Cashing in on the BPO boom and globalisation, laws have been made flexible so that more women can work nights. If governments and companies had showed the same concern for the security of working women, perhaps then night shifts would not have become life-and-death adventures and tragedies like the death of Soumya Vishwanathan could have been averted.
Adventure was probably the last thing on television journalist Soumya Vishwanathan’s mind as she stepped out of her office at around 3 a.m. Soumya was driving home on a deserted road and what happened to her has sent shock waves across the country. Like the rape and murder of Pratibha Srikantamurthy, an HP GlobalSoft employee in Bengaluru in December 2005, this incident has brought back the focus on women and security. Since then there have been other equally heinous crimes against women BPO employees. Candle light vigils, protest marches, meetings and petitions have been raising the question of justice for Soumya and demanding more security for women. While Delhi Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit has been rightly castigated for her remarks that Soumya was “adventurous”, the important issue is that Soumya’s employers are equally responsible for what happened to her.
Post-liberalization, in a bid to cash in on the BPO boom, laws have been made flexible to permit women to work nights. While there is a clear sense of purpose in attracting more women to the workplace, the question is, what is the safety and security policy companies have in place to ensure even a semblance of protection. Media houses which employ many women also have to ensure that their employees reach home safely if they stay late. It is only when a woman is raped or murdered that the whole country sits up and starts thinking about what went wrong and there is a clamour for justice. If the government has modified laws to encourage more women to work, then it must also have in place stringent norms which make the employers liable for the safety of its workers, whether they are male or female.
No universal law
Susan Abraham, lawyer, LC Associates, points out that that there is no universal law on the issue of women and security. It’s the law of the jungle, especially for television journalists, points out another labour activist. There is nothing in the law for working journalists too (which only covers the print media) that they should be dropped home safely. It is the custom in various offices to do so. While the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redress) Bill, 2006 is yet to be made into an Act, the question of women and physical safety is not really addressed.
While the Shops and Establishments Act in the States restricted the employment of women at night, the newspaper industry got an exemption to permit women to work night shifts, says journalist and activist Geeta Seshu. The exemption ensures that the companies have to either provide rest rooms for women to stay back at night or they have to be dropped home safely. She said the governments of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu were the first to create special provisions to allow women to work on night shifts after the BPO boom. The Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 was amended in 2002 to empower the State government to exempt any establishment of Information Technology or Information Technology Enabled Services from the restrictive provisions of the law relating to employment of women during night. This is subject to the condition that the establishments provide facilities of transportation and security to such women employees. This is also the reason the Supreme Court, in February 2008, said that Som Mittal, the former chief executive officer and managing director of HP Global Soft and now president of National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) can be prosecuted for the case of rape and murder of Pratibha Srikantamurthy. The apex court clearly indicated that the head of a company was responsible for the safety of its employees.
Changing laws and guidelines
In May 2005, the Factories Act was amended to allow employment of women workers between 7.00 p.m. and 6.00 a.m. An official statement in the Rajya Sabha said that this has been done on the demand of women’s organizations and in tune with the present economic globalization. This flexibility would be available to all manufacturing units including the apparel sector. However, the amendment also provides that the employer has to ensure occupational safety and adequate protection to the women workers.
The main thrust of these amendments was to ensure that women were provided security. Even if there are no specific laws on the safety of television employees, in Soumya’s case, the company has to obey the law of the land and is duty bound to ensure she had security. A case in point is a newspaper office in Mumbai which drops both men and women home after night shift. Last year, women staffers filed a complaint after one night shift, that they were being followed by a car full of drunks. The next day, the office provided a female security guard who accompanies them till this day. Some newspaper offices do provide transport and even rest rooms for employees but here too there is discrimination with some organizations leaving the women to fend for themselves.
As Ms. Abraham says, “Companies cannot outsource their responsibility towards the security of their employees.” Companies cannot evade their liabilities by saying the woman has her own transport or that a driver picked her up. Taxi services need to be under strict surveillance and some companies in Bengaluru and other cities are already using GPS systems to track their routes. In the past, unions and collectives fought for safety and security measures in workplaces. Post-liberalization, with the system of contract work and the dilution of labour laws, there are no strong unions and companies get away with murder. Even the Contract Labour Act ensures that the liability rests with the principal contractor, so there are clear indications on the law of the land.
The media boom too has attracted a number of women and work necessarily entails late hours. If anyone is “adventurous” it is the employers or companies who clearly lack a sense of responsibility and liability towards their staff. The Supreme Court nod for Som Mittal’s prosecution has set a clear precedent. Instead of waiting for another horrifying incident, it is time the security of women workers specially is taken seriously.
Posts
