Menstruation leave: Beyond the noise

Being biologically designed by the Creator to inherit the Y chromosome, I will never experience “that day of the month.” Nevertheless, this sudden interest by companies across India (the pioneer being Culture Machine, followed by Mathrubhumi News, Gozoop, and Magzter) in announcing menstruation leaves (variously titled) for their women employees has roused my interest to research its history. I was even more intrigued, when Sheetal Mhatre, a Shiv Sena Corporator of the Bruhan Mumbai Corporation claimed that she had moved a notice that one-day menstruation leave be discussed and a resolution passed. There are definite hidden motives when politicians take up private causes! So ladies, despite the brouhaha on the “understanding nature” displayed by these firms, yet history points to a different story. The story of power and protectionism.

The game of power

According to author Alice J. Dan (College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago), Menstruation leave (seirikyuuku) found its mention during the 1920s in the labour discourse in Japan. Since women in early Japanese firms were mostly young and unmarried, menstruation leave was valued more than the maternity leave. Added to this, the relative lack of sanitary conditions in factories made coping with menstruation a very challenging affair. This challenge increased manifold, especially in the transportation sector, where women were the first to demand menstruation leave. However, it was only during the American occupation of Japan in the aftermath of World War II that saw menstruation leave being formally mentioned in the Labour Standards Law (1947). The Americans insisted its inclusion after observing the pitiable working conditions in the factories. According to the law, any woman worker can take leave during menstruation in either of the two conditions (1) if a woman suffers heavily from menstruation, making it hard to work, or (2) if the work itself is injurious to her body during menstruation. Interestingly there was no mention of any specific number of days or whether the leave would be paid or unpaid. Its simplistic nature thus puts many companies in loggerheads with their women employees.

The women labour unions were quick to use this as a fulcrum for organizing women. They also called for a broader interpretation of menstrual leave, often arguing that menstruation being the barometer for fertility, every woman must be allowed to avail this leave irrespective of the symptoms. This they contended, is in the interest of protecting the future of motherhood. Miffed, the employers deemed it as the abuse of law and hence resorted to harassment (often bordering on discriminatory work practices) of women taking these leaves. Since there was little proof on whether the woman in question was in her monthly cycle, to leverage their loss of control and power, firms used it as an argument against providing women equal positions as men. Needless to say, pay discrimination also surfaced. The issue became so heated that the Govt. of Japan even mulled about revoking the law to restore equality in workplaces. However, the women group were against it with the controversy unending.
Menstrual leave in current times is captured by Article 68 of Labour Standards Law that reads, “When a woman for whom work during menstrual periods would be especially difficult has requested leave, the employer shall not employ such woman on days of the menstrual period” (as mentioned in ILO).

A source of protection

In the 1920s, one more region on the Earth also initiated a discourse over menstrual leaves, albeit for a different reason. Milanie Ilic, Professor of Soviet history at the University of Gloucestershire discusses this in a very interesting piece of research. With excessive labour protectionism guaranteed under the New Economic Policy (1921) proposed by Vladimir Lenin, the inclusion of women in industrial work was resisted in Russia. E.g. in 1922, it was published that women undergo physical changes during menstruation and hence must be kept away from all industrial substances, failing which their blood stream might get infected, as well as their reproductive organs might get damaged. Therefore it was advised that women might be extended complete physical and psychological rest during such time. The All Russian Trade Union-Soviet (VTsPS) in light of these recommendations, examined the garment industry where one-third of the women workers complained of discomfort in the abdomen during their monthly cycle. Accordingly, a decree of VTsPS passed on 11th Jan. 1922 permitted women worker a two-day leave at the beginning of their periods upon production of a medical certificate. Further, it was recommended that the length of time between two consecutive cycles of leave must be at least 21 days. During such time, the afflicted women would be paid an average of her monthly earnings without deduction.

This obviously alarmed the organizations and reinforced the belief that the efficiency of women was not consistent in a month. Additionally every girl today was a mother-in-waiting, the time of which being uncertain, would make the organizations’ search-and-train-a-replacement option very costly. However, with the enactment of the First Five Year Plan (1928) by Joseph Stalin, the State found more merit in women being a participant in social construction than in being a mother. So a discourse on retraction of such leaves originated, resulting in increased employment of women. However, the Bolsheviks soon realized that they need to populate their country, which saw hordes of people wiped out thanks to Russian Civil War (1918). Thus, instead of complete retraction, the rules on menstrual leaves were modified. Such leaves were limited to women who suffered pain, confirmed by a local clinic or a factory doctor. Further, the leaves would be treated as sick leaves.

So why in India?

It must be clear now that the motive of industry/state to launch menstruation leaves historically is either to regulate demands or protect (women) resources [for future human resources]. In no ways do such leaves serve the cause of gender parity. Rather they definitely put women either on a path of confrontation or heralds a perception that identifies them as weaklings. Thus it will be detrimental to Indian women employees/workers if such isolated actions of organizations are taken up seriously under the garb of progressiveness to convert them to concrete policies.
It must be understood that menstruation leaves were a reaction to unhygienic work conditions, especially in the manufacturing sector. Many of the workplaces today in the country incur additional cost willingly to make their employees feel good at work. A “no questions asked” leave (paid or otherwise) that recurs every month, will only add on to the cost and mistrust and will posit itself as a possible deterrent to hiring women in the long term. Rather a better policy would be allowing individuals (including women) to work from the comforts of their homes, any day irrespective of their physical condition. Presence in office, unless mandated by the nature of the work, can be minimized. Further, fewer but specific milestones can be envisioned keeping in mind the project end goal, thereby demanding lesser visits to workplaces. In the days of virtual organizations and superior communication technologies, the office is a mobile phenomenon.

However, the bigger question is what prompted the mentioned companies to offer such leaves? I believe its hunger for reputation (a form of power again!), which in turn will help them distinguish from their competitors. An inferable trait among all the companies announcing such leaves is that they are aged between 4-7 years. With the initial optimism on many Indian startups slowly eroding away, this could be a method to up one’s market value. What better branding than a word-of-mouth (and a viral Youtube video)? When the buzz never dies, the inflow of money will never dry. The question is whether the women are aware that they are possibly used as pawns in this war for eyeballs and funds?

The researcher Alice J. Dan found that over the years in Japan, the number of women availing “period leaves” has gone down considerably (roughly 13% applied for such leaves in 1981), barring the sectors of communication and transportation (48% applied for such leaves in 1981). Possibly it provides us a clue as to who could be the real beneficiaries of these leaves if instituted in the country.

And last, regarding the part of sensitizing the men in the office on women’s problem, it may be remembered that education/sensitization, just like charity, begins at home. Such education may be initiated with brothers and fathers and may be carried over to husbands. The family should be the crucible of such information exchange. The workplace would naturally reflect this educated mindset. The most workplace could do is test this during the hiring interview!

References
1. Dan. A. J (1986). The law and women’s bodies: The case of menstruation leave in Japan. Health Care for Women International, 7(1-2): 1- 14
2. Ilic, M. (1994). Soviet women workers and menstruation: a research note on labour protection in the 1920s and 1930s. Europe-Asia Studies, 46(8): 1409 – 1415