You’re inviting anarchy - NUPTE tells NITEL - Over sack of 78 workers

Soji-Eze Fagbemi, Abuja

Adetokunbo Kayode THE National Union of Postal and Telecommunications Employees (NUPTE) has warned the management of the Nigerian Telecommunications Limited (NITEL) to be ready for a total war over the sack of 78 of its members due to the lingering crisis and on-going strike by the workers, saying that it was prepared to engage the NITEL management in war.

Seventy-eight NITEL workers, who were perceived to be committed to the on-going struggle, were sacked by the management of NITEL through a letter dated February 27.

Warning the NITEL management of their resolve to paralyse all activities in the company, National President of NUPTE, Comrade Sunday Alhassan, described the sack as “an open invitation to anarchy and chaos.”

Comrade Alhassan said the sack of the striking workers was vindictive and a ploy to shift the attention “from their own inefficiency and ineptitude,” adding that decision to sack them was taken in bad faith and based on bad judgment.According to him, there is no humiliation any person can go through than being denied his salary for nine months, adding that the level of abject poverty the workers had been made to pass through during these periods was better imagined than experienced.

Comrade Alhassan said: “The use of diversionary tactics as a solution to the crisis is highly regrettable. We want to believe that the management must have been mis-informed or ill-advised on certain issues by a group of faceless people who derive pleasure in inflicting pains on the workers and generally causing confusion in the company.

“It is unfortunate that rather than addressing the issue of inefficiency and lack of fund which had held down the company’s progress for a long time, the management of NITEL is taking steps which would further destroy the country’s common heritage.”

Describing the sack of the labour leaders as “laughable,” he explained that they were sacked under the disguise of reaching the compulsory retirement age and long service.

He called for amicable resolution of the dispute as he pointed out that the union was committed to any negotiation in this regard, but warned that the workers would confront the management should it refuse to toe the path of honour and reverse itself on the sack.

Comrade Alhassan said: “As a law abiding union, we will continue to set the ground for a constructive engagement with the management of NITEL on the belief that they will see reason and rescind themselves on the sack of our members. We advise them to come down from their high horses or we shall be constrained to force them to do so.”

Tribune Labour Forum: Preventing young workers’ injuries at work

An average of 67 workers under age 18 died from work-related injuries each year during 1992–2000. In 1998, an estimated 77,000 required treatment in hospital emergency rooms.

This Alert summarises available information about work-related injuries among young workers, identifies work that is especially hazardous, and offers recommendations for prevention.

Work that poses special risks for young workers:
Agricultural Work
Agriculture is the most dangerous industry for young workers, accounting for 42 per cent of all work-related fatalities of young workers between 1992 and 2000. Unlike other industries, half the young victims in agriculture were under age 15 (NIOSH 2003). For young agricultural workers aged 15–17, the risk of fatal injury is four times the risk for young workers in other workplaces (BLS 2000).

Young workers employed in agriculture may be directly hired workers, employees of labour contractors, or farm residents working in the family business. Agricultural work exposes young workers to safety hazards such as machinery, confined spaces, work at elevations, and work around livestock. Young workers may also be exposed to agricultural chemicals (e.g., pesticides, fertilisers), noise, respiratory irritants, and toxic gases (see Appendix A) (NRC/IOM 1998; Kirkhorn and Garry 2000).

Workers may legally perform any agricultural task after they reach age 16, whereas they are prohibited from some jobs in other industries until they reach age 18. Furthermore, child labour laws do not cover workers under age 16 who work on their parents’ or guardians’ farms. Between 1992 and 2000, 76 per cent of the fatal injuries to agricultural workers under age 16 involved work in a family business (NIOSH 2003).

Work in Retail Trades
The second highest number of workplace fatalities among workers younger than age 18 occurred in the retail trades (e.g., restaurants and retail stores). Between 1992 and 2000, 63 per cent of these deaths were due to assaults and violent acts, most of which were homicides. Homicide associated with robbery is the probable cause for one fourth to one half of all young worker fatalities in retail trades (Windau et al. 1999). Handling cash, working alone or in small numbers, and working in the late evening and early morning hours may contribute to workplace homicides (NIOSH 1996a).

In 1998, more than half of all work-related nonfatal injuries to young workers occurred in retail trades, more than 60 per cent of which were eating and drinking establishments. Cuts in retail trades were the most common type of injury treated in emergency departments, followed by burns in eating and drinking establishments and bruises, scrapes, and scratches in other retail settings (Mardis and Pratt 2003). Common hazards in restaurants include using knives to prepare food, handling hot grease from fryers, working near hot surfaces, and slipping on wet or greasy floors (NRC/IOM 1998).

In addition, certain types of machinery prohibited for use by young workers under current child labour laws are commonly found in retail establishments—including food slicers, paper balers, forklifts, dough and batter mixers, and bread cutting machines. Young workers may choose to operate unfamiliar machinery to prove responsibility, independence, or maturity (Massachusetts Department of Public Health 1998), or they may be instructed to do so by an employer who is unaware of child labour laws or chooses to disregard them.

(To be continued)

Courtesy: International Labour Forum