From uneasy to unbearable: Why work only 70 hours a week, why not 100?

It is typically people who have not guarded a picketing line or had direct conversations with vulnerable workers at a tea stall or other less comfortable spaces who sermonise about what workers should do for economic growth.

—

WHILE talking on a podcast recently, Infosys co-founder N.R. Narayana Murthy started a debate by advocating that Indian youngsters should work 70 hours a week so that India can compete with other developed countries.

He added, "India's work productivity is one of the lowest in the world. Unless we improve our work productivity, we will not be able to compete with those countries that have made tremendous progress."

We seek to analyse his advice on extended hours of work critically. His proposition is based on three assumptions.

One, there is enough work available to increase the hours of work— the demand for and supply of work is typically seen in the hours.

Two, work efficiency is measured by work hours: so the longer the work hours, the greater the efficiency or productivity.

Three, there is enough space in the total hours available for non-market activities so that work hours could be increased at will.

The Philadelphia Declaration of 1942 significantly asserted that "labour is not a commodity".