Decentralising minimum wage law could benefit the worker

This move in the ongoing effort to amend the Constitution is intended to empower states to decide what wages structure they can erect for their employees. This proposal makes sense, because determining levels of emoluments by the states can only be done reasonably bearing in mind the socio-economic realities of their situation. Decentralising salaries and […]

This move in the ongoing effort to amend the Constitution is intended to empower states to decide what wages structure they can erect for their employees.
This proposal makes sense, because determining levels of emoluments by the states can only be done reasonably bearing in mind the socio-economic realities of their situation.
Decentralising salaries and wages would be in consonance with the tenets of democracy and the federal system of government.
The organised labour, perhaps not unexpectedly, has already signalled its preparedness to resist the move. The Nigerian Labour Congress and Trade Union Congress of Nigeria issued a joint statement rejecting the proposals, citing a list of countries around the world, dating to periods in the 19th century, where they said the practice of minimum wage legislation is centralised.
It is true that in some federations, minimum wage is dealt with from the centre, but this is principally to provide a benchmark prevent worker exploitation by employers, not dictate uniform salary scales.  What should guide such issues are the peculiarities of each country. The reality of the Nigerian situation the differences in the spread of resources do not lend themselves to a simplistic fixing of the wages for all the states by the centre. Moreover, there is urgent need to introduce competitiveness into the system of worker compensation because uniformity distorts the prevailing economic and social conditions of the country.
Under the current minimum wage law, some states spend as much as 70 per cent of their revenue on emolument of personnel that more often not constitute less than 5 per cent of the population of the state that also rewire government resource interventions. This cannot make for any meaningful development.
 The current wages structure is based on the revenue allocation formula that is itself largely dependent on oil revenues. Some states are still groaning under what they say is the burden of sustaining the 18,000 naira national minimum wage claims.
But what they failed to insist upon, in the face of a militant labour union, is that the national minimum wage does not necessarily mean a pay rise for all cadres of civil servants above Grade Level 01 it applies to.
It stands to reason that salaries and wages should be determined by employer. And since the federal government does not employ workers for the states, it stands equity on its head to seek the federal government to continue determine what wages structure the states should implement for their workers. That anachronism has only led states to be blackmailed into taking the cue from the federal, which should not be the case.
A national minimum wage should only spell out guidelines for proper worker compensation, and provide the basis for state governments and employer organisations, including the private sector, to build their own models for employee salaries and wages upon.
The need for a shift from the present dictatorship of the wages structure is imperative; the debate at the Senate should provide the groundwork for that to happen.
 Labour unions can assist in this by being in the forefront of devising creative ways to enhance the living standards of workers, not on the basis of some outdated precepts, but on sound economic and social principles that will stand the test of time. They should also have an open mind towards the debates in the National Assembly, and actively participate in them, so that down the road, the ultimate victor would be the worker.