In UK, one in five has sex with colleagues

SPICING UP WORK

 

In UK, one in five has sex with colleagues

London: For Britons, it seems that the term “job satisfaction” has a whole new meaning, with one in five admitting to sex at work.
   A recent survey in Britain has revealed that one out of five people has had sex at work — in fact a quarter of men would consider selling bodies for money while one in ten women would sleep with someone to advance their career.
   It found that almost half of all Britons (49%) have had a one-night stand, with men (57%) more likely than women (42%) to have done so. But a generation gap was revealed, with more than two thirds (64%) of those aged between 25 and 44 having had a one-night stand, compared with just 24% of those aged 65 and over.
   Moreover, according to survey commissioned by the Observer newspaper, one in five Britons does not believe that monogamy is desirable, while three out of ten actually do not think that it is natural.
   The survey of over 1,000 adults also found that people remained socially conservative on some issues with 45% of Britons feeling gay couples should not be allowed at all to get married.
   Surprisingly, the survey found that almost one in four Britons (24%) believed homosexual sex should be made illegal, a one per cent increase in the proportion of people who believed this since 2002, the British newspaper reported on Sunday. Likewise, there were indications that Britons are losing their virginity earlier than in previous years.
   Among the 65 plus age group, the average age at which virginity was lost was 19, while the average Briton (41%) loses their virginity between the ages of 16 and 17. A third of people in fact lose their virginity before the age of consent.
   Three out of four Britons are satisfied with their sex life. There is very little difference between the genders or age groups in this respect. AGENCIES

 

 

The corporatization of greed

The corporatization of greed

 

SANTOSH DESAI

 

   Could the global economic crisis be an inflection point of some? Is it possible that what global warming could not do, the global meltdown will manage- make us re-think not just our regulations and our institutions but the path that we are choosing to walk down? For India, in particular, standing as it does at the threshold of economic resurgence, is this an opportunity to ask what its destination should be, instead of being thankful that it is relatively protected on account of its regulated past.
   It appears that one of the biggest lessons learnt in the current crisis is that the financial system cannot regulate itself and that left to its own devices it will push outwards without regard for risks. And given the interdependent nature of the world economy, it will suffice if even a couple of large players go for broke and succeed. The idea that selfinterest will create energy that will propel us forward while our institutions act as checks and balances to ensure that this self-interest does not become self-destruction, is a theoretically sound one but one that has been deeply compromised in practice.
   At a more fundamental level, the growth-centric nature of the economic system creates accomplices out of the institutions meant to control it. The regulatory bodies, the experts, the business press all become shrill cheerleaders for growth and implicitly push the case for more growth while muffling other voices. We have seen this in India in the last few years, with a conspiracy of cheer that brooked no bad news. The India story had a momentum of its own, taking on a reality of its own making. We cheered when 4 out of the top 10 richest people were Indian, not asking if there war something deeply wrong with this. In an article written in this column in March of this year, it had been pointed out that it is interesting that we have begun to embrace the riches of a few as our own while shunning the penury of many as belonging to them. The poor today are an electoral fabrication, vestiges of an India we are eager to leave behind.
   The idea of the economy has been exceptionally well marketed; so much so that we conflate our notion of the business sector with that of the Indian economy which in turn in an act of implicit compression becomes shorthand for India. What we call the economy is an abstract construction, a virtual presence with boundaries marked by the self-interest of those in charge of running it. The interests of the millions that lie outside this definition of the economy are a struggle to accommodate and often when steps are taken in this direction, they are labelled populist. So it was wrong to waive off loans for impoverished farmers but it is all right to look sympathetically at the airline industry’s demand for a bail-out. Somehow, the threatened impoverishment of messieurs Goyal & Mallya makes us readier to act than the suicide of a few thousand farmers.
   The idea that the market can be selfregulating has been exposed as being false. The nature of the joint stock corporation makes it uniquely suited to drive a growth-at-any-cost agenda. Structurally, it atomises ownership, accountability and conscience. The widely held joint stock company in its purest form has no single owner, no one human source that we can attach consequences to. Theoretically, everyone has a share and no one is eventually responsible. The goals of a corporation, the driving ambitions that it nurtures are those of a self-sustaining organism. The corporation is its own justification. The idea of nameless and fragmented shareholders whose interests seemingly drive it, allows the corporation license to drive an agenda divorced from any larger social context.
   The reductive nature of the corporation allows it to multiply endlessly- without any sense of the consequences of its actions. The corporation cannot say no, unless the law explicitly requires it to say so. The owned by no one nature of corporations allows a culture to develop where actions do not need to conform to any rules but those developed internally. People can be fired overnight, fantastic exaggerations can be told about the products that it sells and its financial performance can be window dressed without any great self-doubt. The corporation gives a license to people to behave in ways they never would in their personal lives.
   The corporation cannot be trusted to balance larger needs for it has not been designed with that goal in mind. It is like a software program, with its own in-built heuristic, which it gives it great facility in some areas and very little in others. To depend on it to regulate itself is to expect too much from it.
   The opportunity today is to take a hard look not just at how to make the system work better but to ask as to whether we should be working to build a new system altogether. For the current system is not only unstable but unsustainable. But that would need the courage to detach ourselves from the wisdom of others and to try and find our own truth. It will mean making our own mistakes rather than the paying the price of the mistakes of others. I am not sure we are ready to do that just yet.
   santoshdesai1963@indiatimes.com

