9 ms·

I have very little understanding of India. While reading the article, it sounds like the changes to Indian labor law would enable more hours to be worked. Howev

I have very little understanding of India. While reading the article, it sounds like the changes to Indian labor law would enable more hours to be worked. However, I don't understand whether this is a good or bad thing for the average worker (and/or woman) in India. Can someone provide more insight? Thanks.

Proven 4y ago
[dead]
vishnugupta 4y ago
I don’t know the finer details, but if they are proportionately paid more this is definitely a big step in the right direction for women workers. In general, women participation in workforce is outright abysmal in India. Hopefully this will be on of the many small steps towards addressing that.
- jdthedisciple 4y ago
  Can you elaborate what precisely is the issue with low female participation in a country's workforce?
  - asdajksah2123 4y ago
    The fact that half your workforce doesn't have an opportunity to contribute to the country's growth? I mean, cut the US or Europe's output by 25-30% (to match India's low female participation) and you're basically talking about eliminating decades of growth. People would be so much poorer and worse off. And that's just at the national level. There are a whole lot of other issues at the individual level, and the fact that it indicates a lack of freedom and opportunity for nearly half the country's population.
    - jdthedisciple 4y ago
      Is a nations prosperity only related to its nominal growth and GDP? Then why don't we send more children to work as well to increase "growth" a bit further? Are there no tradeoffs involved? Like what it does to a country's demographics and families? Are there other ways to increase GDP without forcing women into the workforce - with potentially better tradeoffs?
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        Especially when a bunch of that extra income just goes to childcare and services to make up for having less time to manage the house. And then much of the rest is eaten in competition for housing, with prices increased by all the extra money from those second incomes. I'm skeptical that we'd be much worse off, in actual experienced fact, if the norm were single-income households. I wouldn't be surprised if measures of contentment or happiness actually increased, overall.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Any ideas on how to ensure women retain financial independence?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Not at a policy level, really. Women could prefer stay-at-home spouses, to protect their own financial independence, though, even in a world so extremely into single-income households that such arrangements were somehow legally mandated (which isn't workable and probably isn't desirable anyway, but, even in that extreme, there'd be options, provided regulations weren't, themselves, sexist). It's all hypothetical, anyway. We're not going back to that. Outside chance a few other countries do (some are still much farther that direction than we are) but the US never will, barring tyrannical theocracy or something like that. I do think we're buying rather less happiness than one might hope, for all this extra paid labor, but I also doubt that's a solvable problem, realistically.
        jdthedisciple 4y ago
        Independence from whom? From their husbands? Only to be dependent on some stranger boss instead?
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      You do realize that prior to women entering the workforce a man, and his partner and three kids, working a full time factory job could lead a better lifestyle than two l5 engineers in CA can today, right?
      - qwytw 4y ago
        Forgot the /s..
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        You do realize that women did not have as much freedom under that arrangement? Also, the demand for living in California drastically increased relative to supply of housing, but that is a different point.
        Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        Are you seriously suggesting that in order for women to have personal autonomy the quality of life for everyone needs to decrease? Really ripped your mask off with this statement. California housing is so fucked because of ladder pullers and obstructionists. That has nothing to do with women’s rights.
    - stcroixx 4y ago
      So they’re at home contributing to their families growth instead of their countries numbers - sounds like they are doing it right.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Are you claiming that you in the state should be the ones deciding where women place should be, not the women in question?
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    It makes it harder for women who want to participate to participate. Simple as that. Women aren't commodities whose freedoms should be limited relative to men because of what it might do to "demographics and families." Women aren't slaves to be tied to home. They have agency and should be awarded the same legal freedoms as men.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      It’s not that simple though. Being a house slave is bad, being a factory slave is too and that’s what others here are saying this is. Perhaps this isn’t actual progress?
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        It is progress relative to current position, where men have the advantage. It would be better if regulation was equalized for both in the other direction, but that did not happen.
      - AlecSchueler 4y ago
        That's an issue that needs to be tackled, certainly, but "solving" the issue by limiting women's rights relative to men and stripping them of their choices is horrific.
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  > if they are proportionately paid more Apple and Foxconn wants to pay them less (in particular, pay less overtime)
potamic 4y ago
It's terrible for the workers, because currently they get overtime pay beyond 9 hours, this law effectively reduces overtime by 3 hours. Women also play a bigger role in running the household, and with 12-hour shifts plus commute time, this must take a big toll on the family.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  These are - relatively - good jobs, right?
  - ivan_gammel 4y ago
    I don’t think these jobs are making them rich. No need to relativize a socially backward policy.
  - alephnerd 4y ago
    Not particularly. You're earning around $2.5k a year (1.8 lpa) which isn't the most competitive even in most of India tbh, especially when factoring CoL in Karnataka. If this was Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, or Harit Pradesh/Western UP (regions of India with the right mix of supply chain and cheap labor), it might fly with migrants from Bihar, Purvanchal, and the Tribal Belt, but definetly not in KN. You can easily earn that much in farming, or via alternative unskilled labor with better work hours (eg. street food stalls, MGNREGA, etc).
    - archon1410 4y ago
      1.8 lpa is better than what many "uskilled" labourers make even in Karnataka. 1.1 to 1.44 lpa (9k to 12k a month) is what the cleaners, for example, makes in a college where someone I know studies. Daily wage labourers make a similar amount.
      - alephnerd 4y ago
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
outside of factories, indian offices/businesses/shops/schools/hospitals no one uses hourly wages. Its just "you work for us 6 days a week, 9/(now 12) hours a day and you get x amount, are you okay with that or we have 120 people outside willing to do this work, quick. The part of the reason is the population is so much and there are so little positions so people are forced to take up whatever is infront of them. Personally, i run a small office with a dozen odd employees. For the female staff, our timings are 10-5 x 6 days a week. I personally work 10-9x6+sunday regularly so yeah. The situation is not 'that' terrible with regards to women workforce. If you can do the work and not be bogged down by too much 'home work' you can work as long as you like because people are willing to give out work. I don't own a big factory or a 1000 person business so i can't say about those things but in big cities like mumbai/delhi, you normally have women AND men working 2 jobs just to make ends meet. You can work 10-4 if you like, there are jobs like that but your pay will get decreased accordingly (without overt hourly calculation)(like we dont have concept of billable hours for example)

Proven 4y ago

[dead]

vishnugupta 4y ago

I don’t know the finer details, but if they are proportionately paid more this is definitely a big step in the right direction for women workers. In general, women participation in workforce is outright abysmal in India. Hopefully this will be on of the many small steps towards addressing that.

jdthedisciple 4y ago
Can you elaborate what precisely is the issue with low female participation in a country's workforce?
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  The fact that half your workforce doesn't have an opportunity to contribute to the country's growth? I mean, cut the US or Europe's output by 25-30% (to match India's low female participation) and you're basically talking about eliminating decades of growth. People would be so much poorer and worse off. And that's just at the national level. There are a whole lot of other issues at the individual level, and the fact that it indicates a lack of freedom and opportunity for nearly half the country's population.
  - jdthedisciple 4y ago
    Is a nations prosperity only related to its nominal growth and GDP? Then why don't we send more children to work as well to increase "growth" a bit further? Are there no tradeoffs involved? Like what it does to a country's demographics and families? Are there other ways to increase GDP without forcing women into the workforce - with potentially better tradeoffs?
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      Especially when a bunch of that extra income just goes to childcare and services to make up for having less time to manage the house. And then much of the rest is eaten in competition for housing, with prices increased by all the extra money from those second incomes. I'm skeptical that we'd be much worse off, in actual experienced fact, if the norm were single-income households. I wouldn't be surprised if measures of contentment or happiness actually increased, overall.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Any ideas on how to ensure women retain financial independence?
        yamtaddle 4y ago
        Not at a policy level, really. Women could prefer stay-at-home spouses, to protect their own financial independence, though, even in a world so extremely into single-income households that such arrangements were somehow legally mandated (which isn't workable and probably isn't desirable anyway, but, even in that extreme, there'd be options, provided regulations weren't, themselves, sexist). It's all hypothetical, anyway. We're not going back to that. Outside chance a few other countries do (some are still much farther that direction than we are) but the US never will, barring tyrannical theocracy or something like that. I do think we're buying rather less happiness than one might hope, for all this extra paid labor, but I also doubt that's a solvable problem, realistically.
        jdthedisciple 4y ago
        Independence from whom? From their husbands? Only to be dependent on some stranger boss instead?
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    You do realize that prior to women entering the workforce a man, and his partner and three kids, working a full time factory job could lead a better lifestyle than two l5 engineers in CA can today, right?
    - qwytw 4y ago
      Forgot the /s..
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      You do realize that women did not have as much freedom under that arrangement? Also, the demand for living in California drastically increased relative to supply of housing, but that is a different point.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        Are you seriously suggesting that in order for women to have personal autonomy the quality of life for everyone needs to decrease? Really ripped your mask off with this statement. California housing is so fucked because of ladder pullers and obstructionists. That has nothing to do with women’s rights.
  - stcroixx 4y ago
    So they’re at home contributing to their families growth instead of their countries numbers - sounds like they are doing it right.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Are you claiming that you in the state should be the ones deciding where women place should be, not the women in question?
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  It makes it harder for women who want to participate to participate. Simple as that. Women aren't commodities whose freedoms should be limited relative to men because of what it might do to "demographics and families." Women aren't slaves to be tied to home. They have agency and should be awarded the same legal freedoms as men.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    It’s not that simple though. Being a house slave is bad, being a factory slave is too and that’s what others here are saying this is. Perhaps this isn’t actual progress?
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      It is progress relative to current position, where men have the advantage. It would be better if regulation was equalized for both in the other direction, but that did not happen.
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      That's an issue that needs to be tackled, certainly, but "solving" the issue by limiting women's rights relative to men and stripping them of their choices is horrific.
nextaccountic 4y ago
> if they are proportionately paid more Apple and Foxconn wants to pay them less (in particular, pay less overtime)

potamic 4y ago

It's terrible for the workers, because currently they get overtime pay beyond 9 hours, this law effectively reduces overtime by 3 hours. Women also play a bigger role in running the household, and with 12-hour shifts plus commute time, this must take a big toll on the family.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
These are - relatively - good jobs, right?
- ivan_gammel 4y ago
  I don’t think these jobs are making them rich. No need to relativize a socially backward policy.
- alephnerd 4y ago
  Not particularly. You're earning around $2.5k a year (1.8 lpa) which isn't the most competitive even in most of India tbh, especially when factoring CoL in Karnataka. If this was Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, or Harit Pradesh/Western UP (regions of India with the right mix of supply chain and cheap labor), it might fly with migrants from Bihar, Purvanchal, and the Tribal Belt, but definetly not in KN. You can easily earn that much in farming, or via alternative unskilled labor with better work hours (eg. street food stalls, MGNREGA, etc).
  - archon1410 4y ago
    1.8 lpa is better than what many "uskilled" labourers make even in Karnataka. 1.1 to 1.44 lpa (9k to 12k a month) is what the cleaners, for example, makes in a college where someone I know studies. Daily wage labourers make a similar amount.
    - alephnerd 4y ago

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

outside of factories, indian offices/businesses/shops/schools/hospitals no one uses hourly wages. Its just "you work for us 6 days a week, 9/(now 12) hours a day and you get x amount, are you okay with that or we have 120 people outside willing to do this work, quick. The part of the reason is the population is so much and there are so little positions so people are forced to take up whatever is infront of them. Personally, i run a small office with a dozen odd employees. For the female staff, our timings are 10-5 x 6 days a week. I personally work 10-9x6+sunday regularly so yeah. The situation is not 'that' terrible with regards to women workforce. If you can do the work and not be bogged down by too much 'home work' you can work as long as you like because people are willing to give out work. I don't own a big factory or a 1000 person business so i can't say about those things but in big cities like mumbai/delhi, you normally have women AND men working 2 jobs just to make ends meet. You can work 10-4 if you like, there are jobs like that but your pay will get decreased accordingly (without overt hourly calculation)(like we dont have concept of billable hours for example)