 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Frank
Joined: 27 Jan 2003 Posts: 95 Location: Iowa
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quakers, too, are the folks who brought you, "let your life speak." Our forbears did not draw a line between business and personal decisions, but expected the Light to illuminate both.
So whether a business is behaving morally is a legitimate question, as are questions about animal rights, deserving of discussion and careful consideration. If I consume products produced and marketed by a business that is behaving immorally, then I'm a stakeholder and I need to think about that. That is as true for the Third World sweatshop as it is for the Iowa corporate hog factory.
When my underwear wears out, chances are I'll go out and buy something manufactured in the third world --- I think I need underwear, don't sew and can't find another source. But I want to be aware of what my purchase represents and what the implications will be if I stop wearing underwear.
Exploitation of labor is of major concern. In the U.S. and U.K. exploited labor organized and after a good deal of violence prevailed at least for a time within a democratic framework. In other parts of the world, exploited labor gave rise to communist regimes that seemed like good ideas at the time, then turned into exploiters themselves.
Health care, food on the table, clean water, clothes on our backs, even wars revolve around economies, so we can't avoid being concerned about them and trying to participate in conscious-driven ways.
I don't know the answers, but surely do intend to keep searching for them thoughtfully and appreciate conversations like this, even though they do seem circular sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 187
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| ...your make believe scenarios.I just don't think they are accurate,and the site I referenced proves that.My point has been from the beginning that the workers will be hurt by a boycott.That has now been substantiated with facts.Your analogies have been proven false. |
No. That article doesn't offer the proof you claim it does.
Nike in Cambodia. Yes, Nike left Cambodia. Yes, hundreds of Cambodians were laid off. BUT the overall world production of shoes did not actually go down, did it? It grew. Nike moved their manufacturing to subcontractors in countries other than Cambodia. Mostly China, now.
Theoretically, this move to China should have had the exact results I predicted in my fairy-tales -- no notable reduction in the number of workers, improved working conditions for all workers. China, you see, has labour laws calling for 8 hour work-days, maximum 44-hour work-weeks, and no children under 16 may work.
In reality, it didn't work, because the subcontractors making those shoes in China ignore the labour laws. Investigators have discovered that workers in Chinese shoe-factories usually work 12-hour days six days a week, a 72-hour work-week, and that children as young as 12 are employed.
The fact that the Chinese Government has proven itself brazenly corrupt when it comes to enforcing Chinese labour laws doesn't invalidate my point. It's just Nike being sneaky by running around. It buys them time until the next expose. But eventually, every loophole will be closed.
As for Nepalese rugs, child labour and prostitution. Well, Nepalese rugs are a traditional art and quite unlike tennis shoes. Production of those items did indeed drop. The boycott was not really appropriate -- rug dealers in the West ought to have sent inspectors to the factories and purchased from factories with the best working conditions. This would boost sales for the better factories, causing them to hire more workers, and provide an incentive (lost profits, lost labour as workers move to better factories) to the other factories to improve.
Though if you don't class a Nepalese rug as anything more than just a rug, no doubt the result was the same as for Nike in Cambodia. I really doubt this boycott actually reduced total global sales of rugs, or even total sales of hand-tied rugs.
Actually, I am not against child-labour in itself. I recently read, in 'The Ecologist' magazine, a report on this subject. It compared working conditions in different types of industries, and had quotes from child-workers -- those working in conditions I would consider reasonable for kids to work under were quoted saying they loved their jobs and were proud of the contributions they could make for their families. It basically called for us to rethink our ideas about child labour and develop more intelligent policies about it, ones that differentiate between children working three hours a day in safe conditions and children working at hard or dangerous labour for 12-hour days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002 Posts: 232
|
Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| BUT the overall world production of shoes did not actually go down, did it? It grew. |
What exactly is the point of this comment?I have never claimed anything like this,and this is completely off point on what I have been trying to say.I could care less about whether shoe production worldwide went up or down.My point is that the Cambodians lost their jobs because of pressure put on Nike,under the mistaken assumption that this pressure would make Nike,or it's sub,pay the workers more.It didn't,it cost them their jobs.Interesting that you can slide right over this fact to address some issue I never commented on.
| Quote: |
| This conversation has made me feel downright good about my non-Quaker slave-owning Virginia ancestors. What would those poor black folks have done had my family not purchased them, fed and clothed them, given them something useful to do with their time? Where would their descendants be today? |
Sorry,but you and kale trying to parallel this to slavery is a false analogy.Slaves are property that cannot make decisions on when and where to work,are there against their will,don't get paid,and can't quit if they don't like it.The sweatshop workers choose to work there,and many are very grateful to have the job and wouldn't dream of quitting,which they can do.But a nice try at emotional appeal in the face of logical evidence that boycotts harm the workers.
