Economists say that if casualisation increases the earning of the people, such phenomenon should be welcomed. Suppose a marginal farmer becomes a full-time agricultural labourer, do you think he will be happy even if he earns more in his daily wage work? Or will a permanent and regular worker of the pharmaceutical industry be happy if he becomes a daily wage labourer, even if his or her overall earnings increase? Discuss in the classroom.
While economists suggest that increased earnings through casualisation might be welcomed, the quality of employment is a critical factor that affects a worker's well-being. A marginal farmer becoming a full-time labourer or a permanent worker becoming a daily wager might earn more, but they lose essential security.
The context highlights that casual wage labourers are the most vulnerable among workers. Unlike regular salaried employees, they often lack access to maternity benefits, provident fund, gratuity, and pension. Even if daily wages increase, the absence of these social security measures makes their future uncertain.
Furthermore, the process of moving from self-employment or regular employment to casual work is termed casualisation of workforce. This phenomenon leads to a deterioration in the quality of employment. A permanent pharmaceutical worker values job security and long-term benefits, which a daily wage role cannot provide. Thus, higher earnings do not necessarily equate to happiness if the worker becomes highly vulnerable to instability.
Explanation
The textbook context emphasizes that casual wage labourers are the 'most vulnerable' and that the quality of employment has been 'deteriorating' over the years. It specifically lists the lack of benefits like provident fund and pension as reasons why workers might not be happy despite potential wage increases. The answer integrates these points to argue against the sole reliance on earnings as a metric for happiness, highlighting the importance of job security and social benefits mentioned in the text.