The Bangladesh Sweatshop Fire and the Walmart Connection

[Moonlight Graham]

You may have misunderstood me. I support putting pressure on corporations to source ethically.

Sorry for that.

If I knew the facts above with reasonable certainty I would pay $80. In the real world we do not know and it is not nearly as clear-cut as above.

I agree it's a complicated world, with many factors and actors involved with many seemingly simple products. Even if consumers wanted to purchase from companies based on their ethics of their product production, the problem is that the consumer often does not have the knowledge of the many small factors/details across product supply chains, and it's very hard for them to know what is happening in ie: factories in developing countries like Bangladesh. This is one of the reasons I haven't really commented on this story, it's hard to get full context from a few news articles.

Maybe there should be more legislation that requires large corporations (who have the resources, unlike small businesses) to regulate and report on the human conditions of the workers who produce/supply their products at every stage (ie: from the planting of a cotton seed to the t-shirt being hung on the store rack). Then have gov and/or NGO watchdog groups keep tabs whether this is being done and if corporations are following an established minimum level of ethical business practice (all paid for by the corporation).

[carepov]

Sorry for that.

No problem.

I agree it's a complicated world, with many factors and actors involved with many seemingly simple products. Even if consumers wanted to purchase from companies based on their ethics of their product production, the problem is that the consumer often does not have the knowledge of the many small factors/details across product supply chains, and it's very hard for them to know what is happening in ie: factories in developing countries like Bangladesh. This is one of the reasons I haven't really commented on this story, it's hard to get full context from a few news articles.

Maybe there should be more legislation that requires large corporations (who have the resources, unlike small businesses) to regulate and report on the human conditions of the workers who produce/supply their products at every stage (ie: from the planting of a cotton seed to the t-shirt being hung on the store rack). Then have gov and/or NGO watchdog groups keep tabs whether this is being done and if corporations are following an established minimum level of ethical business practice (all paid for by the corporation).

I am convinced that legislation would not work. Your proposal is far too expensive. Look at how blood diamonds were "controlled" through the Kimberley Process. I believe that the program was voluntary and had some success. These are diamonds though - not t-shirts...

[WIP]

No this did not occur to me. You did such a good job the first time that I asked it that I decided to ask it again, only this time limiting it to developing countries only. Would you be so kind as to humour me and answer my nonsensical question? I will gladly try to answer any of your clearly stated questions.

When and where, and by what objective measure, did it ever suck any less than it sucks now – in a developing country/region?

When you first asked that subjective question, you didn't include the qualifer:"developing." Not that it makes much difference anyway. The facts on the ground are that the promises made that globalization would get impoverished third world nations on the first rung of the development ladder....where presumably, they would be able to continually advance until they reached the limits of their resource and human capital (now there's a exploitive term for people). What has happened instead, is that nations signing on to globalization free trade agreements, are forced to cut food and gas subsidies to the poor, and abolish any protections against foreign ownership (seems like we got this here in Canada big time!), and then, if the price is right and the nation writes anti-union legislation into their judicial code, then in come the sweatshops willing to hire people at whatever the ground-floor price is for wages. And, as we all know now, the first sites for cheap workers - like Mexico - were soon dropped for even cheaper locales. And your question is not the relevant question in this thread regarding the fallout from that fire! It's why are even the minimum of health and safety standards ignored in these outsourced manufacturing operations? And, where are the benefits promised, that would raise the quality of life of people living in undeveloped nations?

This was a minor point back when we were being sold the globalization propaganda 30 years ago, but it was used as leverage or blackmail against those of us who were not pro-'free trade,' as if we were being selfish in some respects by not allowing manufacturing of labour-intensive, unskilled manufacturing like textiles to go to other nations that could do it cheaper and benefit their people. Along with the promises that increasingly specialized and as we have learned today - fragile economies - would benefit us in the long run by being able to concentrate our energies on less labour-intensive, higher input value work, the people on the bottom rung were supposed to benefit too....and I don't mean marginal benefits that can barely be measured, or are totally unrelated to globalization - i.e. life expectancy figures, which are more closely connected with immunization and water quality issues, not whether people are working on the land or in factories! But, the pro-globalization crowd...both the corporations here seeking cheaper labour and the third world elites and ruling classes are the ones who benefit by the land and resource sales and skim off most of the benefits locally when a Tazreen or similar factory starts up.

But, the big, unreported story behind the fire is that, where we are, the abuse and horrors of these operations are completely unmentioned over here where consumers are buying the products! Unless there is a fire killing more than a hundred workers, consumers in the west know nothing of the abuses and bad working conditions in places halfway around the world, where companies like Walmart and Apple among others, have set up third party subcontractors to get the cheapest product, while making sure they are not directly connected when things go bad and some scandal like a fire, or stressed out employees rioting, makes headlines over here.

[WIP]

No problem.

I am convinced that legislation would not work. Your proposal is far too expensive. Look at how blood diamonds were "controlled" through the Kimberley Process. I believe that the program was voluntary and had some success. These are diamonds though - not t-shirts...

Amazing how regulation can work when it's to the company's benefit! If corporations can force nations to abolish laws restricting foreign ownership and privatize public assets, why can't international laws be enforced that prohibit anti-union legislation, or demand universal health and safety standards? It's not because labour laws couldn't follow the startup outsourced operations; it's because the corporations and their government pawns wouldn't allow it to happen.

[carepov]

And, where are the benefits promised, that would raise the quality of life of people living in undeveloped nations?

Before I try to answer this question and respond to your post can you please suggest a few measurements for "quality of life of people living in undeveloped nations"?