
‘No time for life': Andhra Pradesh's new 10-hour work rule slammed by employees
The Andhra Pradesh government has decided to raise the maximum working hours from nine to 10 per day in a move that has led to outrage and backlash on social media. This decision from the TDP-led NDA government in Andhra Pradesh will allow private companies and factories to increase their maximum working hours to 10 per day, up one hour from the earlier nine. The decision to increase working hours from 9 to 10 has drawn criticism (Representational image) {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
As per a PTI report, the Information and Public Relations (I&PR) Minister K Parthasarathy said that it has been decided to amend labour laws to make them 'favourable' to workers and investors.
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}}
However, workers on social media struggled to see how increased working hours would be 'favourable' for them. The move has also drawn the ire of trade unions, Criticism of 10 hours per day policy {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}}
On social media, users said that increased work hours would benefit only business owners at the cost of employees. Many were of the opinion that private companies would implement 10 hours as mandatory policy, further affecting work-life balance. {{/usCountry}}
{{#usCountry}}
On social media, users said that increased work hours would benefit only business owners at the cost of employees. Many were of the opinion that private companies would implement 10 hours as mandatory policy, further affecting work-life balance. {{/usCountry}}
{{^usCountry}}
'Good for financial growth. What about mental health? 10 hrs work, 2 hrs travelling, 8 hrs sleep, you have to do everything in left 4 hours,' wrote X user Ankit. {{/usCountry}}
{{#usCountry}}
'Good for financial growth. What about mental health? 10 hrs work, 2 hrs travelling, 8 hrs sleep, you have to do everything in left 4 hours,' wrote X user Ankit. {{/usCountry}}
{{^usCountry}}
'So the Andhra Pradesh govt thinks longer hours = better productivity? No, it means exploitation. More hours, same pay, worse lives. Workers deserve dignity, not burnout,' X user Supriya opined. {{/usCountry}}
{{#usCountry}}
'So the Andhra Pradesh govt thinks longer hours = better productivity? No, it means exploitation. More hours, same pay, worse lives. Workers deserve dignity, not burnout,' X user Supriya opined. {{/usCountry}}
{{^usCountry}}
Several people said the move will lead to overworked employees who have no time to spend with family. {{/usCountry}}
{{#usCountry}}
Several people said the move will lead to overworked employees who have no time to spend with family. {{/usCountry}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
'9 hours of working itself was a lot and they still increased it. Overworking your employees has tickled down effects, people will have no time to spend with their families. AP fertility rate is already falling rapidly & you're disincentivizing people from having/raising kids,' an X user said. {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
Others noted how maximum working hours in parts of India are already more than the global average of 8 hours per day.
'The Government is hand in glove with the corrupt corporations that want to exploit cheap labour,' a user said.
Dozens of people wondered whether increased working hours would come with an accompanying pay raise. What the AP government says
"Because of this (amendments to labour laws), investors in factories will (come to our state). These labour rules will be favourable for labourers and they will come to invest more. Globalisation is happening in every state. These amendments were brought to implement global rules," said Minister K Parthasarathy. {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}} {{^userSubscribed}}
{{^usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{#usCountry}} {{/usCountry}} {{/userSubscribed}}
Further, the minister observed that the cabinet has also relaxed night shift rules to enable more women to work in the night shifts.
According to the I&PR Minister, women were not allowed to work in the night shifts earlier but now they can work with safeguards such as consent, transport facility, security and surveillance. Opposition slams move
Meanwhile, K Ramakrishna, State Secretary of CPI, opposed the NDA alliance government's stand on labour laws amendments. He alleged that the Central and state governments are working against the interests of workers.
