 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Hi 
I suppose the way is government reformation of employment law by those involved: give employers reason, by negative or positive incentive, to change working practices and improve remuneration. Perhaps protest should be directed mainly at the governments concerned, against their employment laws, and not against employers by refusing to purchase their products. How does one do this? Should there be a Quaker corporate response? Perhaps there already is one.
In Friendship |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think the answer lies more in establishing minimum wage standards for goods imported into First World countries from Third World manufacturers.Any company wanting to sell in US or European markets must pay an established wage minimum for whatever country they manufacture in.This would be somewhat difficult to establish and enforce,I'm sure,but would be better than actions that may cost the workers their desperately needed jobs.The notion that you can boycott and financially harm an employer without also harming the workers is just plain silly.A 50% reduction in sales due to boycotts immediately translates into a 50% reduction of workers due to less orders to fill.It would be much saner and would exhibit more true compassion for the workers to find a way to ensure that their jobs are secure,but help integrate their company into the global economy quicker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sorianofan
Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If we were able to find reasonably priced, attractive clothes, and no one bought sweatshop products (ideally), then, hopefully, the sweatshop industry would collapse, but, in the interim, who would support the workers who had been 'liberated?' Is it a vicious circle? |
Ah yes,the point I have been trying to make.Exactly what does happen to them in the "interim",however long that is.5 years,10 years,...ever?When we've succeeded in taking away their jobs because we don't think they get paid enough,will they send us thank you cards for liberating them into the abject poverty of whatever is left when these jobs are gone?Somehow I doubt it.
But then that is not the point.The point is to stick it to the rich guys.That is why the posts focus on how little of a percentage the worker gets of the cost of the product,rather than the fact that studies show that their lives are improved,however slightly,by these jobs.The aim is to hurt the rich guys,and if the poor Asian or S American worker loses his job then that is just collateral damage to the cause of fighting greed. |
We should think nothing of the "collateral damage" of foreign workers because we should have a vendetta against successful people? 
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.
_________________
Cats rule and that is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
Since this is supposedly done on behalf of the exploited overseas worker,can I assume that these union workers then take some of their wages and send it to the overseas workers?If not,then how does buying from N American union workers help the overseas workers? |
Sigh. It helps them indirectly, by setting wage-standards higher.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I thought I made it quite clear that these people DON'T want to leave the countryside. |
Please explain exactly how you know this.Have you interviewed every one of the workers to know this?Or is this just an unsubstantiated statement made to appeal to the emotions?The fact is that urbanization is a worldwide phenomenom,and mostly it is done voluntarily by those thinking that a better life awaits them there.Millions of rural American youth do the same thing,and it is doubtful that they really wish to stay on the farm.Making this kind of illogical claim is exactly why I don't trust the other claims made by these people on this issue. |
I know because I have read numerous interviews from such people saying so. I have even read articles written by those people themselves, saying so.
Yes, rural American youth move to cities, a phenomenon that was quite startling a generation or two ago. They move to cities because they think they'll have better opportunites. But hey. I actually live in a region where there are rural people who are cattle ranchers and bean-farmers. And their kids are becoming urbanized and many of those kids will say, "Yeah, I'd like to be a farmer like my father, but our farm is mortgaged to the hilt, and my dad sure can't afford to help me buy another peice of farmland, we can't even run in the black." Or things along those lines. It's not so much a matter of these youths /wanting/ to move to move to cities. Some who go want to, but plenty of them would continue the rural lifestyle if there were opportunities to do so.
You are hearing, "I am going to move to the city for a better life," but missing the part where they say, "because life in the countryside used to be good, but it's not any more." If your roof collapsed and you could not fix it so you moved, I would be wrong to say that you /wanted/ to move. Sure, you did it on your own, but you were forced by unlivable conditions to move. And the unlivable conditions in the countryside around the world have been created by a system, and can be uncreated.
| Quote: |
| The notion that you can boycott and financially harm a employer without also harming the workers is just plain silly. A 50% reduction in sales due to boycotts immediately translates into a 50% reduction of workers due to less orders to fill. |
This implies that corporations are run by algae, or some other unthinking but reactive organism. Actually, they are run by human beings who are sort of intelligent. When university students noticed that their college-logo athletic wear was made in sweatshops and started boycotting, the printers who put those logos on didn't go out of business. They just started buying the blank sweatshirts and stuff from non-sweatshop sources. The market for college-sweatshirts experienced a fluctuation which the manufacturers corrected. It was easy for them to know why sales were down and how to get them back up again, because the college students vocally informed them of the reason for the boycott.
