and effective industrial action against corruption, impunity and bad governance,  the country will continue in the downward spiral. This has been corroborated by Thomas Donohue, Former President AFL-CIO, when he said that ‘the only effective answer to organized greed is organized labor ‘. This greatly underscores the urgent need for a revival of the Nigerian labour movement.

 

5.2.5 Lacks some of the Vital  Skills for effective leadership of Trade Unions in Contemporary times.

Leadership within the movement especially at the lower rungs of the ladder and in some unions that organize junior staff workers are relatively  inadequately educated and even where they are, they lack the necessary skills to offer any meaningful, creative and effective leadership to their Unions. Critical skills such as strategic thinking and strategic leadership, knowledge of labour and industrial relations laws and practice etc. are lacking. Please see Onuegbu (2013b) for a detailed discussion on the skills for effective leadership of trade unions in contemporary times.

 

This makes it difficult for such unions to function and offer any serious challenge to some of the countervailing forces since they lack the capacity to dissect and understand. How can they confront effectively what they do not understand and what they do not even know is there in the first place? This is the dilemma.

 

5.2.6 Lacks working class consciousness

We have continued to say that whatever the 1978 trade union amendment act gave to the labour movement, it took so much away from it. While it made the Unions wealthy, it however took away the soul of the Unions.  A fish out of water will eventually die and a movement without its consciousness is headed for doom and that is the predicament which the movement in Nigeria has unfortunately found itself as a result.

 

The labour movement has become peopled by a leadership that no longer understands what working class consciousness means talkless of having it themselves. This became possible because the movement no longer have to engage in serious advocacy to convince workers about the need to become members and to also pay their check-off since the law has taken care of it. A cadre of armchair Unionist was therefore created who are in the union for some other reasons and not for the existence of a passion for workers’ rights and privileges.

 

Without this ingredient in the leadership, it becomes difficult to understand the various tendencies and limits within which the movement must operate. It is this consciousness that equips the leaders with the necessary operational tools to analyse and engage other segments of the society.

5.2.7 Lacks required vision

If a tour of the leadership of the movement is undertaken, you will find many people who do not know where they are headed with the movement. This is not however surprising since the consciousness was not there in the first place. Without vision, organisations atrophy as they operate within the ambits of what each new day brings.

 

This explains why there no strategic plans for many unions even though union leaders know very well that their employers have long term strategic plans under various names. It also explains why funds are frittered away and not properly invested to wean the movement from over dependence on check-off dues and take steps to ensure that structures that will endure are created within the unions to make them viable even in lean times. Just a few unions have been able to accomplish this and we use this opportunity to acknowledge their effort.

5.2.7 Dictatorial

It is paradoxical to find within the movement the existence of leaders that have become more tyrannous than the military regimes which we collectively joined our hands to chase out of the corridors of power in Nigeria. They have succeeded in usurping the powers of the various organs of the Unions and can do whatsoever pleases them. Any  voice of opposition is either summarily dealt with or suspended .

 

In fact we can see the rise of toxic leadership (Lipman-Blumen,2006; Goldman, 2006;Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Schyns & Hansbrough, 2010) in some of our unions . Such leaders have essentially become poisonous to the organisations they lead. This is very bad for the labour movement. Toxic leadership has been described in leadership literature as:

” a process in which leaders, by dint of their destructive behavior and/or dysfunctional personal characteristics inflict serious and enduring harm on their followers, their organizations, and non-         followers, alike.. (Lipman-Blumen, 2006,p.1)

 

These toxic leaders have succeeded in usurping the powers of the various organs of the Unions and can do whatsoever pleases them.They ensure that all voices of opposition are either summarily dealt with or are suspended from whatsoever organ where they operate and if they are staff, they are summarily terminated or removed from their jobs without recourse to due process and questions will not be asked.

 

The destructive nature of toxic leaders to any organisation is well documented in leadership literature. These  kind of  leaders are destroying our unions and undermining the basis for collectivism which is built on workers’ collective trusts and confidence. They have become serious threats to the long term survival of the union and all hands must be on deck to check them before they bring down the movement on all of us.

 

Let me quickly add that members, by their actions and inactions, also help in the emergence and sustainability of toxic leaders(Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007; Lipman-Blumen, 2006).

 

Let me also quickly add, that this should not be construed to mean that the leadership of trade union should howsoever condone grave anti-union activities by some members. For to do so, would amount to abdication of their leadership responsibilities or what leadership scholars call Laissez-faire leadership[2] . Such members should be disciplined in line with the constitution and rule book of the unions. Also there must be justice, fair hearing and consistency in the handling of disputes and grievances.