"For the past 11 years, the Modi government has repeatedly taken measures that infringe upon workers' rights in India," Ramakrishan told PTI on Saturday.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Scroll.in
26 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Collegium system imperfect but preserves ‘judiciary's autonomy', says Supreme Court judge
The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant has said that the collegium system of appointing judges, despite its imperfections, serves as a 'crucial institutional safeguard' and preserves the judiciary's autonomy, The Indian Express reported on Sunday. Kant, who is slated to become the next chief justice of India, said that the collegium system 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality,' the newspaper reported. Under the collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, decide on the appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. Speaking at Seattle University in the United States on June 4, Kant acknowledged that the system has faced criticism, especially on the lack of publicly articulated criteria for selecting judges. However, he said that 'recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it'. In 2022, the Supreme Court Collegium had published detailed documentation of its deliberations on selecting five judges. Since October 2017, the Collegium has also been publishing its resolution on the court's official website. Kant also said that the 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion'. He also said that some phases of institutional strain 'particularly during the Emergency' eventually 'gave way to renewed judicial consciousness'. In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has been selectively appointing judges recommended for elevation to the bench by the Supreme Court collegium, which has allowed the Union government to exercise a veto over judicial appointments. The executive and the judiciary have been in a tug-of-war regarding appointments to higher judiciary in recent years. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have repeatedly criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, contending that it is opaque. In 2014, the BJP-led government had introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act with the objective of making appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts 'more broad-based, transparent, accountable and bringing objectivity in the system'. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act had proposed to make judicial appointments through a body consisting of the chief justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister and two other eminent persons nominated by the chief justice, the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional.


Economic Times
34 minutes ago
- Economic Times
DMK not afraid of 'ordinary persons' like Modi, Shah: A Raja
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The DMK was not afraid of "ordinary persons" like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah and has a "counter-ideology" to that of the BJP that would ensure the saffron party doesn't gain a foothold in Tamil Nadu, senior party leader A Raja said here on a press conference here in response to Amit Shah's criticism of the ruling DMK in Madurai on Sunday, Raja claimed the BJP veteran's remarks on various issues were "blatant lies, disgusting and divisive."The Lok Sabha MP asserted that the BJP cannot gain a foothold in Tamil Nadu, where Assembly polls are due next year, unlike Delhi or Maharashtra since the Dravidian ideology was a counter to the saffron one."How did (AAP chief) Arvind Kejriwal come to power (in Delhi)-- he only opposed corruption, did he have an ideology, were there leaders behind are not afraid of Amit Shah and Modi-- after all, they are ordinary persons. The political ideology behind them is invading everywhere and winning, but why is it unable to win here. Because we have an alternative to that ideology," he said referring to the Dravidian philosophy."As long as Dravidian ideology is there, they cannot gain foothold in Tamil Nadu. We are not Delhi, Maharashtra and Haryana. We are Tamil Nadu, we are Dravidam, (BJP) cannot come here," he on Sunday asserted that the NDA would form governments in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal next year and targeted the DMK regime in the state by firing fresh "corruption" salvos, including the Rs 4,600 crore sand mining scam. BJP is part of the AIADMK-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) in Tamil Raja said the DMK can disprove Shah "word-by-word," on whatever he spoke in Madurai, the people of Tamil Nadu will not accept such things from the BJP leader."His remarks don' suit his office of Union Home minister. To put in a nutshell whatever he spoke, they were blatant lies, disgusting and divisive," Raja union minister made "baseless charges," against the ruling dispensation, he said."TN Chief Minister M K Stalin has ensured law and order and despite central funds being not available on many occasions, has implemented growth schemes from state funds quickly and unable to digest this, the Centre and the BJP brought Shah to Tamil Nadu," he also lashed out at the Centre over issues including the proposed census and the Centre approving a caste census, he recalled the BJP's earlier opposition to it and criticism of those demanding such an enumeration and wondered why it has changed its stand the BJP's upcoming conference on Lord Muruga in Madurai, Raja claimed it was being held with the intention of creating communal rift and derive political mileage out of that.


Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's ICE war spills onto streets: Where's the US headed?
