Adarsh Samalopanan, a vice president at Yes Bank, added a personal twist to the growing debate over L&T’s 90-hour workweek controversy.
Sharing an anecdote about his roommate’s job interview with L&T, Samalopanan revealed how even a passion like basketball became a dealbreaker in the company’s hiring process.
During campus placements, his friend faced a tough dilemma when the interviewer asked, “If you promise to quit basketball and devote all your time to studies, I’ll hire you.”
His friend, who was the captain of his college basketball team, confidently replied, “Sir, don’t you think that by keeping myself healthy through sports, I’ll be able to deliver long-term for the team?” He added that sports taught him to deliver results within tight deadlines—valuable skills for a role at L&T.
Despite his reasoning, Samalopan’s friend was rejected. Years later, reflecting on the interview amid the 90-hour workweek row, he joked, “Bhai, I should have told them I’d quit basketball and work even on Sundays.”
The central trade unions (CTUs) on Tuesday condemned the statement made by Larsen & Toubro (L&T) chairman S.N. Subrahmanyan, who advocated extending work hours to 90 hours per week and suggested employees work on Sundays instead of “staring at their wives” at home.
While L&T later clarified that the statement reflected a broader ambition to develop India, it sparked widespread criticism from various groups, including women’s rights activists, for its tone and implications on work-life balance.
The Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) compared Mr. Subrahmanyan’s remarks to Infosys founder N.R. Narayana Murthy’s earlier suggestion of a 70-hour workweek, calling it part of a “rogue competition” among corporate leaders to exploit workers.
CITU general secretary Tapan Sen criticized the proposal, highlighting its negative impact on workers’ health and social lives, especially as Indian employees already work longer hours than those in countries like China, Europe, and the U.S. Former Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh leader Virjesh Upadhyay also condemned the statement, calling it contradictory to the principles of human dignity and work-life balance. He questioned the fairness of such measures coming from individuals earning significantly more than the average worker, emphasizing the need for equitable and humane working conditions.