 

Sons of the soil got raw deal, says Shobhaa De

Sons of the soil got raw deal, says Shobhaa De

New Delhi: MNS chief Raj Thackeray has found another ally for his Marathi cause with novelist Shobhaa De backing his campaign saying the Sons Of The Soil get a ‘raw deal’ in the state when jobs and other opportunities are concerned.
   “I can understand what he is trying to tap into. I can understand the reason why he has succeeded to this extent. He may have tapped into something very real,” De said in a television interview.
   “In fact, it is everybody else first and Maharashtra last. I don’t blame everybody else and I don’t look on them as outsiders. I think Maharashtrians need to do a great deal of inner looking and thinking to figure out why the city’s complexion has changed,” she said.
   Backing Raj Thackeray, the noted author said, “He has a right to speak what he wants to and the same right to challenge and oppose.” Even while asserting that Thackeray was being political, she said,”It seems that it is only in Maharshtra that Marathi people seem to be the last to get jobs”.
   “I am definitely saying Maharashtrians have got a raw deal, which does not mean that I am in any way supporting violence and endorsing what Raj Thackeray stands for. A raw deal also has a lot to do with the Maharashtrian way of not asserting themselves.”
   “They are too laid back and there is a lot of intellectual arrogance. Maharashtrians are not assertive enough at all,” De said. On if it should be compulsory to speak Marathi in Mumbai, De said, “In West Bengal, people speak Bengali, in Karnataka they speak Kannada, in Tamil Nadu, they speak Tamil. Well the disconnect is happening in Mumbai because people think of Mumbai as belonging to all of India.”
   “It is a question of identity. It is happening everywhere, but Mumbai seems to attract a lot of media attention on account of this. The question of identity is hurting deep down,” she said. When asked if she would consider herself to be a Mumbaikar or a Bombayite, De said, “I am an Indian first.” AGENCIES

 

   ‘In fact, it is everybody else first and Maharashtra last. I
   ‘think Maharashtrians need to do a great deal of thinking to figure out why the city’s complexion has changed
Shobhaa De | NOVELIST

 

 

ROAD monopoly

ROAD monopoly

 

Citing profit-making BMTC, the government wants to nationalize all routes in Karnataka. But private operators are pitching for denationalization, promising better services to commuters

 

Rishikesh Bahadur Desai | TNN

 

Bangalore: It is a matter of pride that BMTC is making hay when government-run transport corporations are making losses the world over. Some attribute its success to the near monopoly it enjoys in running buses in the state, and not to efficient management.
   Advocates of free market say competition will give the best service to commuters at competitive prices. But others point out no private transport service provider could match up to BMTC’s record.
   Government officials maintain nationalization has served the purpose of providing cost-effective transport to the people and helped state transport corporations (STUs) recover their costs. Private bus operators, however, say the government has done a disservice to the people by operating a public sector monopoly. And the debate goes on.

BACKGROUND

The Road Transport Corporation, 1950, protects BMTC from competition. This Act by the Centre has enabled all state road transport corporations to enjoy a near monopoly.
   There were some private transport companies in Karnataka just after Independence. But the government took over those companies by using the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act of 1976.
   Most of them were compensated. However, companies whose permits had expired did not get compensation. Today, KSRTC and its offshoots — BMTC that serves Bangalore, NWKRTC operating in the 10 north-western districts and NEKRTC, that runs buses in the five north-eastern districts — cover almost all villages and hamlets with motorable roads. KSRTC and BMTC are making profits while NWKRTC and NEKRTC have significantly reduced their losses over the last decade.

