90 hours per week: What’s with this foot in the mouth

Larsen and Toubro (L&T) chairman S.N. Subrahmanyan was merely reinforcing, in a very crass manner, the company culture that had been assiduously built by his predecessor, A.M. Naik. 

It’s not right to generalize this extreme version of “work is worship” as the hangover of a previous generation, though values, to some extent, indeed mirror the circumstances of the times. There have been leaders from that generation who were progressive and ahead of the times, and there are some young cocky leaders today who would agree heartily with Subrahmanyan and Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy.

The norm

Some organizations have a culture of long hours, endless hustle, unending deadlines, and a perverted sense of ambition. One could argue that organizational culture is a matter of a company’s choice if they are not violating a law, and employees could, in turn, choose whether they wish to work for such companies. 

However, the argument is flawed when this principle is taken to an extreme. It is these extremities that triggered and solidified the labour movements, which eventually resulted in the end of rampant exploitation in the industrial era.

The current reality of the Indian labour market, reflected in the limited number of job opportunities for a burgeoning youth, is once again encouraging leaders like Subrahmanyan and Murthy to advocate a reversion to the early industrial era, the former in a very boorish and blatant manner and the latter disguising it under the cloak of nation-building. 

I worked in the IT services industry from 2006-2009 when IT companies offered a starting salary of ₹3.5 lakh per annum on campus. More than 15 years later, the starting salary remains the same, whereas the pay packages of top management have gone up nearly tenfold. It is this growing inequality that makes the push for long hours so obviously exploitative and perverted. 

The ideal 

I asked my good friend Vijesh Upadhyay, one of the most progressive labour leaders in the country and, until recently, the national general secretary of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, what he thought about this.

I am paraphrasing what he told me: “Statements like these contradict the principles of quality of life and human dignity that are fundamental to a progressive society. Furthermore, it is concerning that individuals drawing a salary that is more than 500 times an average employee’s salary would propose measures that disproportionately burden the workforce. Such disparity in income and privilege should compel greater responsibility towards ensuring equitable and humane working conditions and not the opposite. True productivity and sustainable growth are driven by motivated, healthy, and empowered employees.”

Such wise words.

And the fair

In all fairness, the health and well-being of an employee is the responsibility of both the employee and their employer. The share of that responsibility depends on the seniority—and one could use salary as a surrogate for seniority—of the employee. The more junior the employee, the greater the responsibility of the employer, and the more senior the employee, the greater the responsibility of the employee themselves. 

A good number of employees at the lowest rung in the IT services sector, though classified as white-collar, are no different from the blue-collar workforce in factories. Hence, they are entitled to the protection provided under the Constitution to form a union and strengthen their bargaining power against such unreasonable expectations. 

In the final analysis, there is nothing right or wrong with long hours per se. In every era, there are jobs with lucrative compensation entailing long hours and endless hustle sought after by ambitious folks. These jobs are often a status symbol in the peer group, which makes it a personal choice. 

However, when the element of choice is replaced by compulsion and imposed on people who are paid peanuts, then it becomes exploitative and appalling.