The defence by the Larsen and Toubro (L&T) HR head was swift and clear: Don’t twist “casual” remarks into something bigger than they are. She was responding to the furore over the L&T MD and Chairman’s comments — “I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays, to be honest” and “…how long can you stare at your wife?”
The MD got one thing right: His male employees contribute little to domestic chores on weekends, or any other time they’re not in the office. Their children are raised, fed, tended to when they are ill or need attention, shuttled to lessons, supported in school, and their elderly parents cared for. Social obligations (birthdays, anniversaries, religious events) are met, where they show up if their schedule permits, homes are cleaned and maintained. The list goes on.
His point was simple: Instead of lounging around at home, why not come to the office and help boost turnover? What’s the problem with that? One could argue that men earn the family income, so it is only fair that they are exempt from domestic duties. After all, they deserve rest to recharge and keep earning.
There are two problems with this. First, perhaps their wives would also like to join the paid workforce, but they can’t due to the overwhelming domestic workload, or worse: Their wives work both in office and at home. Indian women, on average, spend 10 times as much time on domestic chores and care work as men — India leads the world in this gap. In some states, the disparity is even higher (Haryana at 17X, Gujarat at 14X). This gap holds across all demographics — age, rural/urban, education, and social class. Even wealthier women, who can hire help for the housework, are still primarily responsible for getting it done.
This imbalance in unpaid domestic labour is the flip side of the gender disparity in paid work. Despite rising female labour force participation, it remains stark — only four women for every 10 men are in the workforce.
The only groups with the lowest gender gap in domestic work are uneducated women and those in the bottom 25 per cent of the income distribution pyramid. These women often work in precarious, poorly paid jobs that can stretch over 90 hours a week, without job security or benefits, but their husbands, also in equally precarious jobs, help out more. So, for L&T and other corporations pushing 70–90 hour work weeks, India’s vast informal sector demonstrates that long hours don’t necessarily translate into greater productivity.
To be fair, the MD was addressing his employees, not informal workers. This leads us to the second point: Whether you’re a man in an office job or a woman at home, rest and recuperation are crucial. Our gadgets don’t function if their batteries are drained, and neither can humans. Also, within the company, do hours worked translate into equivalent rewards? L&T’s latest report notes that managerial salaries rose by 20.38 per cent, while worker salaries grew by just 1.74 per cent, largely due to higher profits and increased commissions for management. This is a lose-lose scenario. Employees work 70–90 hours a week like hamsters on a wheel, while their salary increases lag behind inflation, and gender inequality persists or worsens — at home and in the workplace.
Remuneration is not even the key issue here. There are extremely well-paying jobs (such as the MD’s own) that demand substantial time commitments, often at the exclusion of everything else. Nobel laureate Claudia Goldin highlights a critical problem with this model. She discusses the phenomenon of “greedy” jobs, which offer massive wage premiums but require long work hours, networking, late-night meetings, and frequent travel — extra inputs beyond the regular workday that often result in landing coveted contracts and closing high-profile deals. In a family with two working parents and children, only one parent can afford to take on this kind of demanding, high-powered job. The other is relegated to the “mommy track” — handling the kids’ school, homework, sports, music lessons, doctor visits, and everything else that comes with raising a family.
The “mommy track” parent doesn’t have to be the mother, but most often is. This dynamic creates a significant pay gap between men and women, even among highly educated individuals, because the man stays in the “greedy” job, while the woman is on the “mommy track”. The result is that women’s career progression is often stunted, and the gender wage gap is further entrenched.
Instead of glorifying long hours, we need to reframe the conversation — more sustainable work schedules, fair compensation, and genuine equity are the key to both productivity and a more balanced society. It’s crucial that we recognise the value of well-being and family life in fostering a thriving workforce. A truly productive workforce doesn’t burn out; it thrives on balance, not exhaustion. The goal should be a society where both men and women can achieve professional success without sacrificing their health, family, or personal time. Only then can we unlock the full potential of all workers, regardless of gender, and create an equitable, prosperous future.
The writer is professor of economics and founder director, CEDA, Ashoka University. Views are personal
