Advertisement

Voice From Afar: Can capital produce without labour?

I often express the view that especially in our state of development in the present world, government should be primarily responsible for economic and social development. But whether government or private enterprise is primarily responsible for development, money or capital is required. And capital cannot produce the goods and services without labour. Therefore, capital and labour should work together to produce the goods and services necessary for economic and social development.


But this is easier said than done. We have inherited two categories of entities responsible for the goods and services which sustain society: those who work or labour, and those who provide the resources to enable work to be done. We have met a system of remuneration which is generally agreeable to society. But there is constant friction between capital or those who provide the means of production, and labour. And even within labour, there is often dispute about adequate or fair remuneration for the various sections.

We have generally accepted the existing differences between pay for the various categories of labour.  And we broadly accept existing pay differentials between them. Most will question the sanity of anyone who questions the difference in pay between the university lecturer and the nursery school teacher. But are they both not engaged in teaching and in developing talent and the mind?

We have accepted the existing pay structures in industry and services and we have taken it for granted that those who are not academically brilliant should labour with their hands. This view has coloured our educational system. At the top we have the tertiary section where the bright ones are educated, while we have at the bottom vocational schools where we expect the youth to be trained to mend broken and leaking pipes without knowing much about heat and pressure. We expect the bulk of the population to do similar work without the requisite knowledge and understanding. Meanwhile, we expect production to improve. The work of this majority is not properly appreciated. They do not command much respect in society and their remuneration is not adequate.

We, therefore, have a situation in which there is conflict between labour and capital, and within labour itself. I think it was the Kufuor administration which adopted a system aimed at rationalising remuneration in the public sector. The single spine structure, however, seems to be opening more issues than straightening the previous structure. It has highlighted the problem of differentials which has lurked below the surface. Should not doctors be paid more than nurses? Should pharmacists not get as much as doctors? Is the pay of teachers commensurate with their work? Such questions have raised their ugly heads and strikes and rumours of strike are rife.

Some may argue that the present disputes are not about pay per se but are about differentials in pay. But this really goes to the root of the matter. Should the differences in pay structure we have inherited be maintained? And would these differences lead to rapid economic growth and social progress? Recent events show that we should not only be concerned about the relationship between capital and labour, but also about problems within the labour front itself.

Presently, private enterprise negotiates with labour as a necessary but essentially antagonistic party in the production or delivery process. Government policy should, however, now promote negotiations which involve labour in the production process as well as in the determination of wages. This is nothing new. The Germans practise it and it is regarded as one of the reasons for their economic success.

At the national level, government should regard labour as a partner in development. Kwame Nkrumah realised the prime importance of labour and involved the TUC in development policies and their implementation.

Ghanaians were made to pay development levies and an attempt was made to entrench the idea that the burden of development should be shared by all. Trade unions were not to fight for wages and conditions of service alone. They were part of the development process. Professional associations were encouraged to promote the progress of the profession and the welfare of the community. Wages and conditions of service were considered, but their determination was left to the national Trade Union of which the professionals were a part. Professionals were persuaded to believe that their primary concern was not wages and working conditions, but service to the public and nation. We should seriously revisit these ideas.

Things have changed and we have to move with the times. But we must examine and understand our own situation and not copy blindly from others. We should not promote disorder in the name of democracy. Labour should be involved in the development process, which should not be dominated by disputes about pay and allowances.

We should decide how we move forward. Government and private investors should work closely with labour to produce more goods and services so that the country may be rapidly developed to meet current needs, the population explosion and the increase in the number of aged people.

By K. B. Asante

Connect With Us : 0242202447 | 0551484843 | 0266361755 | 059 199 7513 |