Pay Panel’s Kindness May Hurt Women
Anuradha Bhasin

One of the most noteworthy comments of the Sixth Pay Commission (SPC) relates to the paucity of women in the central civil services: at present only 7.53 per cent (2,92,000) of central government employees are women (Census of Central Government Employees, 2001). Clearly more women need to be inducted into the bureaucracy, and many of the Sixth Pay Commission's prescriptions for this are commendable. Acknowledging that working women in India have onerous responsibilities outside work, especially in the absence of reliable formal childcare facilities and pension provisions, pay commissions in the past have proposed measures to help women balance work and home responsibilities. These include maternity leave, crèche and day-care facilities at the workplace, and enhanced education allowances.
As an extension of these facilities, the Sixth Pay Commission proposes flexible working hours for women, but a core period of attendance during the day. Thus women can choose to work early or late, depending on their domestic requirements, as long as they attend office from 11 am to 4 pm.
Flexible work timings are a boon for working women: some control over their work hours would enable them to perform their jobs more efficiently and productively, apart from encouraging more to enter the workforce. This is also true of the recommendation that gives working mothers with disabilities a monthly allowance of Rs 1,000 (US$1=Rs 40) for each child till the age of two, and should hopefully encourage more women with disabilities to apply for government jobs.
Another significant recommendation is that disciplinary action should be taken against government employees under the Service Conduct Rules if found guilty of violating the Domestic Violence (Prevention) Act, a course that will one hopes be adopted by other organisations.
In fact, one of the major outcomes of women-friendly work environments proposed by the pay commission is the multiplier effect it has on other organisations. The central government works as a benchmark, from which many others take their workplace cues.
It is in the area of leave relating to childcare and maternity that the SPC may have gone overboard. At present, regular women employees of the central government can take up to 135 days maternity leave for each of two children, and a year's leave in continuation of maternity leave. Maternity leave has been extended to 180 days, and leave that can be tagged onto maternity leave has been increased to two years.
Even if the continuation leave is without pay, the overall leave package is far more generous than that offered by even the most liberal country, Canada, which allows a year's paid maternity leave for working mothers. Under the new recommendations, a working mother with two children can take up to five years leave from work without losing any benefits. So, if these women are working efficiently, there is no doubt that long gaps from work will reduce their efficiency and productivity in the workplace, or increase costs if their place is taken by others. In addition, the commission has introduced another form of leave - childcare leave, which working mothers can take to look after their children. All women employees with minor children can take off from work for up to two years (730 days) to take care of 'up to two children,' whether it is 'to bring them up or look after their needs including examinations and sickness.' This can be extended to a third year. However, it is not clear whether the three years of childcare leave applies for each child or for both children. Even if it applies to both children, the combination of maternity and childcare leave would effectively mean that these working mothers can take off from work for eight years, without any loss of seniority or benefits. If the childcare leave were to apply to each child, then this becomes a staggering 11 years' leave.
When one adds this on to various other forms of leave that some categories of central government employees are entitled to, like study leave or leave to go on deputation outside the government, it would seem almost inevitable that the new rules actually work to women's detriment: they may not be given challenging assignments, or those with any serious responsibility. Further, childcare leave that only women can avail of discriminates against male single parents, who also have childcare responsibilities, quite apart from other employees - male and female - who may have elderly parents or other responsibilities for which they need to take time off.
By making all childcare-related leave accessible only to mothers, there is a subtle message that the government as a model employer may not want to perpetuate: that all child-related responsibilities are that of the woman. A more gendered approach would be to allow either parent to take extended maternity (paternity) and childcare-related leave, so that both parents can share the childcare responsibilities. And the most equitable strategy would be to allow a certain amount of leave equally to all government employees, male, female, parents or not, to use as they wish - whether on study, to look after a family member, or to take up an assignment elsewhere. And if the objective is to reduce the burden on working women (and attract more of them into the government fold) it is important to implement a major recommendation of the last pay commission that most departments have ignored: to set up daycare centres and crèches in offices. This reduces the childcare burden and allows either parent to keep an eye on their small children.
One of the demands made by women to the SPC is that restrooms be provided at the workplace - which makes one suspect that all government offices still do not have toilet facilities for women. Another prior recommendation that seems to have been forgotten is providing accommodation for single women in the form of working women's hostels to ease their initial years of service. Unlike the 'soft' recommendations of extended leave, these are more difficult to implement, but if the government is to serve as a 'model employer' these are no less important. (Courtesy: Women's Feature Service)