I think your solution (living-wage standards for different countries, and legal requirements that they be met in manufacturing enterprises that export goods) is a pretty good one. 'Fair Trade Certified' labels on goods mean pretty much that. I would not prefer American-made goods over 'Fair Trade Certified' imports and would choose between them based solely on quality, but I've never seen the FTC label on a garment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sigh. It helps them indirectly, by setting wage-standards higher. |
Sigh.If you don't have a job because production demand decreased and forced layoffs,then how does it sets higher wages?I find it hard to believe that a thinking person can actually convince themselves that buying a union made American garment somehow helps the overseas worker who didn't get to make another shirt to replace the one you bought.
| Quote: |
| I know because I have read numerous interviews from such people saying so. I have even read articles written by those people themselves, saying so. |
How many articles from how many people have you read?5?10?As opposed to how many tens of thousands,maybe hundreds of thousands, of actual workers.And these stories were written by people fishing for exactly this kind of thing to bolster these claims to like minded people like yourself.Besides,regardless of why they are leaving the countryside,unless there is a direct connection between the sweatshops coming in and every single worker being forced out of the countryside then this point is irrelevant.If they are forced into the cities because of an overall downturn of rural living,then the sweatshops are still providing them better jobs than they had before.
But again,the issue with the sweatshops really isn't the overseas workers getting exploited.It is about bringing the jobs back to American union workers.If the wages for foreign workers were tripled,they would still gripe and find fault with overseas labor.
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.I don't think taking actions that may totally destroy an industry and throw thousands of desperately needy people out of work is the answer.Helping the overseas industry grow and mature without harming the workers is the key. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sigh. It helps them indirectly, by setting wage-standards higher. |
Sigh.If you don't have a job because production demand decreased and forced layoffs,then how does it sets higher wages?I find it hard to believe that a thinking person can actually convince themselves that buying a union made American garment somehow helps the overseas worker who didn't get to make another shirt to replace the one you bought. |
You keep speaking as if the only possible response to a boycott is just to reduce production and fire people.
If I buy a union-made shirt, it does not decrease the demand for shirts at all.
Let us say you own a company that makes shirts, and so does Pulpfiction. The two of you sell your shirts to the forum membership.
One day, half the forum membership says, "Get bent, oneputt. We are never going to buy shirts from you again, because we don't like the way you treat your dog. We'll buy 'em from Pulpfiction, instead. He's nice to his dog."
Do you:
A: Burst into tears and wait for death, watching your business decline to the point that you can't afford to feed your dog.
or:
B: Start treating your dog better and try your best to make sure we can all see that you're being good to your dog, so we'll start buying your shirts again.
Now, you could try to convince people that if we boycott your shirts you'll be made so poor that you'll be forced to let your dog starve, and that boycotting your shirts in an attempt to help your dog will actually make the dog's life much much worse. This might allow you to continue abusing your dog /and/ selling shirts, but if we really did all get together and boycott your shirts, I assure you, you would pick option B.
| Quote: |
How many articles from how many people have you read?5?10?As opposed to how many tens of thousands,maybe hundreds of thousands, of actual workers. |
Dozens and dozens.
What one person says is not actually invalidated by a thousand people who are silent.
And, "I moved to the city and became a wage-worker at a manufacturing plant so I could have a better life," doesn't imply that it's cake and gravy, or that this better life is better than the old life used to be before it broke.
Jan, my favourite waitress, used to work for GM, making cars. When the factory was shut down, she was laid off and got a job at Wal-Mart before becoming a waitress. Should I claim that she is now better off because being a waitress is better-paying and more interesting for her than working at Mal-Wart? She's worse off than she was making cars, which payed even better and was something she liked. For these sweatshop labourers, the relationship is the same, just on a larger time scale and with more people. Local small-scale agriculture used to employ a large segment of the population. Like the car-factory closing down, those jobs were denied to the people. They went hungry and, out of despairation, worked under extremely terrible conditions, next to which sweatshops seem an improvement. But overall, no, they are not an improvement. Statistics about urban hunger and poverty vs. rural vs total population growth show otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What one person says is not actually invalidated by a thousand people who are silent. |
And what one person says,or a dozen,is in no way reflective of what 100,000 people think,especially when their stories are fished for and written from a bias.
| Quote: |
| If I buy a union-made shirt, it does not decrease the demand for shirts at all. |
Oh please.It most definitely does decrease the demand for shirts made overseas.What exactly would be the point of a boycott if it didn't?
Kale,you are very good at creating little "let's say I make widgets",or "let's say I own a company" scenarios.You are also very good at ignoring the fact that it will negatively impact the overseas workers.You do what you feel is right.I think your hoped for scenarios are implausible and will do harm to the workers and make their situation even more desperate.The problem of rural vs. urban life is an issue independent of sweatshops and is one that existed before the sweatshops.That genie was out of the bottle long before these sweatshops moved over there and began offering low wage,but better than existing wage,employment.It is disingenuous to try and claim that the urbanization of these countries is due to the sweatshops.They moved over there because of the already available cheap labor.In reality,the most likely scenario,and the one that the unions that back this boycotting hope for,is a return of the jobs to the US,and has absolutely nothing to do with helping the overseas workers.
