Recently we discussed some political and economical challenges involving the balance between safe working conditions and affordable products. Below is an alert giving an example of what can go wrong when worker safety is undervalued.
I don't believe it's right to have unsafe working conditions, mistreating both workers and customers, just to make a handful of people extra wealthy. I believe that workers should have safe conditions, and that people should have jobs paying them enough that they can afford to buy products from factories that practice good worker safety. I believe that employers and investors should make a fair profit, not skim their company's money so much that it has insufficient funds to operate safely. I don't want to be stuck wondering if the clothes I wear cost someone their fingers, or their life. I believe that this goal is attainable, because there have been good times in the past and there are still companies that manage the balance. We need to study the successes so we can spread them -- and we need to inform companies that we will not tolerate reckless homicide in pursuit of profit.
Workers Burned Alive
Last week, a massive blaze in a multi-story factory in Bangladesh killed
more than two dozen people. The workers were burned alive when an easily
preventable fire broke out in an unsafe sweatshop. Several of the exits
were locked.Most of the victims were young women who earned less than $2 per day
making clothes for the well-known American brands that many in the
developed world will soon see under a Christmas tree: Abercrombie & Fitch,
Osh Kosh B'Gosh, GAP Inc., Wrangler jeans, JC Penney, and Target.This isn't an isolated incident, so a coalition of Bangladeshi labor
rights groups are organizing around the disaster, demanding that these
companies launch thorough, independent safety inspections of all
multi-story factories and provide just compensation to the victims and
their families.They've asked for our help, saying that a huge outcry from American and
European consumers will be a big boost to their call. Please add your name
to the growing list of Change.org members standing with these
organizers.Labor rights activists have long called on U.S. brands to pressure their
Asian manufacturers to improve safety conditions.This past April, groups like the Maquila Solidarity Network and the Clean
Clothes Campaign specifically called on major clothing brands to
thoroughly review safety standards in multi-story factories, just like the
location of this recent fire.But they’ve asked for your help because they know that consumers will
play a huge role in getting multinationals like Gap and Target to change
their behavior. It's moments like this when the growing Change.org
community can play a critical role in tipping the balance.
Please sign the petition now.Every time a new person signs the petition, senior officials responsible
for each company's Global Supply Chain will automatically get a direct,
personal email. So once you join, will you forward this to friends and
family, and post on Facebook, so that they hear a global outcry?Thank you for taking action,
- The Change.org Team
December 23 2010, 23:23:12 UTC 10 years ago
What I was trying to say is that the rigidity of the standards set here *caused* this accident in Bangladesh. By setting the standards of worker safety and pay and all that at such strict high levels, companies are forced to move overseas or go out of business (and companies that do the work in sweat shops spring up). Working in Bangladesh is not easy for an American company, there are legal entanglements, language barriers, cultural problems, corrupt governments, not to mention transportation costs. Imagine how much all of that amounts to, in real terms. That is the "cost" of all the regulation we have in this country, and the net result is that rather than having a few people die here, many die on foreign shores. By setting the goal at perfection here, we have *forced* the awful.
Where are those "good companies" you speak of? Most of them are out of business, few if any have any market share in the world market.
All of those "shoulds" are very nice, but if the implementation of so many of them here leads to these deaths in bangladesh, then humanitarianism results in greater misery. It is necessary to prioritize and balance.
It is also necessary to pay attention to the circumstances in the world at large. Luxuries that were available in a post ww2 world where the US was the only significant industrial nation may not be available in a world where there are competing economies. The *only* car manufacturer can have infinitely high standards of pay and worker safety, but the instant a *second* car manufacturer comes into business, the one that produces cars more efficiently in total will sell the most cars. So it will be, to some degree a "race to the bottom", except not, because "the bottom" is not the most efficient place to be, those dead workers will make no more shirts, so obviously companies would do well to set their standards higher than that. Given a little time, they will.
December 24 2010, 06:16:42 UTC 10 years ago
But no, skinflints simply must have that last flake of sand to strike their tinder, nevermind the blazing inferno all around them.
