Connect with us

Column

Driving Collaboration for Living Wage: Partnership Between Government and Labour Unions

Published

2 years ago

on

In today’s complex and dynamic workforce, the partnership between the government and labour unions is integral in driving sustainable progress. Both entities need to forge a unified front and identify shared priorities, particularly regarding job creation, workplace safety, fair wages, and social benefits. In doing so, they can collaborate effectively to address the needs of workers while also advancing broader national objectives, such as the establishment of a living wage.

The intricate relationship between government policies and labour unions presents a complex and challenging dynamic. While the government focuses on implementing policies to drive economic growth, social welfare, and national development, labour unions prioritize advocating for the rights and well-being of workers. This dichotomy can result in apparent discord, with labour unions resorting to strikes and protests to express their disagreement with government policies.

As the government pursues policies serving the broader national interest, it is essential to acknowledge the advocacy of labour unions for the welfare of workers. Despite occasional conflicts of interest, fostering understanding and cooperation between these two entities is critical. By delving into the complexities of this relationship and exploring avenues for collaboration, a more balanced and harmonious approach to policy-making can be achieved. This essay highlights the significance of cultivating understanding and cooperation between the government and labour unions, with the ultimate goal of attaining mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, it is important to recognize that both the government and the labour union share a common goal of promoting the welfare and prosperity of the workforce. Instead of approaching issues with hostility, there is a crucial need to foster understanding and cooperation between the two parties. This can be achieved through open dialogue, transparent communication, and a willingness to engage in constructive discussions.

One approach to building understanding and cooperation is for the government to provide comprehensive explanations for its policies and the rationale behind them. When labour unions are presented with clear and detailed information about the objectives and expected outcomes of government policies, they are better equipped to assess the potential impact on their members. This level of transparency helps to dispel any misconceptions or mistrust, paving the way for more informed and productive conversations.

Additionally, the government can actively seek input from labour unions during the policy-making process. By involving union representatives in discussions and seeking their perspectives, the government demonstrates a commitment to considering the interests of workers. This collaborative approach not only enriches the decision-making process but also conveys a message of inclusivity and mutual respect.

Furthermore, the government and labour unions must work together to identify areas of common ground. For instance, in the manufacturing sector, both parties may share a common goal of ensuring workplace safety. By collaborating on safety protocols and regulations, the government and unions can demonstrate their commitment to protecting workers’ well-being. Another example is related to fair wages, where both the government and unions can collaborate to establish minimum wage policies that balance the interests of businesses and workers. In doing so, they can provide a foundation for equitable compensation while also fostering a healthy business environment.

Additionally, in the public sector, both entities can work together to address issues such as pension plans and healthcare benefits, ensuring they align with the needs of employees and the fiscal sustainability of government programs. Through these examples, it is evident that aligning on common objectives allows the government and labour unions to engage in constructive dialogue and collaborative decision-making, yielding benefits for both workers and the broader society.

Certainly! The synergy of working together enables the government and labour unions to come up with a living wage for workers. By collaborating to identify areas of common ground, such as fair wages, both parties can align on the shared objective of ensuring that workers receive a living wage that supports their basic needs and fosters financial stability. For example, in sectors such as hospitality or retail, the government and unions can join forces to establish minimum wage standards that are reflective of the cost of living and provide workers with a means to support themselves and their families.

Furthermore, through open dialogue and collaboration, the government and unions can leverage their combined expertise to develop comprehensive wage policies that address industry-specific challenges while promoting socio-economic prosperity. This cooperative approach not only benefits workers by ensuring a fair and sustainable wage but also supports businesses in attracting and retaining a skilled and motivated workforce. By harnessing the synergy of their efforts, the government and labour unions can pave the way for the implementation of living wage initiatives that not only uplift workers but also contribute to the overall well-being of communities and the economy.

Several real-world examples highlight the power of collaboration between the government and labour unions. In countries such as Germany and the Nordic nations, social dialogue between government, employers, and trade unions has been instrumental in shaping policies that support workers’ rights, economic growth, and social stability. Through constructive negotiation and cooperation, these nations have been able to navigate complex economic challenges while upholding strong labour protections.

Essentially, fostering understanding and cooperation between the government and labour unions is indispensable for the effective implementation of policies and the promotion of the well-being of workers. By prioritizing transparency, dialogue, and collaboration, both parties can find common ground and work towards mutually beneficial solutions. This approach not only promotes social harmony but also leads to more sustainable and impactful policy outcomes. The relationship between the government and labour unions is a fundamental aspect of societal well-being and economic prosperity. It is imperative to recognize that effective policies must consider the rights and welfare of workers in conjunction with the broader national interest.

