NationStates Jolt Archive

Some people are totally oblivious, and some people are somewhat aware, but mostly uninformed. Sweat-shop labour, child-labour...these words conjure images of suffering in third world countries, and generally illicit pity. But the issues are more complex than they appear.

In some cases, poor working conditions are the ONLY option to utter poverty and starvation. Anti-sweat campagins have on occasion had the unfortunate effect of removing ANY source of income from certain regions. While most of us can agree that poor labour standards should not be encouraged, we do need to understand that our efforts as activists may have unintended and negative results. (one such example is women and children pushed into the sextrade when multinationals relocate due to activist pressure...surely a result that no activist would have wanted)

Child labour is another issue that many Westerners condemn completely...but not all child labour is exploitation, and completely banning it sometimes puts families at more risk, instead of less.

Unionisation is touted as an answer to worker exploitation...but some unions are at least as guilty of this as non-union workplaces.

It's not cut and dry...so let's discuss the ups and downs of labour, from all perspectives...and perhaps gain a little insight.

Maybe if we taxed any imports produced in foreign factories that are unsafe, high-polluting, and that don't pay a living wage to the workers we could reduce sweatshops. Manufacturing would still be cheaper overseas because a living wage in India or the Phillipines is still much lower than in the USA or Europe, so there would still be an incentive to put those folks to work.

What? I KNOW you all have an opinion on this...even if you are indifferent to working conditions and love WalMart to bits...

Maybe if we taxed any imports produced in foreign factories that are unsafe, high-polluting, and that don't pay a living wage to the workers we could reduce sweatshops. Manufacturing would still be cheaper overseas because a living wage in India or the Phillipines is still much lower than in the USA or Europe, so there would still be an incentive to put those folks to work.

Which would probably deliver a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the economic genitalia of Wal Mart incidentally. Sounds like a pretty decent idea.

Maybe if we taxed any imports produced in foreign factories that are unsafe, high-polluting, and that don't pay a living wage to the workers we could reduce sweatshops. Manufacturing would still be cheaper overseas because a living wage in India or the Phillipines is still much lower than in the USA or Europe, so there would still be an incentive to put those folks to work.

that would be a start, but i don't think that is going to happen soon. it would be illegal, i think, because of all kinds of international institutions and treaties. most large companies (who would for obvious reasons be against it) have to big of an influence in governement decisions to make it actually happen. and they would probably scare the public by saying that they would have to drastically increase prices, and people are more concerned about their wallets than some third world sweatshop worker.
I hope that i am being way to pessimistic, because it sounded like a good idea. :(

Maybe if we taxed any imports produced in foreign factories that are unsafe, high-polluting, and that don't pay a living wage to the workers we could reduce sweatshops. Manufacturing would still be cheaper overseas because a living wage in India or the Phillipines is still much lower than in the USA or Europe, so there would still be an incentive to put those folks to work.

I like this idea...as practices currently stand, corporations are subject only to the standards (and sometimes not even then) of the country they are operating in. If ALL imported goods are reviewed based on their method of production, and taxed accordingly, this would encourage higher standards irrespective of domestic regulations.

Of course, this would fly counter to free-market principles, and I must of course do a little dance in support of your suggestion.

Which would probably deliver a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to the economic genitalia of Wal Mart incidentally. Sounds like a pretty decent idea.
*nostalgic* Havent heard a good Chuck Norris referance in so long.. Thanks mate.:D

And Chuck Norris signals the death of yet another thread...:(

I like this idea...as practices currently stand, corporations are subject only to the standards (and sometimes not even then) of the country they are operating in. If ALL imported goods are reviewed based on their method of production, and taxed accordingly, this would encourage higher standards irrespective of domestic regulations.

Of course, this would fly counter to free-market principles, and I must of course do a little dance in support of your suggestion.

Indeed. Just because these shops are the only source of income they have doesn't mean they need to be treated like shit and worked to death. Not just that, but many females are sold into brothels if the working supervisors see them fit to be done as such - no word given to the families or other workers, and I would only have to make a small assumption jump to say that whoever asked about her disappearance would be greatly punished.

Although its a great idea from Drunk commies deleted i must also agree with Isidoor that its probably illegal to do.

I think to address the issue will take a lot of work, exactly what i cannot say, but Fair Trade is setting an amazing example to us all as far as food stuffs go and i believe they have some clothes for sale also??

Another issue i have is that it may be the only source of income, but by stopping every nation in the world from havinf such poor working conditions you will end up with just as many workers somewhere in the world working to make clothes but on better pay, hours and no child labour hopefully.

What we must remember is that yes, closing such factories and moving them in the short term will cause issues, but it'l move onto another place and so on, and in the end return to the place where it started, but this time give a better life to those who work there.

The problem at the end of the day however is this, the companies are greedy, they "have" to do their shareholders well or get sacked etc. However the blame rests with them, surely it would be better to have 10% less profits to help the world become a better place? If we consumers put the pressure on the big businesses in the end the only option open will be to either add onto the price to increase wages, and only a slight rise would make a huge difference, or to drop their profits/product for the benefit of the world.

The way we're going now we can only go down for those nations suffering from poverty, and our governments and shareholders, our citizens, me and your next door neighbour, aren't helping by buying from places we know are using sweat shops. There are some better alternatives out there, even some big stores have managed to improve working conditions whilst keeping the same low prices or whatever. So why can't they all do it?

Indeed. Just because these shops are the only source of income they have doesn't mean they need to be treated like shit and worked to death. Not just that, but many females are sold into brothels if the working supervisors see them fit to be done as such - no word given to the families or other workers, and I would only have to make a small assumption jump to say that whoever asked about her disappearance would be greatly punished.

