Downsizing, rightsizing, rationalizing, etc. These are terms the NLC does not want to hear no matter the reasons. Does NLC’s culture of threat of industrial action whenever those terms are mentioned really help us?
This culture has frightened most chief executives at state and federal levels out of doing the needful in the interest of all. Everyone knows that the civil service is not only crazily over bloated but highly unproductive. If El-Rufai fails in his bid now to right size, other chief executives will become even more frightened to attempt and we will all be worse off.
NLC should be more reasonable in its bid to protect workers’ rights. It should also be concerned about the employers’ rights. NLC often talks about minimum wage but forgets to talk about minimum productivity. Keeping a redundant staff in employment is not only wasteful to the employer, to the rest of us but damaging to the individual because his potentials are not being sufficiently challenged.
Labour forgets that when the productivity of a member is less than the value of his remuneration, the balance is taken from somewhere. In other words, somebody somewhere pays for the balance. Is it not better to release him to work to his full capacity and add to the overall productivity of the nation? Some states are known to have owed salaries for several months and I have never heard that labour went to their rescue either by giving them some money or by going on industrial action.
Labour should also bother about those who bribe their way into employment because someday, the system will catch up with them. It is actually possible for labour to encourage capacity building among members to such an extent that employers will be the ones begging them to be employed. Leaning more towards high quality labour force is a more noble and sustainable option. The other option, blind ‘protectionism,’ will yield negative results and is unsustainable.
