Royal Commission on Labour in India: Report(1929)||
The problem has been aggravated by the tendency to concede the demand that seamen should be employed in rotation in order to
secure an equitable distribution of the available employment. This, if carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that no seaman could be allowed to remain in employment for any long period as he would thereby deprive another of his turn. Indeed, one of the demands put forward by the Indian Seamen's Union was that no seamen should be allowed to continue in employment for a period of more than 12 months at a time. We sympathise with the desire of the union to secure equal chances of employment for all its members, but the principle of rotation which is advocated by them is not in the true interests of the men, at any rate so long as they are as numerous as is the case to-day. In Bombay, where most effort has been made to follow this principle, the evils of unemployment have not diminished. A rigid system of rotation, combined with the limitation of the period of continuous employment, would mean that no seaman could hope to be employed for more than one year out of every three or four. Such a policy would make every seaman an inefficient and starved worker. It would also react unfairly on those who, by their industry and diligence, would otherwise secure reasonably continuous employment.