It’s not strange for workers to disrupt May Day — Adeyemi

Comrade Peters Adeyemi Is the deputy president of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). He was chairman of the 2017 Joint May Day committee. In this interview, he speaks on some national issues including the action of workers during the May Day celebration. MOSES JOHN present the details.
The action of workers during the May Day rally in Abuja took Nigerians by surprise. As the chairman of the May Day Planning Committee, do you think their action was justified?

I do not think that what happened at Eagles Square was anything strange because May Day all over the world is not only celebrated by dancing and jubilation. In fact, it is an occasion for workers to ventilate their anger, if there is any, against government and employers of labour.

Clearly, if you have followed in the last one year what has happened in our country, then you would have expected that it would have been naive for workers to come there and start dancing. These are workers whose salaries are falling in arrears in some states for upward of 10, 11, 12 months.
Even as at the time we were doing that May Day celebration, Federal workers were not paid their salaries for April and promotion arrears for several years and other allowances have not been redressed.
I can inform you that coming from the tertiary institution sector our members have been receiving salaries in percentages since November 2015. Some of them are paid 70, 60 per cent every month, and those arrears were still there and generally, you have seen that the purchasing power of an average Nigerian worker have been badly reduced.
So, clearly, by all indications, by all indices, by all parameters, this year’s May Day celebration was not the best of time for Nigerian workers and of course there wouldn’t have been any reason to expect anything different. I am not surprised.

As chairman of the committee, were you not disappointed that the Labour leaders could not control the workers during the celebration?
No, I am not disappointed because the point is always that; leadership will always show maturity and level headedness and of course, when the workers are assembled, in that type of occasion and they find critical government functionaries who are responsible for making life better for them but who have refused to do what they are supposed to do; clearly, we would do our best as leaders to pacify them but naturally, they would have to show their anger.

What we did was to try to pacify them but what they did was not extraordinary, it was not out of ordinary. If you look at it, some of the previous May Day celebrations we have had, the President of the country had always been in attendance, but last year our President was not in attendance and the Vice President was not there. It was the minister of labour that represented the president. This year, the same scenario happened, showing clearly that the government does not attach that level of importance, it ought to have attached to the May Day celebration.
If you look at it, virtually in all the states, with the exception of very few states, that their governors were not present at the celebrations. The governors were there. That is very important.
While we showed tremendous understanding about the health situation of our President, we would not have expected the President to be at the May Day rally, because the President wasn’t fine, but there wasn’t any reason why the vice president wouldn’t have been there.
So, that also was part of the reasons this anger was expressed by the workers. I tell you as chairman of May Day Committee, it wasn’t a surprise, I wasn’t disappointed. I was only marvelled about the fact that except something is done speedily, our ability as Labour leaders to continue to manage the anger of the workers may not succeed. We have tried to manage their hanger.
I must confess to you, virtually everywhere I went to in the course of this May Day celebration, including the media, they have had reason to express disappointment about what they call lukewarm attitude of Labour leaders to issues affecting workers. That shows clearly that there is a problem. So, I am not disappointed, it is a wake-up call for us as Labour leaders in Nigeria, and it is a wake-up call for our government.

Labour leaders have been accused of relying so much on former NLC President, Comrade Adams Oshiomole, and call on him too often in crisis. Some people were angry that you called on him that day. What’s your take on this?
Don’t forget that Adams has made his mark and no matter what you say about Oshiomole he was our former president and I do not think he wants to also pretend as if he doesn’t know why the agitations of workers are on-going.
Even the immediate past president of the congress, Comrade Abdulwaheed Omar, was also shuttling between the stand and the state box, trying to see how the situation could be remedied.
So, there is no big deal about calling on former presidents of NLC when we have such intense situation. It is the right thing to do, there’s no big deal in it for me.
NLC is the constituency that made him, forget the fact that he was the governor, without that the constituency, Oshiomole wouldn’t have been governor of Edo state, don’t forget that.
He couldn’t have been sitting down in the state box and all of that is happening and he would not do anything. Forget about the fact that the workers were angry to the point that they didn’t listen to him.

In fact, it should have been something else. It should have amounted to a fact that we did not explore all the potential that are available to suppress that anger at that time.
If he was there; why not? You know my problem is that people tend to read different meanings into each situation but I clearly wouldn’t join those who think that it is something extraordinary to have called Oshiomole.
I think they are part of us, even as we talk now you cannot say that Oshiomole no longer has anything to do with Labour. So, for me, he tried, if it has been possible, he would have probably pacified them, but since the workers didn’t listen to him, he left very quietly which I think was also normal. It would have been a different issue if we had invited him and he refused and may be said: “I’m now on government side.”

Do you see that incident affecting future struggle by Labour leaders for the benefit of Nigerian workers?
No. It is positive. It is a very positive development. Don’t be surprised I am sounding like this because there is tendency for people in government to think that it’s the leadership of Labour that is deliberately fomenting trouble in the country; that we don’t have the backing of our members.
They have seen the mood of the workers for themselves, they have every reason to listen to us now because the workers are already out of patience and they have seen it.

So, for me it is positive. You see the danger in this present situation is that this government came on a platter of massive support, which itself have affected the ability of Labour to confront them because people felt that if you confront the Buhari’s government, you don’t want the government to succeed. However, the belief is wailing as a result of the economic crisis, as a result of the fact that the purchasing power of an average Nigerian worker has been decimated.
For me I think that is just the beauty of democracy. The trade union movement is supposed to be the symbol of democracy where workers have the right to tell their leaders no, things are not good. Don’t let us pretend about it and that is precisely what they have done.

On the issue of minimum wage, has there been any critical step taken?
What matters is that the government called a meeting, I think last Tuesday. There was a meeting between government and Labour on this matter where action has been finalised on the report of the 16-person technical committee taken to the Federal Executive Council, where appropriate approval will be granted for the tripartite committee to be set in motion. That was done.

Leave a Reply