181–190 of 267 posts
I don't get this. Why push your work force like this? It's clearly very bad for the workers. And also for the factory, surely having 3 shifts is more efficient because your workers are not as fatigued so will work faster with fewer mistakes?
When workers work longer hours, employers can lower wages due to higher labor supply.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A point of comparison - in Norway employers need special dispensation to have workers work more than 100 hours overtime per year (with max 40 regular hours/week and five weeks paid vacation time).
True, but Norway is an oil nation.
It's sickening how effective it is.
The HN headline is incorrect. It’s not “12 hour shift for women”. It’s “12 hour shifts AND night shifts for women”. Night shift were not allowed earlier most likely because of safety reasons considering India’s not so great women safety record. Not saying it’s justified but that was the reason most likely.
I believe you but I don't fully understand this. Can anyone suggest an accurate, neutral title, preferably using a representative phrase* from the article? If so, we can edit it. * https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I take back my other comment. I don't eagerly await any responses from you. Your comments are childish. Get off HN and go enjoy your 20s. If by chance you are older than that, grow up. No one is forcing anyone to work 12 hour days. It's about allowing it should a woman choose to accept the position. I get your angle now. Trad nonsense.
Hopefully he isn't working in India on a 13 hour schedule lest he shall be able to enjoy his 20s. Just pay the worker a fair wage and they won't be pressured or expected to work these long shifts (which is what we all know is REALLY going on.) Putting pressure on The Corporation is asking too much, right?
I will entertain arguments that no one should be allowed to work 12 hours, or that both men and women can. If you look at the other comment he made, you'll see he's arguing for neither of those.
Vote with your dollars, people. Don't buy Apple and Foxconn products if you care about the wellbeing of workers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that half your workforce doesn't have an opportunity to contribute to the country's growth? I mean, cut the US or Europe's output by 25-30% (to match India's low female participation) and you're basically talking about eliminating decades of growth. People would be so much poorer and worse off. And that's just at the national level. There are a whole lot of other issues at the individual level, and the fact…
So they’re at home contributing to their families growth instead of their countries numbers - sounds like they are doing it right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is a nations prosperity only related to its nominal growth and GDP? Then why don't we send more children to work as well to increase "growth" a bit further? Are there no tradeoffs involved? Like what it does to a country's demographics and families? Are there other ways to increase GDP without forcing women into the workforce - with potentially better tradeoffs?
Especially when a bunch of that extra income just goes to childcare and services to make up for having less time to manage the house. And then much of the rest is eaten in competition for housing, with prices increased by all the extra money from those second incomes. I'm skeptical that we'd be much worse off, in actual experienced fact, if the norm were single-income households. I wouldn't be surprised if measures o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
have you considered that both state and capital are the problem?
Capital follows the state. The fact that capital also often guides the state is a flaw of the state. Capital is just people doing the job they were hired to do, often in a corporate framework, legally obliged to maximize profit and shareholder value. There’s definitely a feedback cycle, but the source of all control and governance is the guys with the guns and prisons.