This cooperative approach is crucial for shaping policies that uphold the rights, dignity, and prosperity of the workforce. It not only fosters a more positive and productive working environment but also contributes to the long-term resilience of the socio-economic fabric. Embracing a spirit of understanding and cooperation between the government and labour unions is not only essential for harmonious labour relations but also integral for the long-term sustainability and prosperity of the economy.

As we move forward, let us recognize the power of collaboration in shaping policies that not only serve economic growth and national development but also prioritize the rights, dignity, and prosperity of the workforce. Promoting mutual understanding and cooperation between the government and labour unions is a significant step toward achieving policy outcomes that align with the interests of both parties and contribute to the overall advancement of society.

Conclusively, the synergy between the government and labour unions is imperative for achieving a fair and equitable working environment. By aligning on shared goals related to living wages and other vital employment factors, both parties can harness their collective influence to implement policies that not only benefit individual workers but also contribute to the welfare of the entire society. Through ongoing collaboration and cooperation, they can pave the way for a more resilient and inclusive economy, thereby fostering a better quality of life for all.

♦ Ojo Emmanuel Ademola is a college professor 

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Anthony Obi Ogbo

When Air Power Becomes a Christmas Performance: The Illusion of Success in Trump’s Nigerian Strike

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 28, 2025

By

“Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

When President Trump announced his authorized United States air strike against ISIL (ISIS) fighters in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day, there was an immediate burst of celebration on Nigerian social media. For a country exhausted by years of kidnappings, massacres, and territorial insecurity, the announcement sounded like long-awaited international support. Memes circulated, praise poured in, and some Nigerians hailed Trump as a decisive global sheriff finally willing to act where others hesitated.

But after the initial euphoria settled, a sobering assessment emerged: the strike appeared less like a strategic military intervention and more like a made-for-television spectacle designed to burnish Trump’s international strongman image.

This was not the first time the United States has launched air strikes in Africa or the Sahel under the banner of counterterrorism. From Libya to Somalia, from Syria to Yemen, U.S. “precision strikes” have often been announced with confidence and celebrated with press briefings—only for the targeted groups to regroup, mutate, and, in some cases, expand their reach. In Nigeria itself, years of foreign-backed security assistance have failed to decisively neutralize Boko Haram or its ISIS-affiliated offshoots. Instead, violence has fragmented, spread, and grown more complex.

No verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated

The Nigerian strike followed a familiar pattern. U.S. officials framed it as a blow against ISIS-West Africa Province (ISWAP), a group aligned with the global ISIS network. Trump’s language suggested a decisive intervention—an act of muscular diplomacy signaling that America still projects power where it chooses. Yet no verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm high-value ISIS targets were eliminated, leadership structures dismantled, or operational capacity degraded.

What followed was a digital smokescreen. Social media accounts, many anonymous and unverified, began circulating gruesome images of dead bodies and destroyed villages—photos long associated with banditry in Nigeria’s northwest. These images were quickly repurposed to “prove” the success of Trump’s strike. However, this is where the narrative falls apart under scrutiny.

Trump’s mission, as publicly stated, was to target ISIS. Not bandits. Not kidnappers. Not rural criminal gangs. ISIS is a transnational terrorist organization with ideological, financial, and operational links across continents. Bandits, by contrast, are primarily armed criminal groups—motivated by ransom, cattle theft, and territorial control, not global jihad. Conflating the two may be politically convenient, but it is analytically dishonest.

Killing or displacing bandits does not equate to dismantling ISIS. In fact, indiscriminate or poorly targeted air strikes often worsen the situation, pushing criminal groups to radicalize, splinter, or align with extremist factions for protection and legitimacy. This pattern has been observed repeatedly in conflict zones where military force substitutes for intelligence-driven strategy.

A truly successful counterterrorism raid is not measured by dramatic announcements or viral images. It is measured by clear, verifiable outcomes, including the confirmed elimination of high-ranking commanders, disruption of recruitment and financing networks, seizure of weapons caches, and—most importantly—sustained reductions in civilian attacks. None of these benchmarks has been credibly demonstrated in the aftermath of Trump’s Nigerian air strike.

Instead, Nigeria wakes up to the same grim reality: villages remain vulnerable, highways unsafe, and communities terrorized. The strike did not change the security equation. It did not empower Nigerian forces. It did not restore civilian confidence. And it certainly did not neutralize ISIS as a strategic threat.

