Trade unionism, human rights & the organising of workers in the informal economy
Introduction
It is very easy to forget nowadays that the earliest trade unions were actually combinations of workers who had skills in some trade or the other, but whom were then sucked into informal labour relations by the employers who had big machines and factories. These workers had no contracts of employment, worked for up to 18hours in some cases in the mines and factories and were exploited to their bone marrows. They then came together towards the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of the 19th century, in Britain, to form what was then called “trade clubs”, which had to be secret so that they would not be arrested or even killed by thugs loyal to the employers.
The same situation occurred although in a different context, with the origins of trade unionism and trade unions in Nigeria. It has been established that the first trade union in Nigeria was the Mechanics Mutual Aid and Improvement Association, existed 29 years before the Nigeria Civil Service Union which many today regard as the first trade union in the country. And also in 1897, the first recorded strike action in Nigeria was organised by daily paid workers of the Public Works Department in Lagos, which they won. This was the first recorded demonstration of trade unionism in the country and it was by workers in informal work relations.
Today, however, some unenlightened trade unionists do not consider “informal workers organisations” as trade unions. These include both trade unionists in the formal sector and those in the informal economy as well. The reasons for this misplaced view can be best understood only by appreciating the history of trade unionism in the country. More importantly, such understanding will be crucial for us to strategise on how to build the power of workers in informal work relations and foster the ongoing rebirth of trade unionism in the informal sector.
This paper thus: presents an insight into the origins trade unionism and trades union organising; situates this within perspectives and views on human rights, workers rights and trade union rights &; considers the present state of trade union organising in the informal economy analysing the external and internal problems and prospects that confront unions and activists in the informal economy.
Origins of trade unionism and trades union organising
Trade unionism has always preceded the organising of trades unions. It is then subsequently developed by trade unions where and when they actually continue organising. Trade unions are basically the combinations of workers to fight for better: “wages and other material remuneration; working conditions; job security; working time and; respect and dignity” . Trade unionism is however that driving passion of workers to have these things that a trade union could help them to fight for. We can see that the desire to combine comes before the combination itself and continues with organising. It comes from workers realising that as individuals they are weak against the powers which the employer, big business and the state/governments have to exploit, control and oppress them.
Trade unions emerged with the early development of modern industrial society which is capitalism. The earliest trade unions where formed by workers who suffered in the hands of the early capitalists, at the beginning of the nineteenth century in Britain.
These early workers who formed union combinations were guild masters, journey men . With the introduction of large scale production using machineries and factories, there was no way they could continue with their various trades such as carpentry, blacksmithing, fitting and joining, weaving and spinning etc, and compete favourably with the much cheaper products that come off the factory line. They thus became wage-slaves, selling their labour power to the capitalists who owned the factories. But their employment relations were still largely informal, as very few of them –and these were largely the supervisors and foremen- had contracts of employment. They however still remembered when they were the masters of their trades as guild masters or even where they were journeymen, how they could have hoped to one day be guild masters. The use of “trade” as the adjective for their “clubs” and later “unions” itself showed their craftsmanship origins.
As with today’s informal sector workers’ unions, these early trade unions were not recognised by the employers or governments. They won their recognition only through struggle. A number of them were jailed, some were sent on exile and still a number were killed like mere criminals for fighting for their rights as human beings in the workplace. To prevent workers from combining to form trade unions, the British government had passed legislation known as the “anti-combination laws” late in the eighteenth century. These were not repealed until 1824. And it was only then that trade unions became legal entities for the first time.
As trade unions grew in strength and their recognition by governments and employers became stronger, it was easier for them to negotiate the formalisation of their members’ employment relations within factories and the corporate world. Step by step, workers rights became recognised as part of human rights, and trade union rights could be invoked using the laws that had been passed based on the strength of unions. The continued relevance of trades unions however remained in their organising.
As was the case on the global level, starting in Britain, the earliest trade unions in Nigeria organised workers in the informal sector. These were the mechanics who established the Mechanics Mutual Aid and Improvement Association in 1883. The earliest unions in the formal sector were however formed in the civil service. This was unlike the situation in those countries that first became capitalist in Europe where the earliest unions were in the private sector, comprising informal workers who then got their employment relations formalised through struggle. The reason for this situation in Nigeria is the nature of capitalism that comes through colonialism as against that which emerged “naturally” in Europe.
In European countries, work relations in the civil service had been formalised for a longer time. Indeed the roots of the civil service go back to the middle age of European civilisation where a core of men, often from the ranks of lower and middle-level “gentlemen”, such as knights, were dedicated to the service of the crown as clerks, administrators and managers of the finances of the king or queen. This group of men (and later women) had to be kept happy and relatively contented with employment security.
In the colonies, for a long time the British and other colonialists did not allow much large-scale production to prevent competition with British and other western goods. But they needed clerks and messengers, porters and carriers and as the colonial state built harbours and railways, they needed manual, semi-skilled and even skilled labour to work for the colonial governments. Thus, not surprisingly, apart from the informal economy, the bulk of working people in the urban areas especially, where in the public service. These workers felt the pangs of exploitation by their foreign bosses and this also went with discrimination based on their skin colour. The spirit of trade unionism spread amongst them and they became the first group of workers in the formal sector to form trade unions.
Human rights, workers rights and trade union rights
Taking a close look at the origins of trades unions and trade unionism, we see that what workers fought for and still are fighting for is our human rights. Modern industrial society has raised the level of exploitation of human beings beyond anything that could have been conceived of some five hundred years ago, when the dominant relations between human beings were based on land and agriculture. But it has also raised the level of universally accepted values of human dignity and rights beyond what could have been thought of before the era of capitalism. The acceptance of these values and concepts such as human rights and democracy was won through the struggle of workers and cannot be divorced from the individual rights of workers as citizens and workers and the collective rights of trade unions as combinations of workers.
In the ages where society was ruled by kings, queens and nobles, in Africa, Asia and Europe, the king was like a god. His word was law; he could order ordinary people to be whipped publicly or even killed. A good example in the old Oyo Empire for example was that the Alaafin, who was the leading king, was often addressed as iku baba, yeye, which was an appellation showing that he had the powers to kill anybody’s father or mother, just like that. It was the same thing in Europe where King Louis XVI of France said that “I am the state”.
It was not only that the social and economic system dominated by the kings and nobilities was oppressive politically in such manner as described here. It also economically tied the individual working person, who tilled the land to the apron strings of their lords and masters. They either worked on the farms of their lords or they worked on their own lands but had to pay in cash or kind, some form of isakole to the local lord (e.g. bale) or king.
Such a political and economic system as this, generally known as feudalism, was not compatible with the growth and development of capitalism. With the accumulation of wealth through European merchants that bought and sold commodities across the world hundreds of years ago, industry grew and a class of industrialist moneybags emerged. They needed some form of government that could guarantee their investment. They could not allow the working people to be tied by some traditions of royalty or nobility to lords who were far away from the means used to produce the wealth of society (which used to be land but was becoming more and more embedded in machines and factories). The best form of government for capitalism to thrive is that of democracy.
This was the basis of the revolutions in Europe during the late 18th century and into the 19th century in which monarchies were abolished and republics established. Democracy naturally implies rights for citizens which the government could not arbitrarily disregard, just like that. Such human rights as they would come to be called were also in the interest of the working class, or at least should have been. This is because the workers being even more vulnerable to the domination of the powers that be in government needed the protection that comes with equality before the law as well as human dignity and liberty which democracy heralded. But in the early period of democracy and “the rights of man”, the rich owners of capital after using the working people to bring down feudal governments through revolutions, made sure that they limited the human rights that had been won through the power of the masses to themselves. This was done by giving the right to vote in elections only to men that had some particular level of wealth or income. This was the case even in Nigeria during the elections into the Legislative Council in Lagos under the Clifford constitution of 1922.
In Europe during the 1840s, workers who were organised around a Charter of people’s rights which included the right for everyone irrespective of their income to have the right to vote, mobilised public opinion for what is called universal franchise. This is the right for everybody to be able to vote and be voted for. These workers were known as Chartists due to the Charter, which was what bound them. The Chartists were thus the first set of workers to point at the direct linkages between democratic rights, human rights and workers rights. In Nigeria as well, workers in the 1940s were at the fore front of the struggles for human rights and the democratic right of franchise i.e. to be able to vote. The 1945 General Strike mobilized public opinion against colonialism and the limited right of Nigerians even within their own country to determine their destiny. Their actions along with those of other nationalists paved the way for Independence, 15 years later.
Human rights are not limited to the right of franchise. The idea that there are rights peculiar to human beings in general have always existed somehow amongst human beings in different places, despite the domination of a few people who considered themselves as the owners of the land, as kings or lords or as slave masters. But in the period before capitalism, it was not every body that was fully considered to be “human”. Slaves for example in ancient Athens which first practiced democracy where not seen by the freeborn citizens as being part of society. A similar sense of seeing the poor as “sub-human beings” is what we showed with how the kings and lords saw and treated the peasants that were there serfs. Due to all these, no government in the ancient or feudal days could say that “all human beings are born equal”. But with the revolutions that the capitalists had to wage against for democracy they declared that human rights are the rights of all human beings, echoing the words of peasants that had raised similar cries against their kings. One of the first leading politicians to first say this clearly was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the American Declaration of Independence, but even he, as well as virtually all his colleagues who signed the declaration that all men have equal rights as human beings had black slaves. This was in 1776. It was not only black slaves that did not share in these advertised human rights for all. Workers and women would not be properly recognised as human beings with human rights until last century.
It would take the chaos, instability and disaster of two world wars before human rights for workers and then universally were in a way, institutionalised internationally.
The demand for workers rights as human rights had grown greatly during the 19th century. As we noted earlier, this was when trade unions became full-fledged combinations of workers and eventually, through struggle, became recognised as such by government and employers. This was also the century of the expansion of industry. Railways where built, hastening production as commodities could be moved at more rapid pace across terrains that were hardly passable before. Factories expanded, the employment relations of workers in these factories became more and more formalised and the earlier “trade clubs” themselves took on more formal labour union shape. Craft unions became challenged by the concept and practice of industrial unionism, which sought to bind all workers in the now more formalised industries, organising on a more sectoral basis than the craft basis that is more characteristic with informal work situations even if not limited to these. Radical views, including socialist ideas that the modern slavery which had become what workers existence amounted to, must be brought to a halt.
Meanwhile, the expansion of trade and commerce also brought sharp competition between the capitalists of the different major industrial countries as they battled for control of natural resources, colonies and shares of the world market. These intense competitions led to what is considered as the First World War, in 1913-1919. At the end of the war, the agitation of workers for a better world was recognised and accepted to some extent by the European and American governments that had waged the war, and who were then trying to establish peace and stability, two important ingredients for continued business as usual. This was partly because they were scared that if they did not minimally recognise these rights, workers in their countries might be inspired by the Great October Socialist Revolution which had just taken place two years before then in Russia. The result of this compromise was the formation of the International Labour Organisation. It was formed along with what then was the League of Nations; the forerunner of the United Nations Organisation. The ILO in its declaration placed workers rights squarely as comprising a critical part of human rights in general. It demanded decent work, called for less hardship on workers and fairness of wages. It also had provisions which promoted the rights of the working woman to equal pay for work of equal value with men and sought to provide some defense against child labour on behalf of children from poor working homes.
The ILO is the only organisation amongst the different agencies of the League of Nations which survived the League after it collapsed with World War II. It automatically became an agency of the United Nations when the UNO was formed as World War II was ending. It is also the only tripartite agency of the United Nations. But government representatives hold 50%, representatives of big business employers hold 25% and those of the workers only 25%. Since most times the positions of governments and employers are alike, in defense of the interest of capitalism, this is more like 75% to the capitalists and only 25% for the workers. But despite this, a lot has been won through the ILO, even if a lot more still remains that could have been done by workers for themselves in a world based primarily on workers international cooperation.
Based on the views of human rights which have evolved largely in the 20th century, and workers rights which the ILO has played a key role in promoting, the ILO has been able to set norms and formulate conventions and recommendations by which countries across the world could be held to account with regards to workers rights and working conditions. Trade unions at the national and international levels have also played very significant roles in ensuring that these International Labour Standards as they are called are used to defend trade union rights and advance workers interests.
The Second World War placed a mirror of horror before humankind. The powers that be, after the war, could not legitimately continue to rule the world without addressing the big question of “human rights” on a global scale. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed declaring rights and freedoms such as those of expression, movement, conscience & association as the “property” of every human being. It also declared that every nation had the right to self-determination, even though for another ten to twenty years, many countries in Africa would still be under direct colonial rule. The provisions of this UDHR as it is abbreviated was however invoked by many nationalists seeking self-government for their peoples and by many labour rights activists seeking to win or uphold freedoms for workers in different countries.
The UDHR has been further deepened by: the International Convention on Civic and Political Rights (ICCPR) &; the International Convention on Social and Economic Rights (ICSER). The ICCPR in its formulation seeks to protect the political citizenship rights of all human beings, including workers, to participate freely in the affairs of their countries and human society as a whole, while the ICSER is projected as guaranteeing employment and basic social and economic needs of human beings as rights. All these are good and should be defended. Indeed, informal workers just as workers in the formal sector over the years would do very well to invoke the details of all these fine conventions of the UNO as well as the more workers-specific ones of the ILO in their campaigns and negotiations with governments. Indeed, most of the key components of these basic conventions on human rights have been incorporated into the constitution of most countries, including Nigeria as well as in regional conventions such as the African Charter of People’s Rights.
We must however not have illusions that the mere fact that these human rights conventions exist means that they will be respected by governments. Actually, while most governments give these rights with one hand, they try to take them away with the other hand, through some form of ouster clause or the other. A good example in Nigeria is Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which deals with the guiding principles of state. Employment as a right is there, health for all, education for all, etc are “guaranteed”, but all these are not justiciable, meaning that they are only things that the government can (claim to) aspire to do, but you cannot take the government to court for not doing them or insist that they guarantee such social and economic rights in truth and in deed and not merely on sheets of paper!
The secret to being able to actually win what has been formally conceded to us as our rights and to even deepen the freedoms we could have, as we struggle for our self-emancipation is by building our power as a mass combination in society. The secret to this, as the experiences of trades unions in general has shown is by, organising! organising!! & organising!!!
Organising in the informal economy; problems and prospects
Trade union organising is the process of bringing working people together and thus building workers power with which they can win benefits, defend their won rights and promote their interests. While trade unionism is the spirit of the trade union body, trade union organising is its blood and limb which gives the union life and movement. From what we have seen thus far, organising in the informal economy is not new. However, there are now both new and old challenges to be overcome. Between 1883 and 1912 virtually all trade unions in the country organised informal workers. From 1912 or more properly put, since 1938 when the trade union ordinance was passed till the passage of DN 31 of 1973 and subsequently the re-organisation of the trade union movement’s structure by the military in 1976, the generally accepted categorisation of “trade unions” was broad enough to include unions of informal workers, including self-employed working people in the informal economy. After this, with the supposed “Industrial” nature of unions, informal economy workers were legally disbarred as trade unions .
We must note though that, even though today informal workers unions are not recognised by law, and consequently do not get registered by the registrar of trade unions, trade union rights are hardly ever won as legal rights before in the first instance. It is when you are powerful as a social force of working people that the governments will realise they have no choice but to give you legal recognition as unions. And thus power will be built by deepening your traditional methods of organising which have worked as well as by introducing what might be new organising methods that have been successful in other lands, for example.
There are two major ways of organising workers in the informal economy. One is where trade unions in the formal sector take up the challenge of organising workers in the informal economy within their sector. Examples in Nigeria include the efforts by the Textiles and Garment workers union at Aba tor organise tailors and the Construction union’s organising of masons and carpenters in Ondo and Warri. In these two instances the formal sector union either encouraged the formation of associations of the informal workers or wooed existing associations with the members of these associations becoming associate members of the formal sector unions. The second way is trough the independent self-organising of workers in the informal sector, which is the form championed by most of the leading unions in FIWON. Both methods are not necessarily exclusive. It is however important to stress that s/he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches most. This is also why the formal sector unions that have organised in the informal economy do so through stimulated self-organising of informal workers. The most important fact to note is that building the power of informal economy workers and their trade unions is part and parcel of the broader process of building workers power as a whole in society.
This brings us to the possible levels of organising informal economy workers. Except for a few unions in the sector such as NATA with national spread, informal sector unions are exist within specific localities. This is nothing strange, even unions in the formal sector used to be highly localised during the days of “house unionism” which is also when the lines between unions in the formal sector and the informal economy were blurred. There is however a challenge for consolidating these different unions into either national unions or federations of unions .
There consolidation of informal workers and their trade unions into broader combinations that will deepen their powers can also not be limited to just the national level in this age of globalisation. The forces which working people generally confront particularly in the present era, represented by big business and the capitalist bosses operate internationally and indeed, globally. Workers have thus always tried to forge international solidarity, starting from 1864 when the First International Association of Working men, was formed. Today there are several international associations and unions of workers, covering diverse sectors. Some of these are specifically for informal and they include the International Alliance of Street Vendors, known as Streetnet, formed in 1995 & Homenet, which organises domestic workers. The two have formed a network known as WIEGO which while addressing informal economy workers questions in general has specific interest in the situation of women in the informal economy. This is very important as women make up a very large number of the proportion of informal economy workers.
It is not only to those international alliances specifically for workers in the informal economy that you can affiliate and relate. Several global union federations (GUFs) in several sectors also work closely with informal economy workers. For example the International Metalworkers Federation (IMF) is a GUF that some of the FIWON affiliates such as NATA, NWA & the Fitters Union could affiliate to. The tailoring unions could be part of the International Textiles Garment & Leather Workers Federation (ITGLWF), those in agriculture could have relations with the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF), masons could be part of the Building Workers International (BWI) and the International Chemical Energy and Mineworkers Federation (ICEM) could also provide an international platform for some other FIWON affiliates as well . The Public Service International which organises mainly workers in the public sector could as well have relations with workers in the informal economy that render public services such as waste disposal.
The essence of both national and international solidarity of workers in the informal economy as well as the formal sector is that unity gives strength; indeed the whole point of trade unionist combination is solidarity forever. This is why in organising, FIWON and its affiliates need to build on these as well as invoke the provisions of existing human rights covenants.
Organising informal workers however include both external and internal aspects as Dan Gallin of the Global Labour Institute rightly stated ten years ago. The external aspects include building solidarity with other workers nationally and with other workers in the informal economy and even beyond the informal economy, globally.
The external aspects of trade union organising in the informal economy as well includes the following:
Use of International Labour Standards; informal workers unions need to know and utilise the provisions of international labour standards for organising and campaign. Some key standards include the Home Work Convention (No 177) & Recommendation 84. This was won through the intense lobbying of a number of informal workers organisations and international alliances with the active support of some unions in the formal sector. Along with the use of international labour standards such as these, informal workers unions have to be familiar with other trade union, workers and human rights conventions and laws with which they could legitimate their struggle for better working conditions, dignity and respect;
Fight for social protection and services: a major problem of informal workers all over the world is the limited level of social protection and services they enjoy, where they even enjoy any at all. Informal workers trade unions have to engage with the relevant national, state and local authorities to broaden the scope of social protection available to their members demanding these as of rights. This is crucial for building membership strength as many members join unions because of the benefits they can derive from them. It will as well deepen workers power as a whole by expanding equality, liberty and justice even within the oppressive capitalist system. The informal workers unions as well can within their own limits through cooperative efforts gradually build on the available social protection for their members and thus as well build their power as a social force;
The internal aspects that informal economy trade unions have to engage with in organising include:
Developing organising strategies: while there are some general principles of organising which have impact on organising strategies, the informal economy is very heterogeneous and the particular strategies that could be effective in a particular sector might not be so effective in another. It is the same thing somewhat in the formal sector, which is less heterogeneous, as well. FIWON should be able to identify the peculiarities that different sectors in the informal economy face, learning from the comrades in these sectors themselves. General elements of organising strategies should however include forging alliances with other social groups in the communities where the informal workers work and live and being part of broader coalitions of workers and civil society such as the Labour Civil Society Coalition, for example;
Cooperatives: cooperatives or mutual aid is very, very important in the trade union movement generally, but even more so in the informal economy. Informal economy unions should build on their knowledge from former and current cooperative practices. They could also learn from the efforts of others in different countries. In this sense, FIWON could endeavour to be part of or liaise with the International Cooperatives Alliance to learn and draw from best practices across the world;
Coordination; Coordination can not be overemphasised. Solidarity and organisation of the informal economy unions have to be coordinated at several levels. This is where FIWON could be of central value. FIWON however cannot afford to be a strictly national platform. There would, I strongly believe, be plans for state and local structures of FIWON, if such do not exist now. But beyond that there should be coordination between different unions in the same sectors as well as between these and FIWON. Specific cadres have to be saddled with the tasks of maintaining such a living network of coordination. These though must maintain a process of mandate-seeking and reporting-back to their different unions at all levels;
Education and training; knowledge they say is power. FIWON and its affiliates have to develop and implement popular education programmes and plans. These plans and programmes have to be such that they are cheap, regular, consistent and broad. Education has to go with training. While education provides increasing knowledge, training equips comrades with skills and is should thus be tied to problem-solving. The trainers of FIWON would have to know the nature of work that the affiliates’ members do and bring in people who know these and can help them do it better as well. Thus for education and training to successfully be internal aspects of trade union organising, they should be: political i.e. building the power of informal economy workers as part of the working class; professional i.e. developing their workmanship and; social i.e. helping them to themselves expand their social protection scope while still engaging with governments for this;
Representation; representation is both internal and external for trade union organising in the informal economy. Internally this means that there should internal democracy so that those who speak for informal economy workers actually represent. They should emerge through deliberations and elections. Externally, the issue of who to negotiate with is a crucial one for informal economy workers. Who are the leaders of informal economy workers to make their representations to? The fact of the matter is that while employers might exist as singular managements, the process of wealth creation is a social one involving classes. The classes of the rich bosses and the classes of working people who have little or no property. Governments are like executive committees of the ruling classes of property owners and so informal workers unions must be able to identify state authorities at local, state and federal levels that they can negotiate with on behalf of their members. FIWON should draw from best practices across the world while taking note of the peculiarities in Nigeria to draw up possible mechanisms for disputes resolution, mediation and conciliation. It should where necessary as well not shy away from arbitration and litigation to bring its members plight to the limelight and win further legal rights by testing the existing provisions of the law on human and workers rights.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the origins and development of trades unions and trade unionism, showing that the earliest trades unions necessarily organised informal workers. As the unions got stronger and the wealth generated by the capitalist system expanded needing further institutionalising of the process of accumulating social wealth, employment in what became the formal sector became formalised and with this the growth of unions as formal sector combinations of workers.
The paper further showed that despite this, trade unionism never ceased in the informal economy, even though the law tries to narrow down trade unionism to the strict relationship between employers and employees in the formal sector. It then went on to show how informal workers unions could forge a new beginning building on what presently it is, towards becoming a major social force to reckon with.
The place of rights in human society was as well x-rayed. Human rights, it pointed out were the offspring of workers fighting against oppression and exploitation insisting on their humanity as society developed. The paper while noting the limitations of these rights in reality also highlights their possibilities along with the more specific human rights that are workers and trade union rights.
The paper stresses the need for workers to unite. In as much as informal economy workers have to build their unions and develop their strength, the working class irrespective of the sector that its different segments are in are bound by their exploitation and marginalisation in capitalist society. We thus must unite, organise and together win more benefits today, while we fight for a better world which with workers power we will win, enthroning social justice and equality.
Thank you for listening.
References
Aye, B., 2011, “Trade unions and the informal economy; a critical analysis of informal workers organizing and the building of workers’ power”, being a paper presented at the 6th International Labour & Economic Relations Association, Africa Region Congress, held on 24th – 28th January, at the
University of Lagos, Akoka
Aye, B., 2010, “Trade unionism and trades unions; an introductory perspective”, being a paper presented at the PENGASSAN 1-day Industrial Relations held on June 5, at Novotel Hotel, Port Harcourt
Gallin, D., 2001, “Propositions on trade unions and informal economy in Times of globalisation” in Antipode, pp. 531 - 549
It is very easy to forget nowadays that the earliest trade unions were actually combinations of workers who had skills in some trade or the other, but whom were then sucked into informal labour relations by the employers who had big machines and factories. These workers had no contracts of employment, worked for up to 18hours in some cases in the mines and factories and were exploited to their bone marrows. They then came together towards the end of the 18th century and at the beginning of the 19th century, in Britain, to form what was then called “trade clubs”, which had to be secret so that they would not be arrested or even killed by thugs loyal to the employers.
The same situation occurred although in a different context, with the origins of trade unionism and trade unions in Nigeria. It has been established that the first trade union in Nigeria was the Mechanics Mutual Aid and Improvement Association, existed 29 years before the Nigeria Civil Service Union which many today regard as the first trade union in the country. And also in 1897, the first recorded strike action in Nigeria was organised by daily paid workers of the Public Works Department in Lagos, which they won. This was the first recorded demonstration of trade unionism in the country and it was by workers in informal work relations.
Today, however, some unenlightened trade unionists do not consider “informal workers organisations” as trade unions. These include both trade unionists in the formal sector and those in the informal economy as well. The reasons for this misplaced view can be best understood only by appreciating the history of trade unionism in the country. More importantly, such understanding will be crucial for us to strategise on how to build the power of workers in informal work relations and foster the ongoing rebirth of trade unionism in the informal sector.
This paper thus: presents an insight into the origins trade unionism and trades union organising; situates this within perspectives and views on human rights, workers rights and trade union rights &; considers the present state of trade union organising in the informal economy analysing the external and internal problems and prospects that confront unions and activists in the informal economy.
Origins of trade unionism and trades union organising
Trade unionism has always preceded the organising of trades unions. It is then subsequently developed by trade unions where and when they actually continue organising. Trade unions are basically the combinations of workers to fight for better: “wages and other material remuneration; working conditions; job security; working time and; respect and dignity” . Trade unionism is however that driving passion of workers to have these things that a trade union could help them to fight for. We can see that the desire to combine comes before the combination itself and continues with organising. It comes from workers realising that as individuals they are weak against the powers which the employer, big business and the state/governments have to exploit, control and oppress them.
Trade unions emerged with the early development of modern industrial society which is capitalism. The earliest trade unions where formed by workers who suffered in the hands of the early capitalists, at the beginning of the nineteenth century in Britain.
These early workers who formed union combinations were guild masters, journey men . With the introduction of large scale production using machineries and factories, there was no way they could continue with their various trades such as carpentry, blacksmithing, fitting and joining, weaving and spinning etc, and compete favourably with the much cheaper products that come off the factory line. They thus became wage-slaves, selling their labour power to the capitalists who owned the factories. But their employment relations were still largely informal, as very few of them –and these were largely the supervisors and foremen- had contracts of employment. They however still remembered when they were the masters of their trades as guild masters or even where they were journeymen, how they could have hoped to one day be guild masters. The use of “trade” as the adjective for their “clubs” and later “unions” itself showed their craftsmanship origins.
As with today’s informal sector workers’ unions, these early trade unions were not recognised by the employers or governments. They won their recognition only through struggle. A number of them were jailed, some were sent on exile and still a number were killed like mere criminals for fighting for their rights as human beings in the workplace. To prevent workers from combining to form trade unions, the British government had passed legislation known as the “anti-combination laws” late in the eighteenth century. These were not repealed until 1824. And it was only then that trade unions became legal entities for the first time.
As trade unions grew in strength and their recognition by governments and employers became stronger, it was easier for them to negotiate the formalisation of their members’ employment relations within factories and the corporate world. Step by step, workers rights became recognised as part of human rights, and trade union rights could be invoked using the laws that had been passed based on the strength of unions. The continued relevance of trades unions however remained in their organising.
As was the case on the global level, starting in Britain, the earliest trade unions in Nigeria organised workers in the informal sector. These were the mechanics who established the Mechanics Mutual Aid and Improvement Association in 1883. The earliest unions in the formal sector were however formed in the civil service. This was unlike the situation in those countries that first became capitalist in Europe where the earliest unions were in the private sector, comprising informal workers who then got their employment relations formalised through struggle. The reason for this situation in Nigeria is the nature of capitalism that comes through colonialism as against that which emerged “naturally” in Europe.
In European countries, work relations in the civil service had been formalised for a longer time. Indeed the roots of the civil service go back to the middle age of European civilisation where a core of men, often from the ranks of lower and middle-level “gentlemen”, such as knights, were dedicated to the service of the crown as clerks, administrators and managers of the finances of the king or queen. This group of men (and later women) had to be kept happy and relatively contented with employment security.
In the colonies, for a long time the British and other colonialists did not allow much large-scale production to prevent competition with British and other western goods. But they needed clerks and messengers, porters and carriers and as the colonial state built harbours and railways, they needed manual, semi-skilled and even skilled labour to work for the colonial governments. Thus, not surprisingly, apart from the informal economy, the bulk of working people in the urban areas especially, where in the public service. These workers felt the pangs of exploitation by their foreign bosses and this also went with discrimination based on their skin colour. The spirit of trade unionism spread amongst them and they became the first group of workers in the formal sector to form trade unions.
Human rights, workers rights and trade union rights
Taking a close look at the origins of trades unions and trade unionism, we see that what workers fought for and still are fighting for is our human rights. Modern industrial society has raised the level of exploitation of human beings beyond anything that could have been conceived of some five hundred years ago, when the dominant relations between human beings were based on land and agriculture. But it has also raised the level of universally accepted values of human dignity and rights beyond what could have been thought of before the era of capitalism. The acceptance of these values and concepts such as human rights and democracy was won through the struggle of workers and cannot be divorced from the individual rights of workers as citizens and workers and the collective rights of trade unions as combinations of workers.
In the ages where society was ruled by kings, queens and nobles, in Africa, Asia and Europe, the king was like a god. His word was law; he could order ordinary people to be whipped publicly or even killed. A good example in the old Oyo Empire for example was that the Alaafin, who was the leading king, was often addressed as iku baba, yeye, which was an appellation showing that he had the powers to kill anybody’s father or mother, just like that. It was the same thing in Europe where King Louis XVI of France said that “I am the state”.
It was not only that the social and economic system dominated by the kings and nobilities was oppressive politically in such manner as described here. It also economically tied the individual working person, who tilled the land to the apron strings of their lords and masters. They either worked on the farms of their lords or they worked on their own lands but had to pay in cash or kind, some form of isakole to the local lord (e.g. bale) or king.
Such a political and economic system as this, generally known as feudalism, was not compatible with the growth and development of capitalism. With the accumulation of wealth through European merchants that bought and sold commodities across the world hundreds of years ago, industry grew and a class of industrialist moneybags emerged. They needed some form of government that could guarantee their investment. They could not allow the working people to be tied by some traditions of royalty or nobility to lords who were far away from the means used to produce the wealth of society (which used to be land but was becoming more and more embedded in machines and factories). The best form of government for capitalism to thrive is that of democracy.
This was the basis of the revolutions in Europe during the late 18th century and into the 19th century in which monarchies were abolished and republics established. Democracy naturally implies rights for citizens which the government could not arbitrarily disregard, just like that. Such human rights as they would come to be called were also in the interest of the working class, or at least should have been. This is because the workers being even more vulnerable to the domination of the powers that be in government needed the protection that comes with equality before the law as well as human dignity and liberty which democracy heralded. But in the early period of democracy and “the rights of man”, the rich owners of capital after using the working people to bring down feudal governments through revolutions, made sure that they limited the human rights that had been won through the power of the masses to themselves. This was done by giving the right to vote in elections only to men that had some particular level of wealth or income. This was the case even in Nigeria during the elections into the Legislative Council in Lagos under the Clifford constitution of 1922.
In Europe during the 1840s, workers who were organised around a Charter of people’s rights which included the right for everyone irrespective of their income to have the right to vote, mobilised public opinion for what is called universal franchise. This is the right for everybody to be able to vote and be voted for. These workers were known as Chartists due to the Charter, which was what bound them. The Chartists were thus the first set of workers to point at the direct linkages between democratic rights, human rights and workers rights. In Nigeria as well, workers in the 1940s were at the fore front of the struggles for human rights and the democratic right of franchise i.e. to be able to vote. The 1945 General Strike mobilized public opinion against colonialism and the limited right of Nigerians even within their own country to determine their destiny. Their actions along with those of other nationalists paved the way for Independence, 15 years later.
Human rights are not limited to the right of franchise. The idea that there are rights peculiar to human beings in general have always existed somehow amongst human beings in different places, despite the domination of a few people who considered themselves as the owners of the land, as kings or lords or as slave masters. But in the period before capitalism, it was not every body that was fully considered to be “human”. Slaves for example in ancient Athens which first practiced democracy where not seen by the freeborn citizens as being part of society. A similar sense of seeing the poor as “sub-human beings” is what we showed with how the kings and lords saw and treated the peasants that were there serfs. Due to all these, no government in the ancient or feudal days could say that “all human beings are born equal”. But with the revolutions that the capitalists had to wage against for democracy they declared that human rights are the rights of all human beings, echoing the words of peasants that had raised similar cries against their kings. One of the first leading politicians to first say this clearly was Thomas Jefferson who wrote the American Declaration of Independence, but even he, as well as virtually all his colleagues who signed the declaration that all men have equal rights as human beings had black slaves. This was in 1776. It was not only black slaves that did not share in these advertised human rights for all. Workers and women would not be properly recognised as human beings with human rights until last century.
It would take the chaos, instability and disaster of two world wars before human rights for workers and then universally were in a way, institutionalised internationally.
The demand for workers rights as human rights had grown greatly during the 19th century. As we noted earlier, this was when trade unions became full-fledged combinations of workers and eventually, through struggle, became recognised as such by government and employers. This was also the century of the expansion of industry. Railways where built, hastening production as commodities could be moved at more rapid pace across terrains that were hardly passable before. Factories expanded, the employment relations of workers in these factories became more and more formalised and the earlier “trade clubs” themselves took on more formal labour union shape. Craft unions became challenged by the concept and practice of industrial unionism, which sought to bind all workers in the now more formalised industries, organising on a more sectoral basis than the craft basis that is more characteristic with informal work situations even if not limited to these. Radical views, including socialist ideas that the modern slavery which had become what workers existence amounted to, must be brought to a halt.
Meanwhile, the expansion of trade and commerce also brought sharp competition between the capitalists of the different major industrial countries as they battled for control of natural resources, colonies and shares of the world market. These intense competitions led to what is considered as the First World War, in 1913-1919. At the end of the war, the agitation of workers for a better world was recognised and accepted to some extent by the European and American governments that had waged the war, and who were then trying to establish peace and stability, two important ingredients for continued business as usual. This was partly because they were scared that if they did not minimally recognise these rights, workers in their countries might be inspired by the Great October Socialist Revolution which had just taken place two years before then in Russia. The result of this compromise was the formation of the International Labour Organisation. It was formed along with what then was the League of Nations; the forerunner of the United Nations Organisation. The ILO in its declaration placed workers rights squarely as comprising a critical part of human rights in general. It demanded decent work, called for less hardship on workers and fairness of wages. It also had provisions which promoted the rights of the working woman to equal pay for work of equal value with men and sought to provide some defense against child labour on behalf of children from poor working homes.
The ILO is the only organisation amongst the different agencies of the League of Nations which survived the League after it collapsed with World War II. It automatically became an agency of the United Nations when the UNO was formed as World War II was ending. It is also the only tripartite agency of the United Nations. But government representatives hold 50%, representatives of big business employers hold 25% and those of the workers only 25%. Since most times the positions of governments and employers are alike, in defense of the interest of capitalism, this is more like 75% to the capitalists and only 25% for the workers. But despite this, a lot has been won through the ILO, even if a lot more still remains that could have been done by workers for themselves in a world based primarily on workers international cooperation.
Based on the views of human rights which have evolved largely in the 20th century, and workers rights which the ILO has played a key role in promoting, the ILO has been able to set norms and formulate conventions and recommendations by which countries across the world could be held to account with regards to workers rights and working conditions. Trade unions at the national and international levels have also played very significant roles in ensuring that these International Labour Standards as they are called are used to defend trade union rights and advance workers interests.