Ah, the joys of third-world sex tourism. Which, by the way, has moved into Europe through Bosnia. They have underage brothels there that attract subhuman filth from all over the developed world.

Although its a great idea from Drunk commies deleted i must also agree with Isidoor that its probably illegal to do.

I think to address the issue will take a lot of work, exactly what i cannot say, but Fair Trade is setting an amazing example to us all as far as food stuffs go and i believe they have some clothes for sale also??

Another issue i have is that it may be the only source of income, but by stopping every nation in the world from havinf such poor working conditions you will end up with just as many workers somewhere in the world working to make clothes but on better pay, hours and no child labour hopefully.

What we must remember is that yes, closing such factories and moving them in the short term will cause issues, but it'l move onto another place and so on, and in the end return to the place where it started, but this time give a better life to those who work there.

The problem at the end of the day however is this, the companies are greedy, they "have" to do their shareholders well or get sacked etc. However the blame rests with them, surely it would be better to have 10% less profits to help the world become a better place? If we consumers put the pressure on the big businesses in the end the only option open will be to either add onto the price to increase wages, and only a slight rise would make a huge difference, or to drop their profits/product for the benefit of the world.

The way we're going now we can only go down for those nations suffering from poverty, and our governments and shareholders, our citizens, me and your next door neighbour, aren't helping by buying from places we know are using sweat shops. There are some better alternatives out there, even some big stores have managed to improve working conditions whilst keeping the same low prices or whatever. So why can't they all do it?
imagine living in a democracy that is not.

Ah, the joys of third-world sex tourism. Which, by the way, has moved into Europe through Bosnia. They have underage brothels there that attract subhuman filth from all over the developed world.

We be just as good as Thailand! Come! If my underage brothel not success, I will be execute!

So why can't they all do it?

probably because they would gain less from doing so than from not changing.

Economic pressure can be brought to bear immediately by boycotting any corporations that have sweatshops, while investing the money otherwise spent into purchasing goods and services that are provided through a fair trade medium.

Many small businesses that sell goods and services from the developing world have contacts in those regions. The internet is also a good source of finding fair trade networks for purchasing goods and services.

Mind you, this is all at the level of small businesses and cooperatives. Large scale industrial processes are still controlled (almost?) exclusively by multinationals or other corporations whose only concern is the bottom line.

How do we replace those groups with others that aid the local economy? My forté is Latin America, so I start to think: when Allende tried to do it by nationalising key industries, he was killed. Now Morales and Chavez are trying to do it by forcing renegotiations of contracts. They're not dead yet.

Unless you want to start a large multinational corporation and run it in a fair manner that somehow makes you far more profit than the current model, the only options appear to be supporting mildly leftist governments in developing countries, or relying on expanding the existing network of fair trade economy.

Although its a great idea from Drunk commies deleted i must also agree with Isidoor that its probably illegal to do.

I think to address the issue will take a lot of work, exactly what i cannot say, but Fair Trade is setting an amazing example to us all as far as food stuffs go and i believe they have some clothes for sale also??...snip...

Even if it were not currently illegal, the big industry players would try to influence politicians to make it so. This is why any effective strategy to deal with the economics of the developing world must take place within a free-market system.

The fair trade system makes it easy to buy clothes, food, juice, organic produce, art, handicrafts (anything that can be made by people with simple technology), jewellry, leather goods, and anything that does not require a whole factory. You just can't buy it at MalWart. You need to buy from small businesses as they are the only ones importing it right now.

imagine living in a democracy that is not.

How do you mean? Im pretty sure they exist, some conspiary theorists would say so, and i know the USA used to have at least one puppet national leader...

And i would disagree, i think its quite possible to have fair trade factories, simply because if you get a company which already has the infrastructure set up(say a high street brand) then they can change the working conditions and pay and then Fair Trade can give them a stamp of approval, and ensure the cotton used say is also fairly traded etc.

Thats my view on it, its not that simple of course but there are coalitions out there who have companies signing up to their terms which improve working conditions for those poor workers and put in rules. I don't know how much this actually happens on the ground, but its a step in the right direction at least, and if more pressure is put these big multi-nationals then we can see change. Until then im afraid we'll keep seeing a lot of poverty and poor working conditions.

Some people are totally oblivious, and some people are somewhat aware, but mostly uninformed. Sweat-shop labour, child-labour...these words conjure images of suffering in third world countries, and generally illicit pity. But the issues are more complex than they appear.

In some cases, poor working conditions are the ONLY option to utter poverty and starvation. Anti-sweat campagins have on occasion had the unfortunate effect of removing ANY source of income from certain regions. While most of us can agree that poor labour standards should not be encouraged, we do need to understand that our efforts as activists may have unintended and negative results. (one such example is women and children pushed into the sextrade when multinationals relocate due to activist pressure...surely a result that no activist would have wanted)

Child labour is another issue that many Westerners condemn completely...but not all child labour is exploitation, and completely banning it sometimes puts families at more risk, instead of less.

Unionisation is touted as an answer to worker exploitation...but some unions are at least as guilty of this as non-union workplaces.

It's not cut and dry...so let's discuss the ups and downs of labour, from all perspectives...and perhaps gain a little insight.

Removing sweatshops is like removing cancer. You might not survive the operation and chemo, but you definitly won't survive the cancer.

Yes, there are some initial transition pains when removing sweat shops and child labor, but the end result is an improved economy. When grown adults don't have to compete with children for money, wages go up. Children get better care from parents with better resources, everyone wins, except the exploitative sweatshops that produce cheaply manufactured goods at inflated profit margins for a strictly overseas market.

Get rid of the sweatshops, and if the region can only support the agricultural economy it had before the sweatshops showed up, well then that's what they've got. Better to live off the land than be ground into it.