Last edited by oneputt on Sat Jul 1, 2006 11:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sat Jul 1, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Human beings are not "collateral damage." Haven't you seen the movie? There seems to be an inability under any economic system to equitably distribute wealth, so if we can avoid purposely hurting people in the process, the better. |
You misunderstand my point.I am against hurting the workers in the process of going after the greedy rich guys,which is what a boycott will accomplish.My point was that those who suggest boycotting the overseas factories are more interested in hurting the rich guys than anything else,and are willing to accept hurting the foreign workers in the process,which I think is wrong. |
my mistake, I off my apologies then. _________________ Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 187
|
Posted: Mon Jul 3, 2006 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| BUT the overall world production of shoes did not actually go down, did it? It grew. |
What exactly is the point of this comment? |
The point is that those jobs were not eliminated. They were just moved to China. So the poor Cambodians lost jobs and the poor Chinese got jobs.
As for the slavery thing, the choice between exploitive labour and starvation is a false choice. The supposition that these folks really get paid is, too -- the average sweatshop wage in Southeast Asia is about $2 a day, less than is needed to decently support /one/ person.
In China, the workers who make plastic children's toys live in barracks. They don't make enough money to live in apartments or houses. Most of their wages are withheld to pay for their rent of a cot in that barracks, and for their meals, also served in the barracks. They have a curfew, or in some cases are simply forbidden to go out. Among other things, the workers complain that additional wages are withheld to pay for weekly 'entertainments' for the workers, which appearantly consist of the management getting drunk. Dunno.
Anyway, if you work 12 hour days and get a cot, food and maybe enough 'pocket money' to clothe yourself but cannot dream of supporting a pet cat, much less a child, and the other option is to work not at all and have no cot, food, or clothes, well. The word for that isn't "Freedom." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Mon Jul 3, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yet in China, you go to a secret prison and "disappear" for writing a book about alternative Christianity. Cjhina has a terrible and oppresive government. It drives people to desperation, and brings out the worse out of people. I apologize for my tone, because I just talked to a neighbor's brother who was a slovenian partisan and though he appears to be a good man, tyranny drove him to kill. An 8 hour work day does not justify the enslavement of Chiona's people politically. I mean no offense to anyone here. _________________ Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
orPowers
Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 637 Location: Medford, OR
|
Posted: Sat Oct 7, 2006 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow
It is amazing at times to be a newcomer and see what has gone on before. This is a topic that clearly brought out some strong emotions, and yet I didn't see us channeling those emotions into real workable solutions to a very real problem. The question still remains as to how we can help the situation, and both approaches DO have value. I thinkit is clear that the problem is predatory business practices of multinational corporations, the question is how to address the problem in real terms. Nike did not abandon it's practices, it just abandoned the contractors who were providing what they wanted at the price AND lack of responsibility they required. Clearly, a boycott couched in terms of "stop doing this here" is not enough; it needs to be couched in terms of "show that you are improving the conditions of the people who ARE providing you with the service NOW." Anyone who sets up and perpetuates a boycott needs to think in terms of real benefit to the people directly involved, the sweatshop workers, or the accusation that the only concern is to take back the jobs that have been exported seems valid. I'd venture to say that a boycott COULD be valid, if the organizers took responsibility for ALL the results of their actions. Now that there has been a short hiatus of entries on the subject, can we get back to the question of how we can impact the issue positively without getting emotional about whether you are supporting exploitation if you don't share my views? Hopefully there are some positive directions we can move, and I would really like to know, because I AM ignorant, but concerned.
PS. I was going to leave it there, but I remembered a comment made by Kale about "Fair Trade Certified" goods. I am currently checking the Wikipedia article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade and will check into the organizations listed to see if there might be lists of organizations which avail themselves of the services of such practicioners. As it stands right now, I think I would probably buy what little I do buy from such companies as a preferred vendor at least.
PPS. Well, it appears that fairtrade labelling is a great idea that has been applied to agricultural products and handicrafts. That would explain why it is hard to find the labels on clothing products. Does anyone know if and how the idea has been expanded to cover such products and the primary concerns of "sweatshops?" ..... still checking _________________ Romans 8:38-39
my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 328
|
Posted: Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| thinkit is clear that the problem is predatory business practices of multinational corporations, the question is how to address the problem in real terms. |
Why is it we blame faceless corporations, but not ourselves? Is there a such thing as "predatory consumerism?" If you buy things you do not need when you could have fed someone who starved to death, are we being even more so callous?
These are important, but ultimately unanswerable questions. I honestly think people, instead of blaming wal-mart, should actually try not shopping there and not buying things made in China, Vietnam, and such. It is the consumers that ultimately decide where the money goes in my opinion. The best we can do is decide to put it somewhere good.
I do believe pro-fair trade boycotts is a decent solution. _________________ Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|