The Second World War placed a mirror of horror before humankind. The powers that be, after the war, could not legitimately continue to rule the world without addressing the big question of “human rights” on a global scale. In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was proclaimed declaring rights and freedoms such as those of expression, movement, conscience & association as the “property” of every human being. It also declared that every nation had the right to self-determination, even though for another ten to twenty years, many countries in Africa would still be under direct colonial rule. The provisions of this UDHR as it is abbreviated was however invoked by many nationalists seeking self-government for their peoples and by many labour rights activists seeking to win or uphold freedoms for workers in different countries.
The UDHR has been further deepened by: the International Convention on Civic and Political Rights (ICCPR) &; the International Convention on Social and Economic Rights (ICSER). The ICCPR in its formulation seeks to protect the political citizenship rights of all human beings, including workers, to participate freely in the affairs of their countries and human society as a whole, while the ICSER is projected as guaranteeing employment and basic social and economic needs of human beings as rights. All these are good and should be defended. Indeed, informal workers just as workers in the formal sector over the years would do very well to invoke the details of all these fine conventions of the UNO as well as the more workers-specific ones of the ILO in their campaigns and negotiations with governments. Indeed, most of the key components of these basic conventions on human rights have been incorporated into the constitution of most countries, including Nigeria as well as in regional conventions such as the African Charter of People’s Rights.
We must however not have illusions that the mere fact that these human rights conventions exist means that they will be respected by governments. Actually, while most governments give these rights with one hand, they try to take them away with the other hand, through some form of ouster clause or the other. A good example in Nigeria is Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, which deals with the guiding principles of state. Employment as a right is there, health for all, education for all, etc are “guaranteed”, but all these are not justiciable, meaning that they are only things that the government can (claim to) aspire to do, but you cannot take the government to court for not doing them or insist that they guarantee such social and economic rights in truth and in deed and not merely on sheets of paper!
The secret to being able to actually win what has been formally conceded to us as our rights and to even deepen the freedoms we could have, as we struggle for our self-emancipation is by building our power as a mass combination in society. The secret to this, as the experiences of trades unions in general has shown is by, organising! organising!! & organising!!!
Organising in the informal economy; problems and prospects
Trade union organising is the process of bringing working people together and thus building workers power with which they can win benefits, defend their won rights and promote their interests. While trade unionism is the spirit of the trade union body, trade union organising is its blood and limb which gives the union life and movement. From what we have seen thus far, organising in the informal economy is not new. However, there are now both new and old challenges to be overcome. Between 1883 and 1912 virtually all trade unions in the country organised informal workers. From 1912 or more properly put, since 1938 when the trade union ordinance was passed till the passage of DN 31 of 1973 and subsequently the re-organisation of the trade union movement’s structure by the military in 1976, the generally accepted categorisation of “trade unions” was broad enough to include unions of informal workers, including self-employed working people in the informal economy. After this, with the supposed “Industrial” nature of unions, informal economy workers were legally disbarred as trade unions .
We must note though that, even though today informal workers unions are not recognised by law, and consequently do not get registered by the registrar of trade unions, trade union rights are hardly ever won as legal rights before in the first instance. It is when you are powerful as a social force of working people that the governments will realise they have no choice but to give you legal recognition as unions. And thus power will be built by deepening your traditional methods of organising which have worked as well as by introducing what might be new organising methods that have been successful in other lands, for example.
There are two major ways of organising workers in the informal economy. One is where trade unions in the formal sector take up the challenge of organising workers in the informal economy within their sector. Examples in Nigeria include the efforts by the Textiles and Garment workers union at Aba tor organise tailors and the Construction union’s organising of masons and carpenters in Ondo and Warri. In these two instances the formal sector union either encouraged the formation of associations of the informal workers or wooed existing associations with the members of these associations becoming associate members of the formal sector unions. The second way is trough the independent self-organising of workers in the informal sector, which is the form championed by most of the leading unions in FIWON. Both methods are not necessarily exclusive. It is however important to stress that s/he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches most. This is also why the formal sector unions that have organised in the informal economy do so through stimulated self-organising of informal workers. The most important fact to note is that building the power of informal economy workers and their trade unions is part and parcel of the broader process of building workers power as a whole in society.
This brings us to the possible levels of organising informal economy workers. Except for a few unions in the sector such as NATA with national spread, informal sector unions are exist within specific localities. This is nothing strange, even unions in the formal sector used to be highly localised during the days of “house unionism” which is also when the lines between unions in the formal sector and the informal economy were blurred. There is however a challenge for consolidating these different unions into either national unions or federations of unions .
There consolidation of informal workers and their trade unions into broader combinations that will deepen their powers can also not be limited to just the national level in this age of globalisation. The forces which working people generally confront particularly in the present era, represented by big business and the capitalist bosses operate internationally and indeed, globally. Workers have thus always tried to forge international solidarity, starting from 1864 when the First International Association of Working men, was formed. Today there are several international associations and unions of workers, covering diverse sectors. Some of these are specifically for informal and they include the International Alliance of Street Vendors, known as Streetnet, formed in 1995 & Homenet, which organises domestic workers. The two have formed a network known as WIEGO which while addressing informal economy workers questions in general has specific interest in the situation of women in the informal economy. This is very important as women make up a very large number of the proportion of informal economy workers.
It is not only to those international alliances specifically for workers in the informal economy that you can affiliate and relate. Several global union federations (GUFs) in several sectors also work closely with informal economy workers. For example the International Metalworkers Federation (IMF) is a GUF that some of the FIWON affiliates such as NATA, NWA & the Fitters Union could affiliate to. The tailoring unions could be part of the International Textiles Garment & Leather Workers Federation (ITGLWF), those in agriculture could have relations with the International Union of Foodworkers (IUF), masons could be part of the Building Workers International (BWI) and the International Chemical Energy and Mineworkers Federation (ICEM) could also provide an international platform for some other FIWON affiliates as well . The Public Service International which organises mainly workers in the public sector could as well have relations with workers in the informal economy that render public services such as waste disposal.
The essence of both national and international solidarity of workers in the informal economy as well as the formal sector is that unity gives strength; indeed the whole point of trade unionist combination is solidarity forever. This is why in organising, FIWON and its affiliates need to build on these as well as invoke the provisions of existing human rights covenants.