December 24 2010, 06:40:49 UTC 10 years ago
Blaming "skinflints" is blaming that wretched sun for rising in the East. It may be unpleasant, you may rather it rise in the north, but physical reality does not bend to your will. Nor does economic reality.
I would also mention (again) that no one forced any of those workers to go to work that day, to work in that building, or anything like that. They could have quit anytime. See where that goes? The company had the options of doing as they did and having a *different* company do as they did.
BTW, 6000 workers were at work that day. 9 of 10 floors of the factory went back to work the following day. As sad as the deaths were, the scale of the harm is utterly eclipsed by the benefit that it gives to that community. 5976 people went to homes procured by their factory wages and ate food purchased with factory money that day 0.4% of the workers that showed up for work that day failed to go home, if given those odds, taken at random, I would choose to show up. How many would have died long since for want of those "exploitive" jobs? How many fewer of those jobs would exist doing things your way.
The problem with humanitarians is that they understand the value of everything and the cost of nothing.
10 years ago
Thoughts
10 years ago
10 years ago
10 years ago
10 years ago
10 years ago
10 years ago
Yes...
10 years ago
Re: Yes...
10 years ago
December 24 2010, 04:07:21 UTC 10 years ago
Those workers lived relatively well by Bengali standards, A nation that ranks #139 on the human development index. Those workers had enough money to feed themselves, clothe themselves, have some limited access to medical care, etcetera. Lacking that "dangerous" job, they have none of that. 6000 people work in that building. How many of them would have died years ago had that factory not allowed them to have their "risky" job?
Liberty is another aspect of this that rarely is considered. When you speak of safety standards, or whatever, you are in part speaking of liberty. You are *revoking* those peoples freedom to work in a more risky factory. Do you really have a right to do that, not only for yourself and your neighbors, but for *everyone in the world*? Can you really say that you are so sure that you are doing the right thing that you are willing to force everyone in the world to operate by your own personal standards? Where would such moral authority dome from?
If you wish to be sure that your goods are "safely" and "justly" produced, then by all means, get your clothing locally tailored, investigate your brands, vote with your wallet, companies listen to that. That is all you have any moral right to do. Myself, I will continue to shop second hand and thus avoid the issue entirely.
December 24 2010, 06:32:41 UTC 10 years ago
Moving on, I have a hypothesis that human (and perhaps all sapient) advancement occurs in specific steps. Each step is better than what came before in some way, but creates a new kind of mess. Only by taking that step can you reach the next step, which will allow you to clean up some of the previous mess and continue moving forward. So the best way to measure the technological and societal advancement of a species is to measure the kinds of messes that species can clean up. A society which can clean up the mess of a mind-altering nanite infestation such that the victims of the affected persons are emotionally healthy is much more advanced than one which can't even clean up its private attitudes toward minorities, much less radioative waste from its coal-fired power plants.
Societies which offer technologies both mechanical and societal to other societies lower on the staircase would do well to consider the impact on people not ready to receive the greater advancement. However, some steps are much easier to receive. Bangladesh has had factories for more than one generation, and as a society now understands how factories operate; thus they are ready to receive the technologies and social understandings of functionally safe workplaces. Denying their workforce various simple and obvious life-saving measures such as not locking the fire exits, because a few of them might go outside and smoke (thus setting off alarms to be bypassed, if anyone had bothered to install them), is... pathetic.
December 24 2010, 06:56:12 UTC 10 years ago
"The jungle" is not in any way a credible source of any form of information. "Yellow journalism" doesn't even begin to cover it "outright lies" comes somewhat closer, but still falls short.
The problem is that you are assuming that "we" are in condition to "offer" these advancements. We will be extremely lucky to keep them ourselves. In fact, I am supremely skeptical that we will.