5.3 The Implications of these Challenges for Trade Unions in Nigeria

We have thus far seen the character of prevailing leadership within the nation’s labour movement but the next question we ought to ask ourselves is; what will be the consequences of all these on the Movement’s ability to respond effectively to these processes of change and their various outcomes. Some of these implications can be located in the following areas:

5.3.1 Reduction in membership

The strength of the movement can be found in its ability to mobilise membership at all levels. It is the diversity and depth of its membership that defines its vibrancy and effectiveness as a platform for protecting not only the interests of the workers but also that of the larger society.

 

As a result of weaknesses in the various leadership and their inability to adequately respond to issues of change and their outcomes, privatization and new structures it has become difficult for the movement to check the continuous decline in membership.

 

It is disheartening all the time to watch Union leadership go to the negotiation table to trade off jobs in favour of increased pay. What this means is that after negotiating pay rises, most of them agree unwittingly with the management on the need to downsize the workforce to accommodate for these increases in the guise of redundancies.

 

The continued implication of this on membership is a continued shrinking while contract and casual staff are on the increase. In many companies, it has become common place to find a preponderance of workers whose jobs are precarious over those whose jobs are secure. If this trend continues, we may one day find companies that used to have unions who no longer have unions and this is happening now though it has not become very preponderant.

 

5.3.2 Weakening of trade unions

One of the consequences of the above is that our movement has become weaker in the face of these onslaughts as leaders find themselves unable to respond to the pressures that we have mentioned above. Our movement is weaker presently because of a combination of the factors that we listed above and if they are not corrected, the slide may not abate but may eventually lead to a total annihilation of this very useful social construct.

 

5.3.3 Undermines Solidarity and weakens cohesion

Solidarity and cohesion remains the bedrock upon which the movement is built but once this is undermined as the actions of the leadership have predisposed us to, the foundation of the movement becomes corroded.

 

Injury to one is no longer injury to all. It has become a mere slogan as conditions are attached to it. It is no more as spontaneous as we used to know as a lot of water has passed under the bridge. If leaders can gleefully sit down and negotiate away the job of others because they are not going to be affected or if in some cases where leaders have been found to collude with managements to sack or transfer staff to give political advantage to them or their cronies then, where is the solidarity and where is the camaraderie?

 

5.3.4 Diminishes capacity and capability to deliver on its objectives

Most of the objectives of the trade union as a movement may already be heavily compromised because our leadership actions and qualities have diminished our capacity to deliver on them.

 

A combination of paucity of skills and inadequate education can only but mean that we lack the needed capacity to turn the forces of change and its outcomes into forces of progress and into forces for delivering the objectives of the movement.

 

It is only when we can creatively engage these forces that we can talk about turning their energies into benefits for our membership and the movement, and this is only possible when we have developed adequate internal capacities for doing such.

 

5.3.5Becomes vehicles for satisfying personal objectives (individual interests prevails)

The movement as a result of negative leadership actions has been turned unfortunately into platforms for satisfying the desires and ambitions of a few. This has undermined the ethos and the historical bonds on which our movement is built. As individual objectives hold sway over collectivism, the foundations will gradually begin to crack and will eventually collapse with time.

 

5.3.6 Absorption of the trade unions into the sphere of Capital

I have watched with trepidation the continued unhealthy romance of some members of the movement with the agents of Capital especially at the level of leadership. There is nothing wrong in maintaining a salubrious relationship with management, government and other agents of capital. For indeed implicit in industrial relations and social dialogue is the need for a robust and salubrious relationship among the parties. What is wrong is when the relationship become so unhealthy that labour essentially loses it’s identity and becomes unwittingly an appendage and an extension to Capital and its agents.

 

With this incorporation, the movement no longer serves ultimately the interests of the workers and the masses but delivers tokenistic benefits as when it is doled out by the owners of Capital and at their convenience. This puts up an appearance of relevance to its constituencies and keeps it peripherally relevant for now.

 

5.3.7Discourages participation

There is an increasing general apathy to the affairs of the movement as members have come to believe that the union has been hijacked by a few who will not allow them to have a look in. Attendance in meetings has plummeted as such but is only fair when there is something to be shared. This undermining of participation which is one of the basic strengths of the movement is dangerous as the movement cannot survive without the participation of its membership in its overall activities.

 

5.3.8 Steadily whittles down the moral capacity of the trade unions

If the movement engages in actions that calls into question the very principles of its operations such as if the union cannot properly account for its funds and also engages in IR practices that are contrary to their preachments in the various workplaces, that undermines their ability to point accusing fingers on the Management and Government when they do the same.

 

We are essentially saying that the movement has largely lost this moral advantage over the other segments of the society and it is only a question of time before this becomes general knowledge and its recompense fully meted out on the movement.