WHAT IS NATIONALIZATION OF ROUTES?

It means some routes are reserved for STUs and therefore, private buses are not allowed to ply on them. Routes in Bangalore and 19 districts are nationalized. The government reserves the right to further nationalization and denationalization.
   The logic behind nationalization is that public transport is a service and not a business. In a welfare state, the government has the responsibility of connecting each village to the nearest highway or main road.
   But no private player will run buses to villages as that would not be profitable. The government has to take full responsibility of rural service through its transport corporations. And to do this, the corporations need to make money from catering to remunerative routes. Or else, public sector corporations will end up in the red.
   A recent example is that of Orissa state transport corporation. It had to stop operations for some time after suffering huge losses. Even today, it has only 100 buses.

PARALLEL SERVICE

This is the principle that allows STUs and private buses to operate on the same routes. The principle behind this is commuters get the best service, as public and private operators compete. This system is being applied in 10 districts in Karnataka.

WHY NATIONALIZATION?

Running buses to small villages and hamlets is not profitable, but the government has to take on the burden as private operators do not wish to share a non-profitable route.
   It is estimated that a transport company needs a remunerative route for every loss-making route in order to operate on a noprofit, no-loss basis. This explains why government-run corporations perform on the principles of commercial prudence.
   Transport minister R Ashok strongly favours nationalization. The present policy is to have 70% nationalized routes, but he wants to make it 100%. “Our model has worked well. Why should we change it?’’ he asked. “There is no question of denationalizing existing routes. On the contrary, we want to have a monopoly of public transport.’’
   The corporation provides free bus passes to school students and subsidized passes to college students worth Rs 120 crore per year. It also issues passes to senior citizens and physically challenged people.
   “We have a fleet of buses that include Airavat (Volvos), air-conditioned Mayuras, Rajahamsas and Grameena Sarige (mini buses). Today, we have the largest fleet of Volvos among state transport undertakings,’’ he said.
   The KSRTC’s breakdown rate is one per one lakh of km and is one of the lowest among STUs in the country. “We also have the lowest accident rates among STUs,’’ he added. “Comparative studies show that BMTC is the only city transport corporation in the world that has consistently made profits. Why should we lose such credit?’’

WHY PRIVATIZATION?

Private operators, however, disagree. The government cannot go on with nationalization for long. It has to open up this space for private investment, says Rajavarma Ballal, president of the state federation of private bus operators. He feels government-run corporations will never be able to invest as much money as needed in the sector, and run as efficiently as they do. “If you need to understand the difference between STUs and private operators, you need to compare the services provided by private operators in districts like Dakshina Kannada and Udupi, and those offered by STUs in fully nationalized districts like Gulbarga and Raichur, he said.
According to him, the government discriminates against private operators. The tax the government levies on KSRTC is different from what it extracts from us, he said.
Ballal said KSRTC and other STUs pay a fraction of their earnings to the government. NWKRTC and NEKRTC have been exempted from tax till they break even. BMTC pays 3% of its earnings as tax and KSRTC pays 5%.
   However, private operators are made to pay advance tax of Rs 550 per seat per quarter, irrespective of whether the bus operates and makes money or not. He said STUs suffer losses due to their inefficiency, but blame it on competition from private operators. “Worse still, the STU staff are bleeding them. They clandestinely own 75% of the 38,000 maxicabs in the state,’’ he said.
He rubbishes the argument that private operators will not ply buses to villages. “Each village with a road is covered by us in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts. No such private operator has ever made losses. If you offer prompt service, people are willing to pay for it,’’ he said. “If they privatize KSRTC and let us run it, we will show them 10-fold profits,” challenges Ballal. Is the state ready for such a challenge?

IN FIGURES

The four STUs have a total of over 20,000 buses

They carry nearly 80 lakh passengers per day

Each bus covers an average of 300 km per day

This means one out of six persons in state boards an STU bus at least once a day



INNOVATIONS

Online booking

Rainwater harvesting in bus stands

Use of biofuel Pongamia oil to reduce fuel costs

De-addiction programme for staff that has been praised by ILO

KSRTC has the best fuel efficiency among STUs

STUs have achieved a turnaround in just eight years

Plans for midway plazas as eateries across the state

Package tours with KSTDC

 