Your way of thinking is no different than trying to help the illegal immigrants in the US by preventing their coming here.You may feel they are exploited by US employers,and you would be right.But your remedy would be to prevent the employers from using illegal help,on the basis that you are preventing the exploitation of the illegals.Is it better for the illegals to work for much less than the American worker under less than ideal conditions,or to be prevented from being exploited by denying them entry into the country and sending them back to the even worse situation back home?It is basically the same situation as the overseas workers.You wish to rescue both groups from a bad situation by sending them back into an even worse situation.
When you figure out how to make life perfect and equal for everyone let me know.Until then,the answer is not to make a bad situation worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A site that takes a look at sweatshop labor.
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/525.html
And a part of the article:
"So far, evidence has shown that boycotts and public pressure do get results, but perhaps not the kinds of results that are in the best interests of sweatshop workers.
Free traders argue that instead of providing better working conditions or higher wages, which had until then offset the costs of relocating overseas, western companies respond to public pressure by simply closing down their third world plants, or by ceasing to do business with contractors who operate sweatshops.
The result: thousands of people already in a bad situation then find themselves in a worse one.
In 2000, for example, the BBC did an expose on sweatshop factories in Cambodia with ties to both Nike and the Gap. The BBC uncovered unsavory working conditions, and found several examples of children under 15 years of age working 12 or more hour shifts.
After the BBC expose aired, both Nike and the Gap pulled out of Cambodia, costing the country $10 million in contracts, and costing hundreds of Cambodians their jobs.
There are lots more examples like that one."
Such as this,again from the site:
" One German garment maker that would have been hit with trade repercussions if the Act had passed laid off 50,000 child workers in Bangladesh. The British charity organization Oxfam later conducted a study which found that thousands of those laid-off children later became prostitutes, turned to crime, or starved to death.
The United Nations organization UNICEF reports that an international boycott of the Nepalese carpet industry in the mid-1990s caused several plants to shut down, and forced thousands of Nepalese girls into prostitution.
In 1995, a consortium of anti-sweatshop groups threw the spotlight on football (soccer) stitching plants in Pakistan. In particular, the effort targeted enforcing a ban on sweatshop soccer balls by the time the 1998 World Cup began in France. In response, Nike and Reebok shut down their plants in Pakistan and several other companies followed suit. The result: tens of thousands of Pakistanis were again unemployed. According to UPI, mean family income in Pakistan fell by more than 20%.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Gee,I thought what was supposed to happen was that the owners would simply decide to pay their workers more?I guess there is a difference between the naive ideals of American liberals and the reality of how the world operates.But you guys go on thinking that you are helping these people,even if it kills them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
This sounds very intersting  and worth serious consideration.
| oneputt wrote: |
| I think the answer lies more in establishing minimum wage standards for goods imported into First World countries from Third World manufacturers.Any company wanting to sell in US or European markets must pay an established wage minimum for whatever country they manufacture in.This would be somewhat difficult to establish and enforce,I'm sure,but would be better than actions that may cost the workers their desperately needed jobs.The notion that you can boycott and financially harm an employer without also harming the workers is just plain silly.A 50% reduction in sales due to boycotts immediately translates into a 50% reduction of workers due to less orders to fill.It would be much saner and would exhibit more true compassion for the workers to find a way to ensure that their jobs are secure,but help integrate their company into the global economy quicker. |
The information in this link is not easily refuted:
http://www.aworldconnected.org/article.php/525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GKK
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 187
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oneputt wrote: |
Oh please.It most definitely does decrease the demand for shirts made overseas.What exactly would be the point of a boycott if it didn't? |
Yes. The POINT is to reduce the demand for shirts made in sweatshops, so that manufacturers will make them in some other way. It does not reduce the demand for shirts overall, nor does it necessarily reduce the demand for shirts made by overseas workers under decent conditions.
| Quote: |
| You are also very good at ignoring the fact that it will negatively impact the overseas workers. |
Eh, you seem very good at ignoring the point of my analogies. My tendancy is to produce a different one when that happens.
Honestly. I acknowledge that, yes, if enough people boycott, some sweatshop workers will probably lose their jobs. And, probably within the quarter, manufacturers will no doubt correct their problems in an attempt to rebuild sales and new workers will be hired at better wages.
| Quote: |
| You do what you feel is right. |
Indeed, I do. And I don't feel it's right to do my part in making exploiting people profitable. Even in cases where the exploitation is not the worst exploitation that is liable to happen to them.
(If this was 1820, would you stay in a hotel where all the maids, cooks, etc were slaves, on the grounds that they'd be sold to work cotton-plantations under worse-than-hotel conditions if this slave-using hotel business fails?)
| Quote: |
| It is disingenuous to try and claim that the urbanization of these countries is due to the sweatshops. |
I never made that claim.
