India must ensure safe working conditions for all

A dissociative fugue also seems to afflict governments and other regulators that fail to see how workplace-related mishaps are linked with human-rights violations.

The young professional’s death, followed by her mother’s poignant letter to the EY chairman about the fatal consequences of overwork, has triggered a social media debate: between those demanding better working conditions and, on the other side, those claiming that employees should be prepared for long hours and personal sacrifices. 

It might be appropriate to ask whether such a debate is masking the core issues which separate work from life, or eclipsing the primacy of basic human rights. 

This side-stepping of first principles also allows many Indian companies to underpay employees and overwork them, even while denying them basic rights or access to rudimentary facilities.

It might be instructive for all professionals to actually read the UDHR, specifically Article 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." 

What makes the Article even more enduring is the involvement of Indian leaders in the drafting, discussion and finalization of the Declaration. One interesting example stands out. 

Indian representative at the United Nations and constituent assembly member Hansa Mehta was instrumental in changing the wording of Article 1: from the original “all men are born free and equal" to the final “all human beings are born free and equal."

Also read: What does EY India Chairman say amid government probe into employee death?

Given that India is a signatory, it is disappointing that our government and regulators have allowed this morally significant though legally unenforceable declaration to fall by the wayside. 

For example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), of which the deceased girl was presumably a member, has neither issued a note of regret nor any advisory to member firms on the desired work culture; the ICAI, which is unusually prickly about criticism, has maintained an eerie silence. 

Even the minister of state in the labour and employment ministry, Shobha Karandlaje, promised to investigate the case only after another party member wrote about the incident and tagged her on social media.

It could be argued that it has been more than 75 years since the Declaration was adopted and that the nature of work, including work conditions, has changed drastically since then. 

But it can equally, and perhaps more forcefully, be argued that some human rights remain basic and immutable despite all the changes taking place in the world and workplace; for example, there should be no hesitation in denouncing the feudal overtones of the outlandish demands for 70-hour work-weeks. 

Historian Vinay Lal speculates that sleep perhaps remains the last frontier for capitalism or markets. It is worth pointing out here that a recent meeting of BRICS labour and employment ministers in Sochi, Russia, adopted a communique emphasizing four priority areas: enhancing skills development, protecting workers on digital platforms, promoting social security, and ensuring safe and healthy working environments, particularly for women.

Also read: Managers beware! US-based company replaces bosses with coaches to keep ‘employees happy’

India is also a member of multilateral International Labour Organisation (ILO). The institution’s 2023 report, Working Life and Work-Life Balance Around the World, states: “The number of hours worked, the way in which they are organized, and the availability of rest periods can significantly affect not only the quality of work, but also life outside the workplace… Working time also has significant implications for enterprises in terms of their performance, productivity, and competitiveness."

Interestingly, both the ILO and Article 23 of the UDHR invests everybody with the right to form and join trade unions. However, trade unions have become a dirty word in India. Labour rights are viewed as an impediment to profits and market capitalization. 

This mindless proscription of all union activity is finding an echo even on academic campuses, with authorities in leading institutions unilaterally banning student-union activity. 

Ignoring basic human rights in workplaces seems to be the by-product of a national delusion about the true nature of economics: wide swathes in government and the private sector seem obsessed with only the economy’s market functions, while disregarding the impact of kinships, social ties, legal frameworks and the broader political economy, among other things, on economic activity and output.

Also read: When burning bridges at work is the only way out

This unwavering belief in the talismanic power of markets automatically imbues policy frameworks with a pro-employer bias. This may explain why the government is reluctant to move legislation that guarantees better working conditions. 

Some inspiration could be drawn from Quad partner Australia and many European nations that have empowered professionals with the right to refuse work calls or emails after working hours. 

It is often felt that the Indian government is forced to enact new laws or amend existing ones only in the face of mass protests, like in the Nirbhaya case. 

A young life snuffed out before realizing its full potential should remind the government of its moral imperative and basic mandate: to protect human rights in the workplace.