Yeah, I get you regarding locking the doors, that one does seem a little beyond the pale, but then, I don't have 6000 payrolls to meet and an extraordinarily competitive marketplace in which to attempt to do so. The question (to a decision-maker) becomes "how much did it harm productivity when the doors were open? You and I may look at it as an absurdity, but if there were consistently hundreds of workers "out for a smoke" then you're looking at a substantial chunk of cost, perhaps enough to allow one of their competitors to under-cut them? Have you looked at their balance sheets? Do you know how thin their margins are? How close they are to sending all 6000 workers back to boiling banana leaves?
Armchair quarterbacking is all well and good, and sometimes there are true villains in business. However, parsimony in the accusations is well called for.
10 years ago
10 years ago
10 years ago
Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
Re: Well...
10 years ago
December 24 2010, 07:37:20 UTC 10 years ago
http://www.weitzlux.com/workaccidentshistory_725.html
"In 1913, the Bureau of Labor Statistics documented approximately 23,000 industrial deaths among a workforce of 38 million, equivalent to a rate of 61 deaths per 100,000 workers"
So, at the time that Sinclair was writing, working in a US factory was more than 6 times as dangerous as working in a current Chinese factory.
So effectively, I can categorically state that your comparison was false.
10 years ago
10 years ago
December 24 2010, 06:18:45 UTC 10 years ago
Thoughts
December 24 2010, 06:34:28 UTC 10 years ago
It looks like the problem in the Bangladesh factory was less about inherent risks than carelessness. Some of the emergency exits were locked; that shouldn't happen. A building always needs safe escape routes in case of emergency. I suspect, though I haven't seen details on this, that fire safety equipment may have been lacking as well. The workers may not have been trained in safe, speedy evacuation either. People died needlessly; those deaths could have been prevented with known methods, starting with access to exits and probably continuing through other things.
Now, it's rarely possible to reduce the accident rate in a workplace to zero. Life is risky and people can be clumsy. The important thing is to avoid the accidents that can be avoided, provide equipment to cope with the rest, and make sure people are adequately trained to deal with things going wrong. We know that some building styles are firetraps while others are quite resistant; therefore it's our responsibility to build fire-resistant buildings so that people don't needlessly die in fires (and so our property isn't damaged). We know that undersea oil wells can blow out, and we've invented technology to prevent blow-outs; it's our responsibility to see that technology used, so it doesn't poison the oceans we eat out of, if we're so determined to keep mining oil undersea. If you could prevent something from happening, but choose not to, and someone gets hurt, then it's your fault because you knew better and just didn't bother. If you took all the available precautions and someone still gets hurt, that's not your fault, because stuff happens and at least you tried your best.
Re: Thoughts
December 24 2010, 07:13:20 UTC 10 years ago
Oh no doubt. Traipah only uses machines for certain things, like making other machines, or robots for dangerous tasks. Also, computers and so on. Bulk fabrics are also made by machine, just because making them by hand is so arduous, but the clothes themselves are made locally by hand. Furniture, usually made of wood, is usually made locally by hand as well. The government does make limited amounts of machine-made furnishings and clothes for the poorest people. But such things are considered extremely gauche, so they're only used by those who can't afford anything else. Part of this is because clothes and furniture are considered art by the people of Traipah, and making art with a machine is icky.
Can you imagine how the corporations of Earth must have reacted to this market? They must have run around like headless chickens for a decade or more trying to figure out what, if anything, they could sell to the people of Traipah, aside from food, fabrics, raw materials, books, and art. Well, I suppose gadget-making companies might have had an easier time of things.
Re: Thoughts
December 24 2010, 07:36:13 UTC 10 years ago
It kind of runs like this. Any given factory will have tens of thousands of things that *could* cause injury. Sensibly, you'd start eliminating risks starting with the most frequent sources of injury. And they do. Some of those improvements will be more costly than others, but by the time you get into the lower order risks, the costs of preventing them start to spiral upward. A lot. But that does mean that most times, when someone is injured, they will be injured by a known risk. In short, you will have *not* "done your best" because the costs are prohibitive.