The reason the sweatshops can work and still leave these people with standards of living and likelihood of hunger at rates worse than those experienced by their rural counterparts is that the people have lost their land. Thus, they have fewer, not more, opportunities now. So sweatshop work is a good option because there are no other options.
The other night on 'Democracy Now!' their little musical interlude (probably replaced by commercials on some stations) showed a bunch of African people protesting. They were holding up signs that read: "LAND! EDUCATION! JOBS!" The order seemed telling. The demand is for more opportunities and more choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
oneputt
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 232
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Eh, you seem very good at ignoring the point of my analogies. My tendancy is to produce a different one when that happens. |
No,I get the point you try to make with 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.
| Quote: |
| Honestly. I acknowledge that, yes, if enough people boycott, some sweatshop workers will probably lose their jobs. And, probably within the quarter, manufacturers will no doubt correct their problems in an attempt to rebuild sales and new workers will be hired at better wages. |
You see,this is your problem.You wish to operate on make believe "let's say I make widgets" fairy tales,and hoped for results,and, as in your post quoted above, on "probably's".You have no actual idea whether what you are claiming is true or not.Did you even bother to read the site I gave?The companies did not correct the problem by higher wages,they corrected the problem by leaving,and the people you wish to help suffered because of it,some even died.They did not "probably" raise wages,they closed down completely.That,my friend,is reality,not your makebelieve idealistic world.You call this helping?Helping people doesn't push them into crime,prostitution,or kill them.I'll be sure never to call on you for your brand of "help".I'm also quite sure,living in a state with a high number of illegal immigrants who actually pay people to sneak them into this country to better their lives,that the overseas workers are no more appreciative of your misguided efforts than the illegals here would be.But you of course,having sat around your meetinghouse at coffee time consulting with your other like minded brethren,have decided that you know better than the workers themselves what is good for them.I doubt the fathers of the children sent into prostitution because of the boycotts will recognize your distant benevolence.
You may have actually been ignorant of the fact that a boycott causes great suffering to the sweatshop workers before this thread began.You cannot say that now,if you have bothered to read my posts and the site I referenced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Posts: 95
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
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?
I see clearly now that the blame for child prostitutes and starving third-world adults rests on the shoulders of a few high-minded boycotters and fuzzy-minded folks like myself who don't buy enough --- not the shareholders of those benevolent multinational corporations.
Nevermind that when those poor folks decide to organize and demand more their governments will slap 'em down or their corporate masters will pack up their sewing machines and move on to the next pool of cheap unexploited labor.
Just dawned on me I've been misguided all these years, trying to buy what I needed rather than at least one of everything that's out there. Got the credit card out and I'm ready to head for Wal-Mart. It's my duty as a Christian.
Gonna feel real good about myself this morning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
You can't win really.
My view is if we try to stop multi-national corporations expoliting 3rd world labour then we have to send in millions in aid (which often doesn't make it through anyway.) Either way we pay (which I don't have a problem with!)
On paper this whole issue is probably solveable but in reality it will always go on. There are bigger issues in the world than 3rd world sweatshop labour exploitations. I'd rather a 12 year old was working a tough shift and surviving than being penniless or ill like someone else in the world. I'll look after the penniless / ill person first and come back for the 12yr old another day - he can wait. Sounds tough but he's not made it to the top of my list yet. There are people dying with no jobs or who can't work because they can't pay for a cheap cataract operation. One in two people in developing countries cannot access clean water and hundreds die every day due to illnesses related to contaminated water. These are my priorities ahead of sweatshop labour workers.
Why don't we now put our energies into more positive things rather than go round in circles in this thread. such as supporting charities like Humanity First.
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pulpculture wrote: |
Why don't we now put our energies into more positive things rather than go round in circles in this thread. I'll start by posting a new thread (semi-related to this topic) on an organisation called Humanity First
|
[Administrator's Note: I deleted the new thread and modified the post quoted accordingly. Threads on non-Quaker charities simply because they are very good and not due to anything particularly Quaker-related do not seem to me to be appropriate for this Forum. -Bill Samuel]
Hi,
Should I be disturbed by this message? Is it deserved? As an animal rights advocate (the same as Pulpculture/Matthew) I have often been confronted with the same rhetoric: "Why don't you channel your energies into something more worthy and useful?" The answer is that we can refuse to support abusive practices by making simple, everyday decisions and choices - it's no big deal, once we've got it clear how to withdraw ourselves as stakeholders, from abusive industries. However, it needs to be discussed - we may do more harm than good if we don't understand the implications of our actions. I appreciate hearing about the experiences of others; this discussion is not about making donations to charity, but avoiding being stakeholders in an abusive industry without making it worse for the victims who are trapped in it.
In Friendship  |
|
| 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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