 

6.     Needed Union Strategies to successfully engage these forces

Change as a constant with some of its outcomes like Privatisation, Structural shifts need to be creatively engaged to harness its potentials for the growth of the trade union movement. This means that the movement through its leadership must evolve appropriate strategies to achieve this purpose. Without these strategies, the movement will be incapable of delivering on its stated objectives to its publics and would therefore be in danger of becoming irrelevant to their needs leading to their eventual extinction. Some of these strategies that must of necessity be adopted to avoid this pitfall are:

6.1 Organise and Re-organise – to increase solidarities for strength

The strength of the trade union lies in its committed members and number. It is in its ability to mobilise large membership both directly and indirectly that provides the foundation for its effectiveness. The greater the membership of the unions, the greater its solidarities thus, the greater its strength. Organising is therefore at the heart of every trade union activity which it must determinedly pursue in its quest to remain strong that will put it in a better pedestal as it engages other social partners. The movement must strive to bring in more direct membership into its fold, reach the unorganised workplaces and especially seek to bring into the fold the large chunk of workers within the informal sector who are yearning for representation.

 

6.2 Increasing advocacy outreach to social partners and the larger society

When the movement begins a passionate and aggressive spreading of the gospel of the trade union movement amongst our social partners and of course the larger society, there will be a better understanding of what the movement stands for. This we believe will reduce confrontations and change perceptions in the minds of the social partners. As negative perceptions are changed or conquered, some of the challenges confronting the movement would be overcome putting it on a better stead for survival into the future. The Movement must therefore seek to tell its own story and not wait for others to talk about it. All avenues must be exploited to get the stakeholders understand us, our dynamics, our functions and our achievements including our roles and values to them.

 

6.3 Reinventing and repositioning itself

The society and challenges as we have said before are in a constant state of flux, the trade union movement ought to therefore seek avenues to rediscover itself, its values to improve them and make them more congruent to the needs of the changing times and needs. It must constantly seek to be tangential to all currents positioning itself at the cutting edge of all social development and tapping into the changing flows to make itself stronger while remaining relevant to all stakeholders and its membership.

 

6.4 Making itself more relevant to its primary and secondary constituency

The workers remain the primary constituency of the trade union movement. The movement therefore owes it a primary duty to protect, articulate and project its interests and desires her members. The larger society or the masses constitute its secondary or extended constituency and the movement owes it certain degrees of responsibility and this becomes more demanding especially in a country like Nigeria where it has become increasingly obvious that the ruling elite has consciously ganged up against the people. Together, these constitute the public of the trade union movement and the extent to which the movement meets their expectations is the extent to which their loyalty to the movement is determined. It should be remembered that the strength of the movement lies on its ability to mobilise these public which is dependent on the degree to which they have cultivated the trust, confidence and loyalty of them and which in turn depends on the degree to which their expectations from the movement have been satisfied or met.

 

6.5 Going back to its ideological roots

The trade union movement is built remember on an ideology, a consciousness which gives it the needed impetus for effectiveness. A de-link with this root deprives it of its lifeblood which is important for its sustainability. A trade union movement cut-off from its philosophical roots is like a fish out of water – it will gasp for breath, stutter and die if nothing is done quickly. The 1978 trade union Decree that created the most of the present trade unions took away the soul of the union which is its ideology while providing easy funds for the running of the unions.  The movement became a body without a soul and it was a matter of time before we begin to see what we are presenting witnessing within the movement. The movement must evolve strategies therefore to reconnect to their ideological root which is what is needed for long term sustainability.

 

6.6 Education and Training

Education and Training remain the most viable option for transmitting the mores of the society. It is an instrument for empowering the individual to contribute creatively and productively to their immediate environment and the larger society. An educated person is therefore an empowered individual who become a great resource for any organisation that he finds himself. The trade union movement must therefore not allow itself to be left out in this quest for increasing capacity to understand our environment in other to harness it for greater effectiveness. We should seek out ways to train our cadres, our operatives, our officers and our general members. We must educate them on the dynamics of the society around us, on our politics, economy and the global environment. Our social partners with whom we engage with are always involved in training, we should also take this more seriously to avoid falling behind.