Organising informal workers however include both external and internal aspects as Dan Gallin of the Global Labour Institute rightly stated ten years ago. The external aspects include building solidarity with other workers nationally and with other workers in the informal economy and even beyond the informal economy, globally.
The external aspects of trade union organising in the informal economy as well includes the following:
Use of International Labour Standards; informal workers unions need to know and utilise the provisions of international labour standards for organising and campaign. Some key standards include the Home Work Convention (No 177) & Recommendation 84. This was won through the intense lobbying of a number of informal workers organisations and international alliances with the active support of some unions in the formal sector. Along with the use of international labour standards such as these, informal workers unions have to be familiar with other trade union, workers and human rights conventions and laws with which they could legitimate their struggle for better working conditions, dignity and respect;
Fight for social protection and services: a major problem of informal workers all over the world is the limited level of social protection and services they enjoy, where they even enjoy any at all. Informal workers trade unions have to engage with the relevant national, state and local authorities to broaden the scope of social protection available to their members demanding these as of rights. This is crucial for building membership strength as many members join unions because of the benefits they can derive from them. It will as well deepen workers power as a whole by expanding equality, liberty and justice even within the oppressive capitalist system. The informal workers unions as well can within their own limits through cooperative efforts gradually build on the available social protection for their members and thus as well build their power as a social force;
The internal aspects that informal economy trade unions have to engage with in organising include:
Developing organising strategies: while there are some general principles of organising which have impact on organising strategies, the informal economy is very heterogeneous and the particular strategies that could be effective in a particular sector might not be so effective in another. It is the same thing somewhat in the formal sector, which is less heterogeneous, as well. FIWON should be able to identify the peculiarities that different sectors in the informal economy face, learning from the comrades in these sectors themselves. General elements of organising strategies should however include forging alliances with other social groups in the communities where the informal workers work and live and being part of broader coalitions of workers and civil society such as the Labour Civil Society Coalition, for example;
Cooperatives: cooperatives or mutual aid is very, very important in the trade union movement generally, but even more so in the informal economy. Informal economy unions should build on their knowledge from former and current cooperative practices. They could also learn from the efforts of others in different countries. In this sense, FIWON could endeavour to be part of or liaise with the International Cooperatives Alliance to learn and draw from best practices across the world;
Coordination; Coordination can not be overemphasised. Solidarity and organisation of the informal economy unions have to be coordinated at several levels. This is where FIWON could be of central value. FIWON however cannot afford to be a strictly national platform. There would, I strongly believe, be plans for state and local structures of FIWON, if such do not exist now. But beyond that there should be coordination between different unions in the same sectors as well as between these and FIWON. Specific cadres have to be saddled with the tasks of maintaining such a living network of coordination. These though must maintain a process of mandate-seeking and reporting-back to their different unions at all levels;
Education and training; knowledge they say is power. FIWON and its affiliates have to develop and implement popular education programmes and plans. These plans and programmes have to be such that they are cheap, regular, consistent and broad. Education has to go with training. While education provides increasing knowledge, training equips comrades with skills and is should thus be tied to problem-solving. The trainers of FIWON would have to know the nature of work that the affiliates’ members do and bring in people who know these and can help them do it better as well. Thus for education and training to successfully be internal aspects of trade union organising, they should be: political i.e. building the power of informal economy workers as part of the working class; professional i.e. developing their workmanship and; social i.e. helping them to themselves expand their social protection scope while still engaging with governments for this;
Representation; representation is both internal and external for trade union organising in the informal economy. Internally this means that there should internal democracy so that those who speak for informal economy workers actually represent. They should emerge through deliberations and elections. Externally, the issue of who to negotiate with is a crucial one for informal economy workers. Who are the leaders of informal economy workers to make their representations to? The fact of the matter is that while employers might exist as singular managements, the process of wealth creation is a social one involving classes. The classes of the rich bosses and the classes of working people who have little or no property. Governments are like executive committees of the ruling classes of property owners and so informal workers unions must be able to identify state authorities at local, state and federal levels that they can negotiate with on behalf of their members. FIWON should draw from best practices across the world while taking note of the peculiarities in Nigeria to draw up possible mechanisms for disputes resolution, mediation and conciliation. It should where necessary as well not shy away from arbitration and litigation to bring its members plight to the limelight and win further legal rights by testing the existing provisions of the law on human and workers rights.
Conclusion
This paper has examined the origins and development of trades unions and trade unionism, showing that the earliest trades unions necessarily organised informal workers. As the unions got stronger and the wealth generated by the capitalist system expanded needing further institutionalising of the process of accumulating social wealth, employment in what became the formal sector became formalised and with this the growth of unions as formal sector combinations of workers.
The paper further showed that despite this, trade unionism never ceased in the informal economy, even though the law tries to narrow down trade unionism to the strict relationship between employers and employees in the formal sector. It then went on to show how informal workers unions could forge a new beginning building on what presently it is, towards becoming a major social force to reckon with.
The place of rights in human society was as well x-rayed. Human rights, it pointed out were the offspring of workers fighting against oppression and exploitation insisting on their humanity as society developed. The paper while noting the limitations of these rights in reality also highlights their possibilities along with the more specific human rights that are workers and trade union rights.
The paper stresses the need for workers to unite. In as much as informal economy workers have to build their unions and develop their strength, the working class irrespective of the sector that its different segments are in are bound by their exploitation and marginalisation in capitalist society. We thus must unite, organise and together win more benefits today, while we fight for a better world which with workers power we will win, enthroning social justice and equality.
Thank you for listening.
References
Aye, B., 2011, “Trade unions and the informal economy; a critical analysis of informal workers organizing and the building of workers’ power”, being a paper presented at the 6th International Labour & Economic Relations Association, Africa Region Congress, held on 24th – 28th January, at the
University of Lagos, Akoka
Aye, B., 2010, “Trade unionism and trades unions; an introductory perspective”, being a paper presented at the PENGASSAN 1-day Industrial Relations held on June 5, at Novotel Hotel, Port Harcourt
Gallin, D., 2001, “Propositions on trade unions and informal economy in Times of globalisation” in Antipode, pp. 531 - 549
Comments