Based on ones relationship with the means of production, ones takes a position on issues.. Ones perception of the relation also plays a major role. Very natural that on most issues, owners(SME owner's included) will take one position and knowledge workers will take another. This thread captures a historical and on going struggle and exposes positions and thus perceptions and relations. The rest is all foobar.
Let us all read the manifesto now: http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/dcm.html On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 15 March 2012 01:29:25 [email protected] wrote: >> > On Tuesday 13 Mar 2012, Nidhin Sasi wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> The ITEC (IT and ITeS Employees Centre), a support group for IT >> >> professionals, and ITHI, a forum of women employees in IT and ITeS, >> >> had been campaigning against exemption from the Act. >> >> >> >> Members of the two forums had campaigned against exemption as well as >> >> the proposal to extend the working-hour deadline for women employees >> >> from the existing 8 p.m. They had said that extension of >> >> working-hour deadline will only help IT/ITeS establishments to get >> >> away from their responsibilities of transportation and security for >> >> women employees till 10 p.m. >> >> >> >> ITHI had initiated an online campaign and a petition with signatures >> >> from 700 women workers had been submitted to the Labour Secretary >> >> and the Labour Commissioner. >> >> >> >> The Karnataka State Women's Commission had also raised objections to >> >> the exemption given to the IT industry from the law on the ground >> >> that it leaves wide ground for exploitation of women in the sector. >> > >> > This takes the cake for retrogressive outlooks. In effect, it's >> > punishing industry for employing women by making it more expensive and >> > complex (extra security, extra transport, conformation to laws, etc.) >> > And then people whine about there not being enough women in the IT >> > industry! >> > >> > If I had an IT company in Karnataka (I presume that's the "State" being >> > referred to everywhere, since it is never mentioned by name) I'd >> > immediately replace all the women who worked in my office with men in >> > order to keep costs and complexity down. >> > >> > Responsibility for security and safety of women (or any sector of >> > society) cannot be devolved from the state to industry. It is the >> > state's job to protect its citizens, and if it is failing in doing that >> > it must be held accountable and measures taken to improve the situation. >> > Penalising industry (and women) because the state has failed to meet its >> > obligations will affect both revenue and, in the long term, gender >> > equality. >> > >> > Incidentally, what is the "exploitation of women" that is specific to >> > this sector and not covered under normal laws? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > -- Raj >> > -- >> > Raj Mathur || [email protected] >> >> Certainly a matter of achievement and an inspiration to move forward to >> fight more battles. >> >> But what is more surprising is your comment above. I am not sure how old >> you are. If you are a non working kid then am sure you will learn as you >> grow up if not: > > Err. If you are referring to Raj (or me - I am the only one supporting his > stance) we are both substantially older than jobless kids pontificating on > women in the workplace. > >> >> I always felt I am an equal competition to all the men folk in all the >> roles that i handled so far at my work place. > > I would like to state upfront that I am a staunch supporter of equality, (and > afaik so is Raj) without having to paint it as a halo around our heads. > >> But your perspective is an >> eye opener to me now. You feel that the transport that the companies >> provide kill their revenue and push them to losses! You must be from >> another world for sure. Have you ever taken some time to look at the >> annual reports of any company? Please do so. Its not rocket science but >> any person of basic common sense levels can understand how much a company >> spends on their transportation expenses as opposed to the profits they >> gain. Its negligible. >> >> Let me give you more tips to run a successful business on the same lines >> to reduce cost on employees - >> - Since sanitation is the state's responsibility, remove restrooms. >> - Restrict elevators only for non-human company assets > > You are mixing up things that are external and internal. Internal work place > is not the responsibility of the government, but it does have a major role to > play in ensuring a minimum standard of safety and use. That the vast majority > dont have such luxuries as described by you (and are happy just having a > job), is a different matter altogether. > > Drawing a parallel, next you will want your employer to provide you with > healthy food and water at home, because they do so in the canteen. > > On a humorous side note, buying extra sweet dish or fruits (especially > mangoes) and packing it in the tiffin for the kids at home was a practice > followed by quite a few smart moms and dads at Seimens - in case you happen > to be a time constrained mom. > >> - Since is individual and state's responsibility, remove health insurance >> component. > > You have mixed things up again. > >> I am sure you can think of more... > > >> >> While you as a businessman (going by your "if I had a...") and the country >> (or state) are deciding whose responsibility is it to protect the women in >> this country, > > We are not deciding. It has long been settled by the constitution. And the > state is passing the buck. Get that straight instead of going off on a > pointless rant. > >> you want me to sit at home and keep watching the drama and >> come up with some sane solution for me. Is that so? Then please make a >> note of it that in spite of crossing 60 years of independence neither of >> you have been able to provide any answer to it, on the contrary things >> have only gone from bad to worse. > > Oh. So you want businesses to sit and think about womens safety on the > streets. > Please suggest that Arthur Andersen (or whoever is the current blue eyed > devil) do a study on it , to the vacillating government and police officials. > >> >> One example of exploitation of women, specific to this sector is - a woman >> being fired for conceiving a child or for even getting married. But am >> sure with an attitude of replacing women with the men employees, you may >> not understand whats wrong in the above example let alone gender equality. >> >> It is the business interests like these that keeps the state away from >> Article 42 in the Directive principles of the State policy of the Indian >> constition - "Provision for just and humane conditions of work and >> maternity relief" and why organisations like ITEC should take up such >> issues. > > > Again, you are bringing in issues not related to the point being debated - the > state is abrogating it's responsibility of providing safety on the street, > particularly to women. It's officials are either trying to pin blame on the > women (decent dress, dont visit pubs, dont go out alone, blah blah) or > passing the buck. > In this case, the government has cleverly twisted the above and employees all > mixed up about their privileges, instead of both employers and employees > socking the government, we have them getting into a spat while the chief > culprit eggs on both. > > > -- > Rgds > JTD > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