This air strike offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

In that sense, the air strike was not merely ineffective—it was a failure dressed in the language of strength, executed for optics, and amplified for political gain. It offered Nigerians symbolism, not security.

If the goal is truly to eliminate ISIS and its affiliates in West Africa, the path is neither theatrical nor unilateral. It requires robust intelligence sharing, sustained training, and real-time coordination with Nigerian and regional forces. It demands targeted arms assistance, logistical support, and investments in surveillance capabilities that allow local militaries to act decisively and lawfully. Above all, it requires a long-term commitment to strengthening state capacity—not fleeting air shows announced from afar.

Bombs alone do not defeat ideology. Precision without intelligence is noise. And celebration without results is self-deception. Trump’s Nigerian air strike may have produced headlines, but history will remember it for what it was: a failed mission masquerading as success.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Trump’s Nigeria Strike: Bombs, Boasts, and the Illusion of Victory

Published

2 weeks ago

on

December 26, 2025

By

“With Obama, Al-Qaeda was not eliminated by noise; it was suffocated by intelligence.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

It has now been confirmed that the United States acted in collaboration with Nigeria in the recent strike on Islamic State elements in northwest Nigeria. That cooperation deserves recognition. Intelligence-sharing between Washington and Abuja is necessary, overdue, and welcome. Terrorism is transnational; defeating it requires allies, not isolation.

But let us be clear: bombs alone do not defeat terror. And Donald Trump’s strike—trumpeted loudly on social media before facts, casualties, or strategy were disclosed—was less a turning point than a performance.

Trump’s announcement was a classic spectacle: “powerful,” “deadly,” “perfect strikes.” No numbers. No clarity. No accountability. Just noise. It was the same choreography America has deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia—places where U.S. airpower landed hard, headlines screamed victory, and instability deepened afterward. Violence escalated. Militancy adapted. Civilians paid the price.

History is unkind to airstrikes sold as solutions.

Nigeria knows this better than anyone. Long before Trump’s tweet, the Nigerian military had already conducted multiple operations in the same terror corridor. At least five major strikes and offensives stand out:

  • First, Operation Hadarin Daji, launched to dismantle bandit and terror camps across Zamfara, Katsina, and Sokoto, involving sustained air and ground assaults.
  • Second, Operation Tsaftan Daji, which targeted terrorist hideouts in the Kamuku and Sububu forests—precisely the terrain now in the headlines.
  • Third, repeated Nigerian Air Force precision strikes in the Zurmi–Shinkafi axis, neutralizing commanders and destroying logistics hubs.
  • Fourth, joint operations with Nigerien forces, disrupting cross-border supply routes used by ISIS-linked groups.
  • Fifth, recent coordinated offensives involving intelligence-led raids, special forces insertions, and follow-up ground clearing in the northwest.

These were not symbolic gestures. They were Nigerian-led, Nigerian-funded, Nigerian-executed. And yet, there were no fireworks on social media. No flag-waving hysteria. No intoxicated praise of Nigerian commanders as saviors of civilization.

Why? Because there is a dangerous segment of Nigerians who suffer from what can only be called the American Wonder mentality—a colonial hangover that applauds anything louder simply because it comes from Washington. The same Nigerians who ignore their own soldiers dying in silence suddenly abandon Christmas meals to celebrate Trump’s tweets, typing incoherent praise, mangling grammar, and mistaking spectacle for substance.

It is embarrassing. And it is intellectually lazy.

Terrorism is not defeated by volume or virality. It is defeated by intelligence—quiet, patient, unglamorous work. The United States knows this. Barack Obama understood it. Al-Qaeda was not dismantled through social media theatrics or chest-thumping declarations. It was weakened through intelligence fusion, financial disruption, targeted operations, local partnerships, and relentless pressure on leadership networks—mostly without fanfare.

Obama did not tweet. He acted. So what actually works against groups like ISIS in Nigeria?

First, intelligence supremacy. Human intelligence from local communities, defectors, and infiltrators matters more than bombs. Terror groups survive on secrecy. Break that, and they collapse.

Second, financial and logistical strangulation. Terrorists run on money, fuel, arms, and food. Cut access to smuggling routes, illicit mining, ransom flows, and cross-border trade, and their operational capacity withers.

Third, community stabilization and governance. Terrorism thrives where the state is absent. Roads, schools, policing, and justice systems matter. People who trust the state do not shelter terrorists.

