[fosscomm] small step for ITEC; giant leap for IT employees
justinjoseph007 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 15 23:45:15 PDT 2012
Based on ones relationship with the means of production, ones takes a
position on issues.. Ones perception of the relation also plays a
major role. Very natural that on most issues, owners(SME owner's
included) will take one position and knowledge workers will take
another. This thread captures a historical and on going struggle and
exposes positions and thus perceptions and relations. The rest is all
Let us all read the manifesto now:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM, <jtd at mtnl.net.in> wrote:
> 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
> pointless rant.
>> 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.
> network mailing list
> network at lists.fosscom.in
More information about the network