"How long can you stare at your wife?" - this provocative remark by L&T Chairman SN Subrahmanyan advocating a 90-hour workweek has ignited a fierce debate among India's business leaders. While Subrahmanyan pushed for longer working hours, prominent figures like Harsh Goenka responded with sharp criticism, suggesting sarcastically to "rename Sunday to 'Sun-duty.'" The discussion, which follows Narayana Murthy's earlier call for 70-hour workweeks, has drawn varied responses from industry leaders. Gautam Adani offered a nuanced view, stating, "Everyone has their own idea of what work-life balance means," while emphasising the importance of family time.

The recent discourse surrounding work hours and productivity in India has sparked a contentious debate that cuts to the heart of modern labour practices, human well-being, and societal progress. When prominent business leaders and public figures advocate for extended workdays ranging from 70 to 100 hours per week, it represents not merely a suggestion for increased productivity but a fundamental challenge to over a century of labour rights progress and our understanding of human health and social welfare.

Statements from various business leaders promoting excessive work hours reveal a concerning regression in workplace philosophy. The suggestion that 4-5 hours of sleep is sufficient and that eight hours of sleep is somehow "dangerous" stands in stark opposition to established medical science. Sleep researchers and health professionals have consistently demonstrated that adults require 7-9 hours of quality sleep for optimal physical and cognitive function. The dismissal of sleep requirements as a mere inconvenience reflects a dangerous oversimplification of human biology and well-being.

The historical context of the eight-hour workday is crucial to understanding the gravity of these recent pronouncements. The eight-hour day wasn't arbitrarily chosen; it emerged from a long struggle for human dignity in the workplace. The labour movement's rallying cry of "Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and eight hours for what we will" emerged in the early 19th century, gaining momentum through decades of worker activism and scientific research into human productivity and health. The Ford Motor Company's adoption of the eight-hour day in 1926, which resulted in increased productivity and profitability, provided empirical evidence that shorter working hours could benefit both workers and businesses.

When business leaders suggest that employees should work 90-100 hours per week, they are effectively advocating for a return to conditions that existed before the Industrial Revolution's labour reforms. The dismissive attitude toward family time and personal life, exemplified by statements questioning the value of time spent at home with spouses, reveals a concerning devaluation of human relationships and mental health. This perspective reduces workers to mere units of production, ignoring the complex social and emotional needs that make us human.

The invocation of political leaders' work hours as a standard for citizens raises several problematic assumptions. First, it conflates leadership positions, which often involve different types of work and responsibilities, with regular employment. Second, it promotes a dangerous narrative that personal sacrifice to the point of health deterioration is somehow virtuous or patriotic. This rhetoric can create social pressure that makes it difficult for workers to maintain healthy boundaries between their professional and personal lives.

The impact of excessive work hours on human life is well-documented and multifaceted. Sleep deprivation, which would be inevitable under a 90-100 hour work week, has been linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and mental health disorders. Cognitive function deteriorates significantly with lack of sleep, leading to decreased productivity, increased error rates, and higher accident risks. The suggestion that sleep issues merely require psychiatric consultation rather than workplace reform demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between working conditions and health.

The economic arguments for extreme working hours often fail to account for the hidden costs to society. Healthcare expenses, reduced productivity due to burnout and errors, and the social costs of neglected families and communities all contribute to a negative economic impact that may outweigh any short-term productivity gains. The history of labour reforms shows that reasonable working hours actually contribute to sustained economic growth by creating a healthier, more productive workforce and a more stable society.

The dismissal of family time as superfluous reveals a particularly troubling aspect of this philosophy. Strong family and community bonds have been shown to contribute to both individual well-being and societal stability. The suggestion that workers should accept complete alienation from family life as a normal condition of employment represents a regression to industrial-age practices that treated workers as disposable resources rather than human beings with social and emotional needs.

The current push for extended working hours also ignores significant advances in automation and productivity tools that should theoretically reduce the need for longer working hours. This raises questions about the true motivation behind such advocacy. Is it genuinely about increasing productivity, or does it reflect a deeper ideological position about the relationship between employers and employees?

The impact on workplace culture cannot be understated. When influential business leaders promote such extreme working conditions, it can create a toxic environment where overwork becomes normalised and expected. This can lead to discrimination against workers with family responsibilities, health issues, or those who simply prioritise work-life balance. The resulting culture can be particularly harmful to women, who often bear a disproportionate share of family responsibilities.

The historical progression of labour rights has consistently shown that improvements in working conditions, including reasonable hours, lead to better outcomes for both businesses and society. The introduction of the eight-hour day was followed by increases in productivity and innovation. Countries with stronger labour protections and shorter working hours often demonstrate higher productivity per hour worked than those with longer working hours.

The suggestion that business owners are "struggling" due to labour laws reflects a narrow perspective that fails to consider the broader economic and social benefits of worker protection. Well-rested, healthy, and satisfied workers are more likely to be innovative, productive, and loyal to their employers. The history of labour reforms demonstrates that businesses can adapt and thrive under regulations that protect worker well-being.

The current debate also occurs against the backdrop of increasing awareness of mental health issues in the workplace. The dismissal of sleep issues as merely requiring psychiatric intervention rather than addressing the underlying cause of excessive work hours represents a medicalisation of what is fundamentally a social and economic issue. This approach shifts responsibility from organisational practices to individual workers, ignoring the systemic nature of workplace stress and burnout.

Looking forward, the promotion of extreme working hours threatens to undermine progress in workplace reform and human rights. It sets a dangerous precedent that could influence policy decisions and corporate practices, potentially leading to the erosion of labour protections that took generations to establish. The suggestion that workers should simply accept the loss of family time and personal life represents a fundamental misunderstanding of human needs and the purpose of economic activity.

The historical movement toward the eight-hour workday was not merely about limiting working hours; it was part of a broader recognition that workers are human beings deserving of dignity, rest, and personal fulfilment. The current rhetoric promoting excessive working hours challenges these fundamental principles and risks returning us to a period when worker exploitation was normalised.

As society grapples with questions of work-life balance, productivity, and human well-being, it's crucial to remember that economic progress should serve human needs, not the other way around. The history of the eight-hour workday movement teaches us that reasonable working hours are not just about worker comfort; they're about creating a sustainable, healthy, and productive society.

The push for extreme working hours represents a critical juncture in the ongoing dialogue between labour rights and business interests. It challenges us to reaffirm the principles that led to the establishment of the eight-hour workday and to recognise that true progress involves not just economic growth but the enhancement of human dignity and well-being. As we face the future of work, we must ensure that the lessons learned from the history of labour rights continue to inform our policies and practices, creating workplaces that support both productivity and human flourishing.