To wok or not to work 70 hours a week?
That is the question.
Little over a month back, a statement made by Mr Narayana Murthy, in an interview with Mr. Mohandas Pai (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk4B40Vc7nk), created a massive storm of protests from the netizens and beyond. Not that Mr. Narayana Murthy did not get any support for his views. He did, but based on my estimate, of the feedback I have been able to find, bouquets were vastly outnumbered by brickbats. This was no surprise considering that the topic involved the “working hours” of the “young” workers in India. The title of the video read “Work 70 Hours A Week,” Narayana Murthy’s Message to India’s Youngsters”.
In my opinion, the response of the “Youngsters”, mostly, if not all, employed in the IT sector companies, was quite valid. Yes, they get much higher pay than those with equal or higher qualification in other traditional engineering areas, but expecting them to work such long hours, is quite unreasonable. To these hours, if the commute to and fro from the office in a city like Bengaluru is added, very little time will be left for other natural needs (sleep/rest), familial responsibilities (children, spouse) and other social interactions. It is the identification of such needs, their importance in maintaining a healthy (physically and mentally) society, that as early as late 1850s legislations limiting working hours for labours started appearing worldwide, including India. Currently, “As per the Factories Act 1948, every adult (a person who has completed 18 years of age) cannot work for more than 48 hours in a week and not more than 9 hours in a day. According to Section 51 of the Act, the spread over should not exceed 10-1/2 hours.” (https://paycheck.in/labour-law-india/work-and-wages/work-hours-in-india). If Mr. Narayana Murthy wants IT industry to go back to 19th century, the outrage of the people is absolutely justified.
But did Mr. Narayana Murthy, in his interview say what the title of the video claims (“Work 70 Hours A Week,” Narayana Murthy’s Message To India’s Youngsters | “Work Culture Must Change”) or the summary that shows up in the video @ 22 sec (“Infosys founder NR Narayana Murthy has said that youngsters should work 70 hours a week if India wants to compete with fast-growing economies”) correct representation of his speech? The answer to both is NO. if one listens to the conversation in the video closely, his words are “My request is that our youngsters must say “This is my country. I want to work 70 hours a week.” (3:24). There is no diktat or coercion in this statement and the number “70” appears to be not literal but just a number used to express something “high”. He is giving a data point for the required goal of “significant progress, economically”. At a later point (4:18) he identifies other variables as “we need to work very hard. We need to de disciplined and increase our work productivity.” No mention of the increased number of hours at all if we can improve on a couple of other variables to reach the goal of “progress”. Thanks to social media’s approach to sensationalise issues to get more attentions, “Likes”, Subscriptions, and ultimately revenue, only one variable – the number of hours to be worked found a place in the headlines. The cost of time spent on commenting on it and discussing it – to the extent of raising this matter to the level of Government of India which had to deny that any such proposal is not under consideration, was enormous. Unfortunate reality of the modern times.
However, there is another aspect of the whole controversy that requires some thought. It is understandable that for the “progress”/ “economic growth” of the country some sacrifices have to be made. The problem is no one provides an answer to “But for how long and at what cost?” In his book “Sapiens”, historian Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, talking about “The Capitalist Hell” in the Chapter “Capital Creed” warns about growth for the sake of growth — “When growth becomes a supreme good, unrestricted by any other ethical consideration, it can easily lead to catastrophe”. (pg. 370)
The concern raised by most of the “workers” in response to Mr Narayan Murthy’s comments can probably be summarised in a simple question “What is in it for me?” It is a very valid question as the current economic model does not provide a satisfying answer to their question. In “Sapiens”, Dr. Harari provides some information in this regard – “The nineteenth century brought no improvement in the ethics of capitalism. The industrial Revolution that swept through Europe enriched the bankers and capital-owners, but condemned millions of workers to a life of abject poverty.” (pg. 371).
One can argue that the “industry” of the 19th century was vastly different than present day “industry”. However, with a more detailed analysis of the current economic model over a few centuries, Dr. Harari reaches the conclusion that the fault lies with the model and its implementation. And, these “faults” don’t affect only isolated workplaces, but their impact is world-wide with little or no control. Resulting “ill” impacts on society and environment are also something the model cannot control/does not bother about. Some of his conclusions, not very flattering for the Free Market economy, are quoted below.
- In the new capitalist creed, the first and most sacred commandment is: “The profits of production must be reinvested in increasing production.” (pg. 349)
- Capitalism’s belief in perpetual economic growth flies in the face of almost everything we know about the universe. (pg. 352)
- But in its extreme form, belief in the free market is as naïve as belief in Santa Clause. There simply is no such thing as market free of all political bias. The most important economic resource is trust in the future, and this resource is constantly threatened by thieves and charlatans. Market by themselves offer no protection against fraud, theft and violence. (pg. 367)
- This (Return on Investment, profits) is the fly in the ointment of free-market capitalism. It cannot ensure that the profits are gained in a fair way and distributed in a fair manner. (pg. 370)
- Capitalism has killed millions out of cold indifference coupled with greed. (pg. 370)
- The economic pie of 2014 is far larger than the pie of 1500, but it is distributed so unevenly that many African peasants and Indonesian labourers return home after a hard day’s work with less food than did their ancestors 500 years ago. Much like the Agriculture Revolution, so too the growth of the modern economy might turn out to be a colossal fraud. (pg. 372)
- The new ethic promises paradise on condition that the rich remain greedy and spend their time making more money, and that the masses give free rein to their cravings and passions – and buy more and more. This is the first religion in history whose followers actually do what they are asked to do. How, though, do we know that we’ll really get paradise in return? We’ve seen it on television. (pg. 391)
Based on this, my feeling is that the “Captains” of our industry should, on one side looking at the growth, also look at its impact on the society to come up with a roadmap for the future. Some of the ill-effects of post WW II growth spurt on the society and societal structure is already visible. This should be kept in mind when charting the future course. A rich, prosperous society with fragile (stressed) and unhealthy (physical and mental) structure — Will it be worth it?
— Vinod Banthia
Post script:
A few days back I cam across a quote by another illustrious businessman of India from previous generation, Mr. J.R.D. Tata, on the conflict between progress and happiness. The quote illustrates how view-points towards the relative importance of society and progress have changed over a generation.
“I do not want India to be an economic superpower. I want India to be a happy country.”