KSRTC has been doing well. Why change the system unnecessarily? Already, there is some attempt to allow private parties. But no effort should be made to denationalize them. P G R Sindhia | FORMER TRANSPORT MINISTER WHO INITIATED THE REFORM PROCESS AND SET THE STAGE OF SPLITTING THE BEHEMOTH INTO REGION-WISE CORPORATIONS IN THE 1990S

 

Agri contribution to State's economy poor

 

 

Agri contribution to State's economy poor

By Asha Krishnaswamy, DH News Service, Bangalore:

Agriculture is the livelihood of most workers of Karnataka. But it has seen sluggish growth over the last one decade. The rapidly declining share of agriculture in the economy and its poor growth prospects indicate its inability to absorb the growing workforce and provide productive opportunities or higher incomes. This is highlighted in the draft - Karnataka - A Vision for Development, prepared by the State Planning Board. The draft was presented recently to the Vision 2020 group headed by CM Yeddyurappa. The sector exhibits low growth of 0.8 per cent but is absorbing a large amount of labour as it still employs about 61 per cent of the workers. This also shows a decline in output per worker and falling labour productivity. The draft says Karnataka's Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has grown at a decent rate of 6% between 1983-84 and 2004-05. But this has not translated into an equally impressive growth in its employment potential. While the share of the State's income has been shifting rapidly away from agriculture, the employment potential of the growing industries and services sectors has not been impressive. Employment in agriculture hardly decreased from 65% to 61% in the period 1993 to 2005, whereas its GSDP contribution halved from 36% to 18%. This means that a disproportionately high number of workers in the State depend on this sector for their livelihood. Moreover, agricultural productivity in Karnataka has not seen any appreciable improvements. Almost one-fourth of the total cultivable area in the State is under ragi, bajra and jowar. But increase in their yields over the past 50 years has been at a compound annual growth rate of only 0.6%, 1.1% and 1.8% respectively. The draft further says around 70% of rural households in the State have land holdings of less than one hectare. The average size of operational holdings has nearly halved from 3.20 ha in 1970-71 to 1.63 ha in 2005-06. In addition, close to half of the land holdings are marginal with an average size of 0.45 ha and their uneconomical size has adverse effects on land productivity. Movement of workers out of agriculture into more productive sectors will help ease pressure on land, improve overall productivity, and increase incomes for those remaining in the sector. The draft gives the example of Korea and Malaysia where agriculture sector took a beating like in the State. Korea's agriculture contributed to 43% of the GDP and 63% of employment in 1963. This has shifted to 3.4% and 7.9% respectively in 2005. Malaysia's agriculture contributed to 43% of the GDP and 63% employment in 1965. This has shifted 8.2% and 13.3% respectively in 2005. These countries have rapidly aligned their employment structure to the shifting nature of GDP composition through policies for equitable distribution of growth including thrust on universal literacy and skill development of the workforce, female education, reduction in poverty etc., and this is what Karnataka should also aspire for. While output per worker in agriculture changed from Rs 14,600 in 1993-94 to Rs 15,000 in 2004-05 (at 1999-2000 prices), it grew at a much faster rate of in services from Rs 58,500 to Rs 1,05,000. If the existing trend continues in sectoral growth and employment absorption, this ratio will increase further and disparities in the State's workforce will worsen.

 

'Is firing labour the only solution for India Inc?'

'Is firing labour the only solution for India Inc?'