China, (as of '01)
http://mhssn.igc.org/IJOEH_BrownIntro.pdf
The International Labor Organization estimates
that China’s 2001 workplace fatality rate was 11.1 per
100,000 workers, compared with a rate of 4.4 per
100,000 in the United States.
So, all of the *difference* between US industrial safety standards and Chinese safety standards resulted in a difference of 0.007% of workers annually being killed on the job. Given the sheer magnitude of the efforts taken, the jobs exported, the enforcement, administration, code maintenance, dissemination, the demonization of so many companies, etcetera, that difference hardly seems worth it does it?
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
Re: Thoughts
10 years ago
December 24 2010, 06:35:09 UTC 10 years ago
December 24 2010, 14:43:53 UTC 10 years ago
The developing countries like Bangladesh and India and I suppose China, too, are enduring all the growing pains that the poor unfortunate workers of 19th century Europe endured at an earlier date. It's bad enough that our ancestors had to suffer these terrible practices - that similar things should still be going on in the modern world, where we have sufficient income to pay these folk a decent wage and finance decent working conditions, is just obscene.
I can't help wondering how much the chief execs of those companies make. I don't buy any of these labels, and I'm less inclined to now, too. But I'm not convinced that any of the companies I support are much better, either...
Thank you very much for bringing our attention to this.
Thoughts
December 24 2010, 17:47:26 UTC 10 years ago
Corporate-owned media have a conflict-of-interest issue with many types of news, making them a less than reliable source for many issues. To get a more complete perspective, it is necessary to read news from different countries and services. Sadly, not everyone has the time for that.
>>It's bad enough that our ancestors had to suffer these terrible practices - that similar things should still be going on in the modern world, where we have sufficient income to pay these folk a decent wage and finance decent working conditions, is just obscene.<<
It makes me very angry that we know how to do things safely and responsibly, but people deliberately choose to go places where folks haven't discovered some of that yet -- and refrain from teaching them our discoveries -- for the express purpose of taking advantage of the less-developed countries. I consider that a species of evil.
>>I can't help wondering how much the chief execs of those companies make.<<
Probably more than you or I would consider fair in light of the recent deaths. There are organizations that track such things; you could probably find out if you searched by company.
>> I don't buy any of these labels, and I'm less inclined to now, too. But I'm not convinced that any of the companies I support are much better, either...<<
Fair Trade is a good place to start. There are various places that support this approach:
www.AlternativeApparel.com
www.fairindigo.com/
www.fairtradeclothing.org/
Here is an article on sweatshop-free clothing that also recommends looking for the UNITE label:
http://www.greenamerica.org/pubs/realgreen/articles/nosweatshops.cfm
This page lists several fair-trade clothing brands. Note that some of these businesses have been around for years, demonstrating that it is possible to be both responsible and profitable.
http://www.handmadeexpressions.net/pages/fair-trade-fashion
More generally, Change.Org has a category for Human Rights:
http://humanrights.change.org/
While corporations may not all care about human life and safety, they definitely care about money. If consumers refuse to buy from companies with offensive practices, then the companies will be forced to improve or else go out of business. The challenge, of course, is that companies tend to suck and not everyone can afford to shop their ethics. But every little bit helps. Every purchase you make for fair trade clothing, or organic food, or anything else humane and sustainable, is a vote for that and a small reduction in the megacorp receipts. When enough people get angry, change happens.
December 24 2010, 18:28:35 UTC 10 years ago
We both look at the same set of data, for instance: china industrial deaths 11 in 100k/year, 2 billion people worldwide living on less than $1.50/day.
I look at that paragraph and I want to start with the big number. I want to go after the 2 billion.
You want to go after the 11.
You go after the 2 billion by "cowboying up". You mine, extract, refine. In short, you *produce goods*. As many as you can, as cheaply as you can. Any way you have to.
You go after the 11 by tightening the screws. You regulate, you punish, you restrict. In short, you *restrain*,
You view it as "evil" that the conditions in that factory are so bad. I view it as nonsensical to make the creation of that factory more difficult and less profitable when 40% of the world would line up with a smile for just the chance to work there.