[fosscomm] small step for ITEC; giant leap for IT employees
jtd at mtnl.net.in
jtd at mtnl.net.in
Thu Mar 15 09:07:05 PDT 2012
On Thursday 15 March 2012 01:29:25 deepthi at swecha.net wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 Mar 2012, Nidhin Sasi wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> The ITEC (IT and ITeS Employees Centre), a support group for IT
> >> professionals, and ITHI, a forum of women employees in IT and ITeS,
> >> had been campaigning against exemption from the Act.
> >> Members of the two forums had campaigned against exemption as well as
> >> the proposal to extend the working-hour deadline for women employees
> >> from the existing 8 p.m. They had said that extension of
> >> working-hour deadline will only help IT/ITeS establishments to get
> >> away from their responsibilities of transportation and security for
> >> women employees till 10 p.m.
> >> ITHI had initiated an online campaign and a petition with signatures
> >> from 700 women workers had been submitted to the Labour Secretary
> >> and the Labour Commissioner.
> >> The Karnataka State Women's Commission had also raised objections to
> >> the exemption given to the IT industry from the law on the ground
> >> that it leaves wide ground for exploitation of women in the sector.
> > This takes the cake for retrogressive outlooks. In effect, it's
> > punishing industry for employing women by making it more expensive and
> > complex (extra security, extra transport, conformation to laws, etc.)
> > And then people whine about there not being enough women in the IT
> > industry!
> > If I had an IT company in Karnataka (I presume that's the "State" being
> > referred to everywhere, since it is never mentioned by name) I'd
> > immediately replace all the women who worked in my office with men in
> > order to keep costs and complexity down.
> > Responsibility for security and safety of women (or any sector of
> > society) cannot be devolved from the state to industry. It is the
> > state's job to protect its citizens, and if it is failing in doing that
> > it must be held accountable and measures taken to improve the situation.
> > Penalising industry (and women) because the state has failed to meet its
> > obligations will affect both revenue and, in the long term, gender
> > equality.
> > Incidentally, what is the "exploitation of women" that is specific to
> > this sector and not covered under normal laws?
> > Regards,
> > -- Raj
> > --
> > Raj Mathur || raju at kandalaya.org
> Certainly a matter of achievement and an inspiration to move forward to
> fight more battles.
> But what is more surprising is your comment above. I am not sure how old
> you are. If you are a non working kid then am sure you will learn as you
> grow up if not:
Err. If you are referring to Raj (or me - I am the only one supporting his
stance) we are both substantially older than jobless kids pontificating on
women in the workplace.
> I always felt I am an equal competition to all the men folk in all the
> roles that i handled so far at my work place.
I would like to state upfront that I am a staunch supporter of equality, (and
afaik so is Raj) without having to paint it as a halo around our heads.
> But your perspective is an
> eye opener to me now. You feel that the transport that the companies
> provide kill their revenue and push them to losses! You must be from
> another world for sure. Have you ever taken some time to look at the
> annual reports of any company? Please do so. Its not rocket science but
> any person of basic common sense levels can understand how much a company
> spends on their transportation expenses as opposed to the profits they
> gain. Its negligible.
> Let me give you more tips to run a successful business on the same lines
> to reduce cost on employees -
> - Since sanitation is the state's responsibility, remove restrooms.
> - Restrict elevators only for non-human company assets
You are mixing up things that are external and internal. Internal work place
is not the responsibility of the government, but it does have a major role to
play in ensuring a minimum standard of safety and use. That the vast majority
dont have such luxuries as described by you (and are happy just having a
job), is a different matter altogether.
Drawing a parallel, next you will want your employer to provide you with
healthy food and water at home, because they do so in the canteen.
On a humorous side note, buying extra sweet dish or fruits (especially
mangoes) and packing it in the tiffin for the kids at home was a practice
followed by quite a few smart moms and dads at Seimens - in case you happen
to be a time constrained mom.
> - Since is individual and state's responsibility, remove health insurance
You have mixed things up again.
> I am sure you can think of more...
> While you as a businessman (going by your "if I had a...") and the country
> (or state) are deciding whose responsibility is it to protect the women in
> this country,
We are not deciding. It has long been settled by the constitution. And the
state is passing the buck. Get that straight instead of going off on a
> you want me to sit at home and keep watching the drama and
> come up with some sane solution for me. Is that so? Then please make a
> note of it that in spite of crossing 60 years of independence neither of
> you have been able to provide any answer to it, on the contrary things
> have only gone from bad to worse.
Oh. So you want businesses to sit and think about womens safety on the
Please suggest that Arthur Andersen (or whoever is the current blue eyed
devil) do a study on it , to the vacillating government and police officials.
> One example of exploitation of women, specific to this sector is - a woman
> being fired for conceiving a child or for even getting married. But am
> sure with an attitude of replacing women with the men employees, you may
> not understand whats wrong in the above example let alone gender equality.
> It is the business interests like these that keeps the state away from
> Article 42 in the Directive principles of the State policy of the Indian
> constition - "Provision for just and humane conditions of work and
> maternity relief" and why organisations like ITEC should take up such
Again, you are bringing in issues not related to the point being debated - the
state is abrogating it's responsibility of providing safety on the street,
particularly to women. It's officials are either trying to pin blame on the
women (decent dress, dont visit pubs, dont go out alone, blah blah) or
passing the buck.
In this case, the government has cleverly twisted the above and employees all
mixed up about their privileges, instead of both employers and employees
socking the government, we have them getting into a spat while the chief
culprit eggs on both.
More information about the network