There are those who fall under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Shops and Establishments Act and those who don't. These are two Acts under which non-officers and supporting staff cannot be retrenched. The law is very clear that those falling under these workmen's Acts can't be retrenched. Retrenchment can only take place when it comes to the officer cadre in India. That is why industry has been asking for flexibility through a central industries act to enable retrenchment of non-officers as well. Once you hire for three months, you should have the freedom to terminate jobs when you don't require the worker. The other issue is that most states don't give licences under Contract Labour Act to industries. Where there is no licence available under contract labour law, industries are forced to either make a self declaration at the risk of getting caught and fined or fall back on more machines. Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra are coming with separate laws to bring flexibility to their labour laws. When you don't have a job and are offered one under contract, at least you get an opportunity to work. If that opportunity is denied, industry will become capital-intensive. This section needs more flexibility of law as industry is getting more and more capital-intensive. As far as officers are concerned, they get a month's advance notice period when asked to leave. It works both ways. The worker also can give a month's notice and quit and get a better job. In fact the latter is more common than the former. Non-officers cannot be fired as the workers will go to court. But this law can be made flexible only if there is a social security net to cushion employees when the law permits retrenchments. In India, we have no social security system and hence we don't want a hire-and-fire law for non-officers. This is an area which has to be rectified. In the US, when a workman is fired, he gets unemployment insurance for six months and so there is breathing space to find jobs. The US is, in fact, today drowning under asocial security system which makes workers today pay for workers of yesterday. With a decrease in population, it has meant a few supporting the pension costs of many. We have to start off with flexibility of contract law and in the next ten years we should have a good social security system in place. The good thing about contract labour is that it gives jobs. We have 12.5 million people joining the labour force annually and only 2.8 million have formal training. The remaining 10 million can get trained only in a contract job and they can then go up the ladder. If you don't have flexibility in the law to allow companies to remove workmen, industry will depend more on machines as they can't take on any more permanent liability than their capacity. 'If you don't have labour flexibility, firms will just employ more capital and this will hurt the workers whose interests are being protected' Clearly not. But to take the case of the Indian airline industry which is in the news, its fleet must be cut by a fifth but it can't do this unless it also has the right to fire workers AMIT MITRA Secretary General Ficci Some time ago, the Reserve Bank of India did a study and found that workers are not responsible for 60 per cent of the problems with any given company. Problems like mismanagement, embezzlement and government policy took the chunk of the blame for companies running losses. But when an industry becomes sick, it is the worker who gets the axe. The Philadelphia declaration which led to the formation of the International Labour Organisation says labour is not a commodity but even today when MNCs outsource or offshore to other countries, they consider labour the chief commodity. What is happening now is the survival of the fittest which is a jungle law. We want welfare of the weakest which befits the human society. Under Section 25 Clause 5B of the Industrial Disputes Act, if any company with more than 300 workers wants to close and hence retrench or lay off, it has to take permission from the government. They invariably get it. Even this nominal protection measure is being questioned. There is no evidence to prove that this clause has affected investment in India. On the other hand, in 2007, 10 top executives in India earned Rs 193. 85 crore while, according to the Arjun Sengupta Committee report, 77 per cent of people earn just Rs 20 a day in this country. India tops the list of Swiss bank accounts worth $1.4 trillion as per the Tax Jubilee Network 2005. This is black money taken from India. Why not bring it back to India? In public sector banks, non-performing assets are worth Rs 3,00,000 crore and these are companies which have made banks sick. Why not get back all that money? Regulations should help get redistributive justice for everyone. The second Labour Commission had recommended that every retrenched employee get 90 days' salary per year multiplied by the days of service. The law now provides just 15 days' salary. In China, if someone loses his job in sick government units, it is the government's responsibility to provide 50 per cent wages per year till it is able to find him an alternative job. It may apply this to private companies too. If you are a country with a surplus population, throwing you in the Arabian Sea is certainly not a solution. It is a governance issue. The government can't simply wash its hands off this. Profits should be for people and not over people. Surely companies can allow people to sit at home for six months with wages till they get another job? Mahatma Gandhi said that industry is a trust and the employer is a father who should look after workers as his children. Today it is convenient to forget all this ideal of trusteeship. 'There's no evidence that lack of flexibility has hit investment. Also, even the nominal pay for firing workers has been kept at a mere 15 days of wages' HMAHADEVAN Deputy General Secretary AITUC

Marx is back

Marx is back

Hasan Suroor

LONDON: With capitalism in crisis, Karl Marx has become fashionable again in the West. Das Kapital, his seminal work, is set to become a best-seller in Europe.

In his native Germany, copies of Das Kapital are reported to be “flying off the shelves” as failed bankers and free-market economists try to make sense of the global economic meltdown.

Jorn Schutrumpf, head of the Berlin publishing house Dietz, is reported as having said that the sales of the works of Marx, and Friedrich Engels, have trebled. “Marx is fashionable again…We have a new generation of readers who are rattled by the financial crisis and have to recognise that neo-liberalism has turned out to be a false dream,” he told The Times.

A dramatic rise has been reported in the number of visitors to Marx’s birthplace in Trier. And film-maker Alexander Kluge is planning to turn Das Kapital into a movie.

Western leaders who once sneered at Marx’s dense tome, breezily dismissing it as a “doorstop,” have been seen flaunting Das Kapital in recent weeks. French President Nicolas Sarkozi has been spotted “flicking through” it, German Finance Minister Peer Steinbruck has said nice things about it, and even the Pope has praised the book for its “great analytical” quality.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recalled Marx’s analysis of capitalism , saying: “Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves.”

Free-market cheerleaders such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph have become interested in Marx. There has been a wave of soul-searching analyses of whether he was right, after all.