Globalisation, in its present phase, began in the late 1980s with the rapid growth in information technology. The year 1991 was when India started the process of structural reforms that moved the focus of development from controlled economy to a market oriented economy. The same year witnessed the fragmentation of the Soviet Union into 15 separate countries. All these new states, including Russia, opted for structural reforms of their economies. These changes brought about growth at fairly rapid rates. India’s national income rose by 125% in the first fifteen years of structural adjustment as compared to 95% in the fifteen years preceding the reforms. In fact, all economic indicators showed rapid increase. These include international trade, per capita income and foreign exchange reserves. India was also one of the lowest in terms of indebtedness.
Despite these positive indications, the report of the National Commission on Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector noted in 2007 that 77% of the population (836 million people) spent less than Rs 20 a day. In other words though the economy prospered, inequalities had increased. This was not true just for India but for most developing countries, except for a few that had taken positive steps.
Given that insecurity in employment had increased and wages declined, the Secretary General of International Labour Organisation (ILO), Juan Somavia, put forth the concept of Decent Work. This was the title of Somavia’s address to the 87th session of ILO in 1999. He stressed that decent work marks the high road to economic and social development, a road on which employment, income and social protection can be achieved without compromising workers’ rights and social standards. The four pillars of decent work were adequate employment, having rights at work, adequate social protection, and social dialogue, which would help in settlement of disputes through tripartism.
One of the visible changes we can see is in the nature of employment. Formal sector jobs are decreasing and new jobs are only in informal employment. Temporary, casual and contract work is replacing permanent work. These jobs have low pay and unregulated working conditions. This is true of jobs across the board and not just blue-collar jobs. It could be argued that insecure employees are much better in work as they have to perform or they will lose their jobs. Is this argument correct? On the contrary, it can also be argued that improvement in quality of work and security of employment is good not just for the employees but also for the employer. A healthy and secure workforce will perform better and will be more productive. In India, however, we can see that the low performance of government employees and other similar officials may stem from the fact that they have secure jobs. We need to scrutinise this to see if it is correct. The lower echelons of employees (the non-supervisory cadre) do not work on their own accord. They need to be directed in their work. This is precisely the duty of the higher ups in the hierarchy but in most cases, they shy away from responsibility for various reasons. This leads to chaotic situations and work is affected. Hence, job security may not create indifference to work but this could be due to bad or weak management. This fact becomes evident when we look at similar undertakings in other countries. In most European countries, the government servants have the same, if not more, security of employment and facilities and yet they work perfectly well with high degree of efficiency.
In India, the public sector may provide a dismal picture to some. Even the industrial policy statement of the government laid before parliament on 22 June 1991, which laid the foundation for the policy of liberalisation had reserved its nastiest comments for this sector for being efficient and a burden to the economy. Much to the contrary we find that out of 240 public sector undertakings 210 are making profits and only 30 are in the red. Hence, job security and investment in employee welfare are not necessarily detriments to efficiency.
Not for workers alone
The tenets of decent are not for workers but should include all employees of a company, including the management. It would appear that the senior management who are well paid and get many other perks do not have the problems of insecurity faced by the staff at the lower level. This may not be totally true because long hours of work to keep up the deadlines leads to tension, loss of sleep and metabolic disorders and ultimately to early burn-out. High pay, good housing and other perks such as vacations abroad, etc. can hardly be compensation in the long run.
All top executives in large corporations need not have a similar stressful life. Much depends on the policies of the company and the regulatory systems in the country. For example a high executive in a German multi-national corporation based in USA may work long hours under stress. Her performance will be judged by how many hours he puts in work. The same executive when transferred to the MNCs office in Germany will find a totally different working environment. She will be expected to complete his work in 8 hours and weekends are no-work days. She will find that the public holidays are much more than in the USA and these are in addition to the annual leave available. Moreover, in Germany if a public holiday falls on a Thursday or Tuesday the intervening working day is invariable taken off to provide a long weekend. The employee can compensate by working an extra hour during the coming week. France and Italy have 28 public holidays every year. Yet these countries are industrialised and more productive than most countries that prefer to violate principles of decent work.
A study conducted by Jody Heymann and Alison Earle (Raising the Global Floor, Stanford University Press) in 70 countries shows that all high-income countries, with the exception of the USA, have extensive laws for social protection and job security. The study finds that high levels of overtime and work pressure have detrimental effects on health giving rise to hypertension, high blood pressure, acidity and ulcers, sleeplessness, heart ailment, mental ill health and mortality. The examples from Europe and other high-income countries show that their success is primarily because they implement the provisions of decent work. Do we need further proof?