The Los Angeles riots might remind some people of the movie 'Civil War', released last year, which portrayed a near-future America descending into chaos as political divisions erupt into violent conflict. In both the film and the current real-world unrest, Los Angeles becomes a central battleground, symbolizing the breakdown of national unity and the erosion of institutional authority, albeit the current LA riots are more public disorder than a civil war. Just as the movie imagined journalists navigating a fractured, war-torn country with clashing factions and crumbling norms, today's scenes of ICE raids, violent protests and open defiance by state leaders of federal authority evoke the possibility that America's divisions may no longer be merely political but becoming existential. On Sunday, California National Guard troops were deployed in LA to help contain a third consecutive day of protests. These demonstrations, sparked by the Trump administration's intensification of immigration enforcement actions, have turned violent in parts of the city. As federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted high-profile raids, protesters, many of them illegal immigrants, took to the streets in resistance. What began as demonstrations quickly escalated into confrontations with law enforcement, property damage and street blockades. In response, President Donald Trump defended the federal crackdown and warned he might invoke the Insurrection Act , a rarely used 1807 statute that permits the president to deploy active-duty military forces within US borders in times of rebellion or unrest. Meanwhile, California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom called the National Guard deployment 'unlawful,' highlighting the widening rift between state and federal authority, particularly in Democratic-led states. Play Video Pause Skip Backward Skip Forward Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration 0:00 Loaded : 0% 0:00 Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 1x Playback Rate Chapters Chapters Descriptions descriptions off , selected Captions captions settings , opens captions settings dialog captions off , selected Audio Track default , selected Picture-in-Picture Fullscreen This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Text Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Caption Area Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Opacity Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Drop shadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The 15 Most Beautiful Beaches On Earth Kingdom Of Men Learn More Undo A nation divided over illegal immigrants At the heart of this confrontation lies a deep and enduring ideological divide over immigration. For Trump and his supporters, enforcing immigration law, particularly through aggressive ICE raids, represents a non-negotiable commitment to national sovereignty and public safety. The Trump administration has long argued that failure to enforce immigration laws undermines the rule of law, burdens public resources and jeopardizes national security . The recent crackdown, Trump claims, is a necessary escalation to restore order and signal the administration's seriousness about deporting those in the country illegally. Yet to Trump's critics, chiefly Democratic leaders and immigrant rights groups, the tactics are viewed as not just heavy-handed but morally wrong. Many argue that these policies target vulnerable families, disrupt communities, and fan the flames of xenophobia. Cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco have declared themselves " sanctuary cities ", where local officials refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, setting up legal and ethical clashes over jurisdiction and responsibility. Live Events The protests, though initially peaceful, have increasingly featured militant rhetoric and violent outbursts, which Republican leaders cite as evidence of lawlessness and the failure of progressive leadership. Democratic leaders, in contrast, view the federal response as an authoritarian overreach. A crisis in the making What makes the current situation particularly volatile is that it sits at the intersection of legal, political and social turmoil. The use of the Insurrection Act is exceedingly rare, historically reserved for exceptional breakdowns in civil order (such as the 1992 Los Angeles riots). If invoked now, it would mark one of the most dramatic assertions of federal power in modern American history. This raises profound questions: Can the president override the will of state governors under the pretext of enforcing immigration law? What are the limits of state resistance in a federalist system? And how far are protesters, and their political defenders, willing to go to oppose ICE operations? Already, there are indications that this conflict could spread to other cities. Sanctuary cities across the US, from Chicago to New York to Seattle, may become flashpoints if ICE expands its efforts. Mass protests, street violence and counter-protests could spiral into wider unrest. If National Guard deployments become more common and federal troops are introduced under the Insurrection Act, America could face a level of domestic militarization not seen since the civil rights era. Immigration is no longer a policy issue. It has become an existential question about what kind of country the US wants to be. For those on the right, this is a battle for national security and integrity of the country. For those on the left, it is a fight for human rights and a more inclusive society. The perception that one party is enabling lawlessness while the other is enabling authoritarianism leaves little room for compromise. In the given situation, America might be heading into a future where lines could blur between legal protest, civil disobedience and outright rebellion The Trump administration's doubling down on immigration enforcement is one of the key promises Trump had made to his base, but violent resistance to federal agencies can light a fuse in several cities. Democratic leaders' refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities may earn praise from progressives, but it also challenges federal supremacy in matters of immigration and law enforcement. If neither side backs down, the result could be a season of violent protest, federal-state standoffs, and courtroom battles that test the limits of the constitution. The consequences of such a showdown will shape the upcoming midterm election.