Odisha Govt’s 10-Hour Workday and Women’s Night Shift Move Sparks Unconstitutional Debate

A Controversial Shift in Labor Policy

The Odisha government recently introduced some drastic changes in its labor laws by amending the Factories Act of 1948. This amendment also presents two significant changes: now people can work more than eight hours in a day up to ten hours and women can work at night.

The government has made this move sound as a progressive action that would have helped in increasing economic activity and making the working environment more flexible. This ruling has however spawned a raging controversy with many doubting its effects on the welfare of the workers, as well as its constitutionality.

Those who advocate the new rules, such as government officials and certain industry associations claim that they are needed to draw investment and improve productivity of the industries in the state. In their opinion, Odisha will be a better business destination because of a more flexible labor market, which will eventually result in job creation. The idea is that, the state policies should be aligned with the requirements of a modern and globalized economy where industries have frequently to work round the clock to stay competitive.

At face value, the changes appear to be in keeping with a larger trend of labour law reforms occurring in the country. This is to ease the burdensome regulations and give factories and businesses greater freedom of operation. According to the government, the reforms will not only favor the employers but also, will give the workers more chances to earn, especially when it comes to overtime, thus, enhancing their financial status.

This view has however been severely challenged by different quarters. Trade unions, labor activists and legal professionals have sounded warning bells about the possibility of exploitation of workers. They claim that the amendments undo decades of gains made in protecting and securing workers rights. The question now arises as to whether these changes indeed provide a balance between the fundamental rights and well being of the workforce and economic growth.

Justifying the Change for Economic Progress

Economic acceleration is the main argument that the Odisha government presents when it comes to the extension of the workday. The authorities argue that a flexibility of 10-hour working day would enable factories to achieve production goals and respond to market fluctuations much better. They say that this flexibility is essential to such industries as textiles, manufacturing, and electronics, which are usually under severe time constraints and need 24-hour operation in order to complete large orders.

The other most important argument is the possibility of higher income to workers. The government has promised that the long working hours would be supplemented with adequate overtime allowance as required by the law. Through this perspective the policy will be a free option to workers who would like to work overtime to make more. This is positioned as a possibility of economic improvement whereby people can live better by working even harder.

In addition, the move to allow women to work in night shifts is being celebrated as a historic one towards gender equality. Legal restrictions have over the years denied women the right to work in the factories at night, and this restricted their number of jobs in various sectors. The government claims that by lifting this ban women are empowered because they will have equal access to all jobs that would remove the discriminatory barriers that exist and allow women to venture in the workforce just like men.

To solve the safety issues related to women working at night, the government has indicated that employers are going to be required to put in place stringent safety measures. Such measures would most likely involve provision of safe work transportation to the residences, proper lighting in and around the factory, and a well developed system of preventing and responding to harassment at workplaces. This is to give a safe work environment where women can work freely.

Fears of Exploitation and Diminished Well-being

Trade unions and labor activists have also expressed serious objections despite the claims by the government claiming that the 10-hour working day is a direct insult to the well being of the workers. Eight hour shift is the worldwide standard, and it took a long and painful effort by the labor movements to be attained. According to critics, the normalization of the 10-hour shift will result in workplace burnout, more stress, and more workplace accidents, as workers will be more likely to experience burnout due to physical and mental health issues, especially because of fatigue.

It is not only the duration of the labour day but also regarding the likelihood of exploitation. According to activists, when the level of unemployment is high in a country, power is strongly imbalanced towards the employers. The employees can be pressured to work longer hours by fear of being fired and thus forced to take it as a forced duty instead of a voluntary decision. Cautions are also raised that not all employers would abide by the rules of overtime remuneration, and workers may be underpaid in terms of their overtime work.

Many view this step as preference of corporate gains over the basic right of a worker to a healthy work-life balance. The increased work-time does not give much time to family, restful sleep, and personal growth, which serve as crucial needs to the overall well-being. The day of eight hours was introduced on the basis of the eight hours a day, eight hours sleep, eight hours play, which is the type of balance that the new policy is going to upset entirely.

Further, the question on whether increased hours results in increased productivity is being questioned. Numerous researchers have found that working long hours can cause diminishing marginal utility where productivity will decrease after some point as it becomes physically and mentally draining. According to critics, the solution to the problem is not to work harder, rather, it is to work more efficiently, improve the technology and working conditions and ensure that the output is not at the expense of the health and safety of the workers.

The Constitutional Question

This argument has since gone up to the constitutional level where legal experts have been wondering whether the amendments entail a violation of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The major difficulty is that it is going to be counteracted by the background of Article 21 that provides the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The Supreme Court of India has over the years construed this article in a wider context to encompass the right to a dignified life which incorporates the provision of fair working conditions and elimination of exploitation.