Fourth, regional coordination, not episodic strikes. Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Burkina Faso must sustain joint pressure, not reactive operations driven by headlines.

Airstrikes can support these strategies—but only as tools, never as substitutes.

Trump’s strike may have killed militants. It may have disrupted camps. That is commendable. But it is not a solution. It is a moment. And moments, without strategy, fade.

If Nigerians truly want terror defeated, they should stop worshiping foreign loudness and start demanding disciplined intelligence, consistent policy, and respect for the men and women already fighting on the ground.

Real victories are quiet. Real security is built, not tweeted.

♦ Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Anthony Obi Ogbo

Texas’ 18th Congressional District Runoff: Amanda Edwards Deserves This Seat

Published

3 weeks ago

on

December 18, 2025

By

“Her persistence and long-term investment make a clear case: she has earned this opportunity.“ —Anthony Obi Ogbo

In the special election to fill Texas’s 18th Congressional District, no candidate won a majority on November 4, 2025, leading to a January 31, 2026, runoff between Democratic frontrunners Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards. Menefee, Harris County Attorney, led the field with roughly 29% of the vote, while former Houston City Council member Edwards finished second with about 26%. Both are vying to represent a district left vacant after the death of U.S. Rep. Sylvester Turner.

The 18th Congressional District is far more than a geographic area. Anchored in Houston’s historic Black communities, it is a political and cultural stronghold shaped by civil rights history, faith institutions, and grassroots activism. Sheila Jackson Lee represented this district for nearly three decades (1995–2024), becoming more than a legislator—she was a constant presence at churches, funerals, protests, and community milestones. For residents, her leadership carried spiritual weight, reflecting stewardship, protection, and a deep, almost pastoral guardianship of the district. Her tenure symbolized continuity, cultural pride, and a profound connection with the people she served.

Houstonians watched as Jackson Lee entered the 2023 Houston mayoral race, attempting to transition from Congress to city leadership. Despite high-profile endorsements, including outgoing Mayor Sylvester Turner and national Democratic figures, she lost the December 9, 2023, runoff to State Senator John Whitmire by a wide margin. Following that defeat, Jackson Lee filed to run for re-election to her U.S. House seat, even as Edwards—who had briefly joined the mayoral race before withdrawing—remained in the congressional primary.

At that time, Jackson Lee’s health was visibly declining, yet voters still supported her, honoring decades of service. She defeated Edwards in the 2024 Democratic primary before announcing her battle with pancreatic cancer. Her passing in July 2024 left the seat vacant.

Edwards, already a candidate, sought to fill the seat, but timing and party rules intervened. Because Jackson Lee died too late for a regular primary, Harris County Democratic Party precinct chairs selected a replacement nominee. Former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, a retired but widely respected figure, narrowly edged out Edwards for the nomination, effectively blocking her despite her prior campaigning efforts. Turner won the general election but died in March 2025, triggering a special election in 2025, in which Edwards advanced to a runoff.

The January 31, 2026, runoff will hinge on turnout, coalition-building, and key endorsements. Both candidates led a crowded November field but fell short of a majority, with Menefee narrowly ahead. Endorsements such as State Rep. Jolanda Jones’ support for Edwards could consolidate key Democratic blocs, particularly among Black women and progressive voters. In a heavily Democratic district where voter confusion and turnout patterns have been inconsistent, the candidate who best mobilizes supporters and unites constituencies is likely to prevail.

Amanda Edwards’ case is compelling. Although both candidates share similar values and qualifications, her claim rests on dedication, consistency, and timing that have been repeatedly denied. She pursued this seat with focus and purpose, maintaining a steady commitment to the district and its future. Her path was interrupted by the prolonged political ambitions of Jackson Lee and Turner—figures whose stature reshaped the race but delayed generational transition. Edwards did not step aside; she remained visible, engaged, and prepared. In a moment demanding both continuity and renewal, her persistence and long-term investment make a clear case: she has earned this opportunity.

This race comes down to trust, perseverance, and demonstrated commitment. Amanda Edwards has consistently shown up for the district, even when political circumstances repeatedly delayed her chance. Her dedication reflects readiness, respect for the electorate, and an unwavering commitment to service. Voting for Amanda Edwards is not only justified—it is the right choice for Houston’s 18th Congressional District.

♦Publisher of the Guardian News, Professor Anthony Obi Ogbo, Ph.D., is on the Editorial Board of the West African Pilot News. He is the author of the Influence of Leadership (2015)  and the Maxims of Political Leadership (2019). Contact: anthony@guardiannews.us

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending