Women’ employment has fallen during the pandemic. Also, the quality of that employment has declined.
In this context, here is an argument why not all women may benefit from the work from home (WFH) option being demanded by various quarters post the pandemic.
How is post-pandemic women workforce participation?
Even before the pandemic, women’s participation in the workforce has always been low compared to the men’s.
Only 9% of all women of working age were employed compared to 67% of men of working age.
Now, the pandemic has hit women harder than men.
Though only 11% of the workforce in 2019-20, they suffered 13% of the job losses in April 2020.
To note, most women lost more of the top end jobs in the organised sector.
They had to make up by taking jobs in the informal and gig economy.
Urban, educated women’s employment declined more than that of rural women.
The rural women continued to find work in the fields and on MGNREGA.
But there too, women’s participation has decreased, not only due to Covid-19, but also due to other economic and social factors.
The boom in college and school going girls, especially in urban areas, has not been translated into a demographic dividend for the economy.
Has it improved after the lifting of the lockdown?
The job market has recovered somewhat in January 2021 with women’s employment increasing by 11.9 million.
But the new employment is mostly in the lower end construction and agriculture sectors.
Women’s employment in the better paid manufacturing and service industries has not recovered to previous levels.
The most-expected urban version of the MGNREGA which could have provided jobs for low income women was not included in the recent Budget.
Why is WFH option being demanded?
The pandemic has necessitated the trend of working from home (WFH).
This has offered some hope for women’s employment.
The reasons are saving of costs on office space, commuting costs, costs of meeting and so on.
It is argued that WFH is likely to increase women’s participation.
This is because it can allow more women to combine their domestic duties with office work more seamlessly.
This can also help overcome the cultural concerns of women’s safety at the workplace and en route.
Even before the lockdown, companies were outsourcing parts of the production to women who worked from home.
E.g. Titan was outsourcing the production of watch parts, such as straps or dials to women or women’s groups.
What are the shortcomings with this?
Working from home might not be the best way to empower women.
In any case it applies only to urban women in the organised sector.
Neither agricultural work where women are employed to work in the fields, nor MGNREGA work can be done from home.
The same applies to the work of Anganwadi or ASHA workers whose main responsibility is interaction with their charges.
Nor will WFH positively affect women employed in the unorganised sector, working from home on craft production, handlooms, or selling vegetables etc. and the like.
Though WFH or outsourcing may enable women to increase their income it will not empower them.
Outsourced work can be exploitative since women cannot unionise or even resort to collective action.
Being confined to the home and juggling domestic chores and paid work throughout the day is neither stimulating nor empowering for women.
It only imposes a double burden.
What is a better way forward?
Women need to leave the confines of their home.
They must meet other work related people for their own mental and physical well being.
Careers too are advanced through the networks formed during the work.
Professional women at the higher end who prefer WFH may be able to periodically go to their workplaces or keep in touch with colleagues online.
But this is not the case for lower end workers.
For them, a model such as the Lijjat Papad cooperative is better.
There, the women come together at a central place to collect raw materials and deliver the finished product. The actual production is done at home.
It is a model which also allows for introduction of PPF (Public Provident Fund), health checks, or group insurance benefits.
In all, WFH may certainly increase women’s participation in the organised urban labour force.
However, it may not be the case with all women, especially in the unorganised sector or lower end works.
The end of the pandemic could thus see a mix of WFH and regular working.
