Dear Editor,
A small and anxious group of young professionals expressed concerns about the welfare of local employees in the foreign industry, of more specifically gas and oil.
For one, they had been paying attention to the several reservations continually expressed by contributors to the local press about the administration’s incapacity to impose their authority on the one international ‘explorer’ who in fact was known for its reputation as an ‘exploiter’, say, in countries like Nigeria and Angola.
This young generation pointed to the ineffectualness of all the administrations so far to address the ongoing plight of workers in the mining and forestry industries long dominated by foreigners, who paid little notice to local union representation, much to the latter’s disablement. Why they asked, was it not recognised that there was this consequential effect on the communities from which the particular workers came, and which expanded further to other thoughtful witnesses like themselves?
One argued that ‘our stance must be firmly established in law’. Encouraged by the group hers was that account should be taken of all the informed analyses of the strengths and weaknesses of a situation that is bound to haunt their progeny, and for which they, amongst current under-performers, would not be forgiven.
The logic pursued, and which earned support, was to convene a task force of appropriately qualified intellectuals, including attorneys of course, who would agree on the areas of concerns which must be addressed, and then identify the sub-groups who will focus on the specific areas for legislative action in relation to oil and gas.
Full circle was the insistence on productive relationships between local employee of a culture of unionisation and foreign employer who has no tolerance for, or indeed experience with, unions.
A complementary view was that even now our labour laws lack currency with developments say in the technology employment context. Additionally, some employers assume that they are exempt from some industrial relations requirements, e.g., overtime, safety gear, NIS commitments (particularly where women are affected).
So one enquiry resorted to the effectiveness of the Ministry of Labour, while smirking about the implication of ‘laboriousness’. In search of its staff competency reference was made to the Budget of 2021 approved by Parliament. Agency 38 – Ministry of Labour is shown to be staffed as follows:
Policy Development and Administration – 25
Labour Administrative Services – 65
Unfortunately the Section which normally carries the List of Approved Positions under Ministries/Departments/Regions seemed to have omitted Agency 38. This is where detailed are the usual six categories of jobs, in addition to ‘Temporaries’.
So there was some uncertainty about how the recent 10 persons recruited as ‘Labour Officers’ were disposed of, presumably after appropriate orientation.
It was noted that the job structure did however include 25 ‘Contracted Employees’.
In the midst of all the discussion was the remark that the longstanding Chief Labour Officer had been replaced – at this juncture of substantive change!
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
