THE CHANGING nature of work in Nigeria presents one of the most important challenges facing the labour movement today. Across sectors, secure and long-term employment is increasingly giving way to casual, temporary, informal and otherwise non-standard forms of work. For millions of workers, the consequences are familiar: uncertain incomes, weak job security, limited access to social protection and diminished bargaining power.
The question, therefore, is no longer simply how trade unions should respond when workers lose their jobs or when employers worsen conditions but whether the labour movement can develop a broader strategy capable of addressing the structural forces producing insecure work in the first place.
Nigeria’s constitutional framework provides another basis for examining this issue. Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution sets out the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Among other objectives, it envisages an economic system that does not permit excessive concentration of wealth and the means of production in the hands of a few. It also sets out objectives concerning adequate means of livelihood, suitable employment, humane working conditions and planned economic development.
This question is particularly important for the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), whose history demonstrates that organised labour can exert influence well beyond the immediate workplace. The NLC has played social, economic and political roles in defending workers and, at various moments, in challenging government policies considered detrimental to the wider population. Its historical strength has often rested on alliances among trade unions, civil society organisations and other sections of society. Yet the changing structure of employment requires a reconsideration of traditional trade-union practice.
From Secure Employment to Precarious Work
Informalisation and casualisation describe a labour market in which stable, long-term employment with predictable benefits is increasingly replaced by temporary, irregular or poorly regulated arrangements. Employers may gain greater flexibility in adjusting their workforce, while workers bear a larger share of the resulting uncertainty.
ALSO READ: King’s College And Our Limitless Capacity To Tolerate Exploitation And Oppression; By Iduh Onah
Three consequences are particularly significant.
First is job insecurity. Workers without long-term contracts can lose their employment with little notice and may have limited protection against arbitrary termination.
Second is the erosion of collective bargaining power. Casual and informal workers often find it more difficult to organise, join unions or negotiate collectively for better conditions.
Third is employment flexibility on unequal terms. Employers can expand or reduce their workforce according to market conditions without necessarily assuming the same obligations associated with permanent employment.
Casualisation is therefore not merely a change in the form of an employment contract. It can alter the balance of power between workers and employers.
The Labour Movement and its Changing Constituency
A central argument of the Marxian analysis presented in the original paper is that casual and informal workers should not be treated as outside the working class simply because their employment arrangements differ from those of formally employed workers.
ALSO READ: The Igbo Political Elites And The Myth Of Crabology; By Abadom Lawrence Amechi
Workers may now be dispersed across smaller workplaces, temporary engagements and informal occupations, but the underlying economic relationship remains significant: people who lack independent access to the means of production or subsistence must sell their labour or labour power in order to meet their needs.
From this perspective, the fragmentation of employment does not eliminate the common interests of workers. Indeed, it may make collective organisation more difficult precisely when it is becoming more necessary. Casualisation can isolate workers from one another and weaken the institutional structures through which they traditionally exercise bargaining power.
This raises a fundamental question for trade unions: can organisations designed principally around conventional employment relationships adequately represent a labour force increasingly characterised by informal, temporary and non-standard work?
The limits of Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining remains an important instrument of worker protection. It enables workers to negotiate collectively rather than individually over wages and working conditions. But there are limits to what collective bargaining, by itself, can accomplish.
ALSO READ: Petrol Price Surge And The Nigerian Worker: When Survival Becomes A Daily Struggle; By Ivo Takor
Trade unions generally operate within the wage system and negotiate with employers over the terms on which labour is purchased. They do not, through collective bargaining alone, fundamentally alter ownership of productive resources or abolish the wage relationship.
Casualisation and informalisation have transformed the landscape of work. They have fragmented workplaces, weakened traditional forms of collective organisation and left many workers with limited protection. The appropriate response cannot therefore be confined to occasional industrial action or negotiations over individual employment disputes.
That limitation matters in an economy where the proportion of workers in conventional formal employment is changing. If more workers are employed through non-standard arrangements, a labour movement focused primarily on the traditional workplace risks leaving a growing part of the workforce inadequately represented.
ALSO READ: Civil Service Reform: Are We Reforming The System Or Rearranging It? By Lanre Ogundipe
The challenge, therefore, is not to abandon collective bargaining but to place it within a broader strategy of worker protection – one that recognises the changing structure of employment.
The Constitutional Question
Nigeria’s constitutional framework provides another basis for examining this issue. Chapter II of the 1999 Constitution sets out the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. Among other objectives, it envisages an economic system that does not permit excessive concentration of wealth and the means of production in the hands of a few. It also sets out objectives concerning adequate means of livelihood, suitable employment, humane working conditions and planned economic development.
The original argument raises an important policy question: if these constitutional objectives articulate a vision of economic and social development, what should they mean for workers who exist outside conventional employment relationships?
The issue deserves sustained legislative attention, particularly where existing labour laws were designed around employment relationships that do not adequately reflect today’s labour market.
ALSO READ: Schools Concession: The Ministry Of Education As A Retarded Child; By Owei Lakemfa
The Constitution also gives the National Assembly a role in promoting and enforcing observance of the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. The implication is that labour protection cannot be treated exclusively as a matter for individual employers and employees or as an issue to be addressed only after disputes arise. It is also a question of public policy and legislative design.
Closing the Legal and Policy Gaps
Casualised and informalised workers are among the most difficult workers to protect because many operate outside the conventional structures of labour law and trade-union organisation. The response must therefore address the gaps in both law and policy.
One priority is to clarify the ‘employment relationship’. Workers should not lose basic protections merely because their employment is informal, oral, temporary or otherwise non-standard.
A second is to reconsider barriers to unionisation and collective organisation among casual and informal workers. The ability to organise is essential if workers are to have meaningful collective representation.
A third is the development of a fair-work framework capable of addressing forms of employment that fall between conventional permanent employment and outright self-employment.
Social protection is another critical gap. Informal workers can face significant occupational and economic risks while having little access to reliable social-protection systems. Policies covering health protection, income support, occupational injury and maternity benefits therefore deserve consideration for workers outside conventional employment.
ALSO READ: The Four Enoughs Of The Sundiata Post Model: From The Desk To The World; By Max Amuchie
Labour legislation should also explicitly recognise and regulate casual and other non-standard forms of work. Where a worker has remained in a supposedly temporary position for an extended period, there is a strong policy case for examining whether that arrangement should continue indefinitely. The original proposal accordingly calls for mechanisms through which long-term casual workers can transition into more secure employment.
Worker-compensation and health-and-safety provisions should likewise be examined to determine whether they adequately cover informal workers, daily-wage earners and those working under oral or otherwise unconventional contracts.
A New Agenda for Organised Labour
The deeper issue is not simply the number of casual workers in Nigeria but the changing structure of economic life itself. Modern production increasingly depends on interdependent workers performing different functions across sectors and workplaces, while ownership and control of economic resources remain concentrated. This creates a tension between the collective character of production and the fragmented organisation of the workforce.
That contradiction also presents an opportunity for organised labour. Trade unions and other mass organisations can broaden their understanding of representation beyond the conventional permanent employee. The emerging labour market requires forms of organisation capable of connecting formal employees, casual workers, informal workers and others whose livelihoods depend on selling their labour or services.
ALSO READ: The Candidate That Will Get My Vote; By Hassan Gimba (1)
Such an approach would require more than reacting to individual workplace disputes. It would mean engaging systematically with labour legislation, social protection, economic policy and the institutional conditions under which work is performed.
The traditional role of the union cannot simply disappear. But neither can it remain unchanged while the nature of employment is changing around it.
Conclusion
Casualisation and informalisation have transformed the landscape of work. They have fragmented workplaces, weakened traditional forms of collective organisation and left many workers with limited protection. The appropriate response cannot therefore be confined to occasional industrial action or negotiations over individual employment disputes.
The argument advanced here is for a broader labour agenda; one that combines collective bargaining with legislative engagement, stronger social protection, wider access to organisation and sustained attention to the constitutional objectives relating to employment and economic development.
For Nigeria’s labour movement, the central task is to understand how its traditional responsibilities must evolve in response to a changing economy. That requires looking beyond the boundaries of the conventional workplace and considering the interests of workers wherever insecure and unprotected employment occurs.
The future of worker protection will depend not only on the strength of existing unions but also on their capacity to develop forms of organisation and advocacy suited to the realities of contemporary employment.
Comrade Abdulkadir is a member of the de-registered Customs and Excise and Immigration Staff Union (CEIMSU). He writes from Abuja.
