The N70,000 allowance issue

THE Federal Government’s proposed N70,000 monthly transport allowance for public servants, payable for six months, has once again brought the worsening economic condition of Nigerian workers into sharp focus. While the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) has accepted the arrangement, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) has rejected it, insisting that workers need an immediate salary increase rather than another temporary financial intervention. This divergence in the positions of the two labour unions raises an important question: does the proposed allowance offer meaningful relief or does it merely provide a temporary escape from the deeper economic problems confronting Nigerian workers? Indeed, curious Nigerians are compelled to ask whether the N70,000 allowance is a genuine palliative or another expedient measure designed to pacify workers while ravaging poverty remains unresolved. Given the current electioneering season that already hints at heated power struggles and machinations, government cannot create the impression that Nigerian workers are susceptible to political whims.

The economic well-being of millions of Nigerians should transcend electoral calculations. The TUC’s rejection of the proposal is informed by considerations that deserve serious attention. The congress maintains that temporary wage awards are neither sustainable nor adequate to address the hardship confronting workers. It also accuses the Federal Government of failing to fulfil its 2023 wage award obligations to some categories of employees, with some reportedly still owed outstanding payments. Why should workers embrace another temporary arrangement when previous commitments have not been fully honoured? Equally disheartening is the reported delay in implementing the agreement concerning the adjustment of the Consolidated Health Salary Structure (CONHESS) for members of the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU). Seven months after an agreement was reportedly reached, the matter remains unresolved.

This is particularly unfortunate given the indispensable role health workers play in the nation’s healthcare delivery system. Government cannot expect workers to fully honour their obligations while treating its own commitments with indifference. Agreements reached through collective bargaining are binding obligations, not political courtesies that can be discarded at convenience. Government needs to remember Martin Luther King Jr.’s apt quote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Government has the obligation to honour agreements with organised labour, and no category of workers should be neglected.

The NLC’s acceptance of the proposed allowance, on the other hand, may be understood as an attempt to secure immediate relief for workers through negotiation. Nevertheless, whether accepted or rejected, the allowance does not address the central issue, which is the steady erosion of workers’ purchasing power. Since the removal of fuel subsidy, Nigerians have endured extraordinary increases in the cost of transportation, food, electricity, healthcare and accommodation. Although the government presented subsidy removal as a necessary measure to free resources for national development, the benefits are yet to translate into commensurate relief for the ordinary Nigerian citizens. The contradiction can be likened to the one presented at the famous opening of Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” Government’s official assurances of economic recovery predict good times, but the daily struggles of the ordinary Nigerians reflect bad times. Thus, Nigerians are entitled to ask where the tangible dividends of this painful economic adjustment are.

The crisis is not simply about the amount workers receive as salaries but what those salaries can actually purchase. A wage increase that is quickly overtaken by inflation offers little meaningful improvement in living standards. Government must therefore resist the temptation to treat salary adjustments and cash allowances as substitutes for sound economic management. Without effective measures to stabilise prices, increase domestic production and reduce the cost of essential goods and services, additional earnings will continue to lose value.

ALSO READ: FG approves N70,000 monthly transport allowance for workers

There is also the danger of increasing workers’ salaries with one hand while imposing additional taxes, levies and charges that consume those gains with the other. Taxation is indispensable to national development, but its administration must be equitable and sensitive to the economic circumstances of citizens. Workers should not bear a disproportionate share of fiscal adjustments while struggling to meet basic household needs. What Nigeria requires, therefore, is a coherent economic recovery strategy, not a succession of ad-hoc interventions. Government must prioritise agricultural productivity, industrial development, affordable transportation, reliable electricity and policies that encourage local manufacturing. A productive economy that generates employment, ensures moderate prices and expands opportunities offers a more sustainable solution to workers’ hardship than periodic financial concessions.

Regular salary reviews, effective social protection and timely payment of wages and pensions must also become integral features of government policy. Furthermore, economic interventions should not be restricted to federal public servants. State and local government employees, pensioners, private-sector workers and millions operating in the informal economy are equally exposed to the rising cost of living, and they all deserve consideration.

Government must acquaint itself with the fact that the credibility of its economic interventions rests on implementation, consistency and measurable results. Announcements cannot substitute for action, just as temporary allowances cannot replace a functional economy. The N70,000 allowance may provide temporary respite, but government must not confuse temporary relief with the discharge of its responsibility to the workforce. Nigerian workers are not asking for charity; they are demanding fair compensation, respect for collective agreements and an economy in which honest labour can guarantee a decent standard of living.

The Federal Government must, therefore, be held accountable not merely for the promises it makes but, more importantly, for those it fulfils. It must explain the delays in implementing outstanding wage agreements, provide a clear timetable for resolving the JOHESU salary dispute, and demonstrate how the resources saved from subsidy removal are translating into tangible improvements in citizens’ lives. It must also ensure that any salary adjustment is not subsequently neutralised by inflation, arbitrary levies or additional tax burdens. Public office must never become an escape from responsibility or accountability. Ultimately, the measure of government’s commitment to workers is the consistency of its policies and the sincerity of their implementation. The N70,000 allowance should not become another chapter in Nigeria’s familiar history of promises made and obligations abandoned. Workers deserve more than temporary concessions and carefully worded assurances. They deserve economic security and the dignity of living decently from the proceeds of their labour.