Workers and Employees are not Slaves

 Workers and Employees are not Slaves 

-Bruhaspati Samal-

India’s corporate establishment appears increasingly obsessed with a disturbing question: how many hours can a worker be made to work in the name of national development? Few months back, Infosys founder Narayana Murthy advocated a 70-hour working week, while Larsen & Toubro Chairman S. N. Subrahmanyan triggered widespread outrage by advocating a 90-hour working week and questioning the need for Sundays off. Now, Union Commerce and Industry Minister’s remarks, portraying Indian workers as people who would not remind their employers that it was five o’clock or that the weekend had arrived, have reopened the debate over the glorification of an inhuman work culture. The Karnataka State IT/ITeS Employees Union (KITU) has rightly objected to this mindset. Though expressed in different contexts, these statements reveal a common and deeply troubling tendency: to celebrate an employee’s willingness to sacrifice personal life as a virtue while overlooking the fundamental distinction between dedication and exploitation. Is India aspiring to become a developed nation, or is it preparing to become a nation where workers are expected to surrender their lives to corporate profit? A country cannot build a humane future by normalising the inhuman treatment of those who create its wealth.

Indian workers do not need lessons in hard work from corporate boardrooms. From farmers in the fields and workers in factories to postal employees, railway workers, sanitation workers, construction labourers, nurses, teachers and millions of employees in public and private establishments, working people have carried the nation on their shoulders. Their sweat has built infrastructure, sustained essential services, generated industrial output and enriched enterprises. Yet, when workers demand reasonable hours, adequate rest, fair wages and time for their families, their legitimate expectations are sometimes portrayed as signs of indiscipline or insufficient commitment. This is nothing less than an attempt to redefine exploitation as excellence. Workers are human beings, not machines; their bodies need rest, their minds need recreation and their families deserve their presence. A weekly holiday is not a favour bestowed by an employer, nor is leaving the workplace after completing prescribed duty a betrayal of professional responsibility. If an organisation cannot achieve its objectives without routinely stretching employees to the limits of physical and mental endurance, the failure may lie in its management, staffing or planning rather than in the workers’ work ethic.

The controversy becomes even more serious when viewed against the changing landscape of Indian labour legislation. The government has consolidated 29 central labour laws into four Labour Codes covering wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety, health and working conditions. The stated objectives include simplifying compliance, modernising labour regulation and facilitating economic activity. However, trade unions have repeatedly warned that provisions concerning industrial disputes, union activities, strikes, retrenchment, employment conditions and regulatory enforcement could weaken workers’ bargaining power and shift the balance towards employers. Any reform that makes it easier to employ workers but harder for them to defend their rights risks converting labour flexibility into managerial domination. Labour reform without workers’ participation and effective protection can become little more than an employer-friendly restructuring of industrial relations.

Another uncomfortable question is that  when a 70-hour or 90-hour working week is proposed, is the expectation equally binding on the chairman, managing director and senior executives, or is the burden principally intended for employees who have little bargaining power and cannot risk losing their jobs? A worker who fears dismissal, an adverse performance review or loss of promotion may comply with unreasonable demands even when no explicit order is issued. Such compliance cannot automatically be interpreted as enthusiasm. It may reflect economic insecurity and unequal power. The problem becomes particularly acute when overtime is unpaid, leave is discouraged, targets are unrealistic and digital devices keep employees connected long after office hours. Women workers face an additional burden because prolonged working hours collide with unequal domestic responsibilities and unpaid caregiving. An employment system that demands unlimited availability while ignoring these realities does not reward merit; it entrenches inequality. No employee should have to choose between protecting a livelihood and preserving personal dignity. Nor should employers be allowed to confuse the power to command with the moral right to demand unlimited sacrifice.

The economic argument for extreme working hours is equally questionable. Longer hours do not automatically produce greater productivity. Beyond a point, fatigue undermines concentration, increases the risk of errors and accidents, damages mental well-being and diminishes creativity. A worker who is exhausted may remain physically present but cannot necessarily deliver the best possible performance. Modern economies require technical competence, innovation, efficient systems, good leadership and motivated employees—not merely longer attendance registers. India should compete internationally through research, skill development, automation, better infrastructure, professional management and fair remuneration. It must not seek a competitive advantage by making its workforce cheaper, more insecure or more exhausted. Economic growth should translate into better living standards, improved health, greater educational opportunities and more time for family and community life. If rising national income is accompanied by deteriorating working conditions and declining quality of life, the country must question the purpose of that growth. The ultimate objective of development is human welfare, not the endless expansion of corporate profits at the expense of human freedom.

The Constitution of India provides a moral and legal foundation for a more just approach. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, while Article 23 prohibits forced labour. Articles 39, 41, 42 and 43 of the Directive Principles of State Policy address, among other matters, adequate livelihood, humane conditions of work, maternity relief and a living wage. These provisions do not mean that every demand for overtime automatically amounts to a constitutional violation; their significance lies in the broader commitment to a society where economic activity respects human dignity. Governments must ensure that statutory working-hour limits, weekly rest provisions, overtime compensation and occupational safety requirements are effectively enforced. Labour inspection must be meaningful, trade union activity must be protected, and employees must have accessible mechanisms to report exploitation without fear of retaliation. The right to disconnect from work communications outside working hours also deserves serious consideration as digital technology increasingly blurs the boundary between professional and private life. Employers, for their part, must build workplaces where performance is recognised, leave is respected and overtime is genuinely exceptional rather than an unwritten condition of continued employment. Investment promotion must never become a justification for neglecting the people whose labour attracts and sustains that investment.

At this critical juncture, trade unions must rise above organisational divisions, political differences and sectoral boundaries to defend the common interests of working people. The rights enjoyed by today’s employees were not gifts from benevolent employers; they were secured through historic struggles, collective resistance, sacrifice and solidarity. The eight-hour working day itself stands as a powerful reminder that working time is a matter of justice, not merely managerial preference. The fight is not against honest enterprise or genuine economic development. It is against a model of development that treats labour as an expendable input and profit as the only measure of success. A strong economy and strong workers’ rights are not contradictory objectives; they must advance together.

The employees and workers are not slaves of corporate ambition, and their lives do not belong to their employers. No nation becomes great by glorifying exhaustion, silencing dissent or weakening the safeguards that protect its workforce. Patriotism cannot be measured by the number of weekends surrendered, just as professional commitment cannot be measured by the willingness to remain permanently available. India must reject the dangerous notion that an employee who asks for rest is less committed than one who silently accepts exploitation. The demand for dignity is not indiscipline; the defence of labour rights is not anti-development; and collective resistance to injustice is not an obstacle to progress. Let the nation compete through knowledge, innovation, productivity, fair wages and social justice—not through the exhaustion of its people. Let governments remember that labour laws exist to protect workers, and let corporate leaders remember that every balance sheet rests upon human effort. The real measure of a developed India will not be how many hours its workers can be made to toil, but how fairly they are paid, how securely they live, how much dignity they enjoy and how much freedom remains in their lives. 

(The author is a Service Union Representative and a Columnist, presently working as the General Secretary, Confederation of Central Govt Employees and Workers and President, Forum of Civil Pensioners' Association / National Coordination Committee of Pensioners' Association, Odisha State Committee)

*****