 

6.7 Political action

It has become naïve to believe that the movement should not be involved in politics at all levels. The quantity and quality of what is put on our table by our social partners is dependent on the nature and character of politics. Ignoring it is therefore ignoring the platform where our fate is determined. It is shying away from the very factor that determines the fate of the entire nation and a structure whose policies and actions have direct implications for the publics of the movement both primary and extended and which has serious implications for the survival of the movement. This position has also been canvassed by  Udenta when he posited that:

“An alliance of trade unions, civil society groupings and the citizens is a progressive platform for the articulation, propagation and affirmation of popular political, economic and social causes and ideals essential for the egalitarian transformation of Nigeria. The concept of the apoliticality of trade unions is an ideological weapon used by the ruling elite to shut out the unions from a decisive involvement and participation in the processes that shape the destiny of the nation. This must be resisted. The trade unions, civil society bodies and the general citizens must take a collective stand in all matters that affect the destiny of the people”(Udenta,2013, p.34)

 

The movement in Nigeria which was involved in the political struggle for independence cannot therefore now stay away from participating in it. We have to go back to politics and should seek to influence political action and activities either indirectly or by directly seeking to control political power in other to deliver benefits to our publics and Nigeria as a whole. That is the only way to go as we cannot afford to stay at the side-lines while others take decisions that would be have consequences for our survival.

 

6.8 Participation in direct economic activities through businesses

The movement must seek to participate directly in the economic activities of Nigeria. Direct participation in businesses will help the movement to build financial muscle and wean it from the vicissitudes of check-off dues. It will also make it a strategic player in some of the industries and this will give it leverage in negotiations with other social partners. We must appreciate those unions that have gone into the property market, the hospitality industry, the bakery and confectionery sector and those that are into service delivery as businesses. These investments will surely grow and will serve as pillars tomorrow for the survival of the movement.

 

6.8 Deepening Networks both within and without the movement – globalisation backlash.

Globalisation has been identified as one of the basic factors threatening the trade union movement here in Nigeria but within every construct is a seed that could be harnessed for a fight back. Since globalisation has meant that MNCs spread across national boundaries, we can leverage on this to create international networks of workers within the same multi-national group like say the Coca-Cola group, the Nestle group, Mobil, Lever Brothers etc. We can also network using the advantage of the platform which ICT offers to forge international or global unions that would serve as a counterpoise to the activities of the MNCs.

 

6.9 Legislative action

It has become important that the movement takes steps to influence legislations in her favour. It should not just sit down and watch legislations that would affect her publics go through without making its inputs. It is therefore important that the movement actively sets up a legislative lobby which it must use to influence legislations to benefit its members and the larger society.

7.     Suggestions/Conclusions on the Way Forward for the Movement

Now more than ever before, the labour movement not just in Nigeria but the world over is experiencing diverse pressures and incipient threats to its very existence. There is therefore an urgent need for labour activists and other stakeholders of the movement to take urgent steps to ensure that these dangers are mitigated and some of their tenets turned into platforms for reinvigorating the movement.

 

This is not the time for trade unionists to go to sleep as they say “A man who is surrounded by enemies does not go to sleep”. We have to put our house in order and with the renewed strength confront all the common enemies of the society.

 

It is important that all stakeholders of the movement take steps to protect the movement from becoming extinct or becoming weak. A world without the movement is unimaginable as it has dire consequences for all and that includes the ability of the global community to continuously transform itself and remain stable.

 

We have therefore for the benefit of all decided to make the following suggestions:

• The society must immediately change its perception about the trade union movement – It must support its actions, provide resources and seek to refine its operations

 

• The Social partners should also rethink their long term strategies against the unions and see them as very valuable not only to the workers but also to them – the companies and the Governments including the nation at large

 

• The movement must purge itself of all ideological contradictions in order to make it more relevant to the demands of its publics

 

• It must reposition itself and move slightly away from its present strategies to a position where it becomes overwhelmingly a champion and a factor for national transformation.

 

• We must purge ourselves of the same ills that we are trying to correct in the society that is; trying to become what we want others to be in the conduct of our affairs both as comrades in the struggle and as a movement with certain responsibilities to its direct workforce.

 

Comrades, permit me to reproduce below the concluding remarks in my paper entitled ‘Our union, Our strength’ where I made it clear that:

“our union cannot be stronger than we make it; and a weak union serves no useful purpose.A weak union is a terrible disaster! Comrades, let me also remind us again that the struggle for our Unions is the struggle for our life .It is the struggle for our freedom and the welfare of the people of our nation. It is a struggle against evil and the greed and insensitivity of the privileged few. It is a struggle for equity and Justice. It is a continuous struggle and we must not relent AT ALL because those who benefit from evil, injustice and oppression are NOT relenting. That is why we say and sing ALUTA CONTINUA and rekindle our believe that VICTORIA ACERTA”(Onuegbu,2009,p.11).

 

As we do these, we believe that the trade union movement will become better positioned to deliver benefits to its members , the general public and to actively contribute to the quest for continuous positive social,political and economic transformations of  Nigeria.

 

Thank you for your attention.

 

Solidarity Forever

 

 

Hyginus Chika Onuegbu JP,FCA

8.     REFERENCES: