agreed on most of what you say above to a much lesser degree, however I would add governments of both countries involved as having major roles as well. Also, did you consider retailers may be working through a distributor or wholesaler. The consumer can't be expected to know a heckuva lot and it may be impossible for him to know anything other than the country of origin at best. Let me use myself as an example of how what you say is almost meaningless to a great extent.

I'm a buyer and I do buy some items from Chinese vendors and yes, many if not most of these are branded goods. Are you saying my company should fly out to China and inspect these companies? We should sit down and inspect their books? That simply is not going to happen, we can not afford to do that. I used to buy circuit boards made in China, they used state of the art new machinery and had better quality than almost any others, the price was very low, but what were the employees there paid??? (how would I know?) but I do know that same vendor makes the same quality boards but is no longer competitive likely because the labor rates in China have been going up, up, up ...but how do I know for certain? And the people we sell to (often small stores), how are they to know anything at all about these products? and the end user is often another step removed, no way can he possibly know anything other than his item was made in China.
How about yourself for an example, have you bought any electronics lately? It was almost certainly made in Asia, if not most certainly with Chinese components, did you consider where the item was made? Did you investigate what the employees were paid? When something is on sale with a crazy low price do you buy it or do you decide that low price may be exploiting a worker somewhere far away? It's easier to make these statements than it is to follow through on them isn't it?

Yes, and I am all for a company making that CHOICE to do that.

All I am saying is it is a social issue for consumers and companies to make. It has NOTHING to do with Government.

Tom, this is why it is more the responsibility of the companies than consumers, and the companies closer to the suppliers than any removed by one or two steps. There will be a risk for companies that do not make checks, and that is that a disaster or revalations come out and damage their own reputation and standing. Ignorance may not protect your commercial interests.

But I would personally want my government to outlaw the products of slavery, and to look at how trade deals are set up with countries that have lax or corrupt systems.

Is it slavery if the employees are told they would be fired if they left? I thought slaves could not be fired. Do you have evidence that the employees were chained to the work desk?

Or is the slavery comment hyperbole?

I would not be quite so specific in defining slavery, today's definition may not be the same as that of the past. Today's "slaves" may not technically be slaves per the dictionary definition but we can still use the term fairly accurately all the same. Maybe he should make the claim "Modern Day Slavery"?

But my example, I have no freaking idea if "slaves" make our products or not, how could I know short of a trip to China? Do you expect me to take a trip to Sweden to check out the transformer company I work with there? Even then, I have heard stories of such trips where they take the visitors to a different factory! I think we need to rely on our governments making such determinations, and relying on the governments of the production countries as well. Yes we assume China, India, Bangladesh, etc has a greater chance of such "slave" workers but honestly, why do you let me off on visiting Sweden? How do I know for certain? Those same reasons would apply to other nations as well and it really is not my responsibility is it?

Now, if it came to light that the company I am dealing with in China made such slave labor products, my company could certainly face some bad publicity but we did nothing illegal and nothing immoral in the least. As far as dealing with China to begin with, we make most of the same items here as well, we offer our customers a choice of quality vs price, we sell far more of the quality made and more expensive stuff, but some want price only and we serve them as well.

I was talking in general terms, because whether or not it applies in the Bangladesh case, slavery still persists around the world.

And while what you describe may not be slavery, it seems like unlawful coercion. As Tom points outslavery is not always the same - a common means is to charge a large sum to get someone to a job, or set up rent/board/fee liabilities, or 'buy' a kid off their poor family based on getting a return on their labour, and then force the employee to work the 'debt' off or have to pay in full (with usurious interest).

And companies do have a legal duty to perform due diligence. If they can't perform a check themselves, there are alternatives, such as hiring auditors. If they can reasonably be expected to know, ignorance is no defence - morally or legally, depending on the situation. The main responsibility of a company is to protect itself from liability, in order to preserve owners' interests.

Why not Sweden? Well, let's just say they have much better labour laws, which are enforced more strongly, and so while some minor checks may be needed (I assume that any company would check the bona fides of any potential partner to protect from fraud etc), they would not need to be as extensive as for a country where laws are weak, poorly enforced, subject to bribery etc, and especially where we have seen examples.

To weigh in generally: Bangladesh is a democracy. It's a poor country, but the people elect their rulers and they write their own laws. These criminal a**holes that ran this factory are going to pay for what they did, under Bengali law (did you see how they were bodied armored up walking through the crowds?) We support democracies and self-determination, and rarely if ever as a matter of policy will I ever say, I know more than you do about what's best for your country. It's their country and their laws.

Now, if you're talking about some African kleptocracy where the people have no say and kids are picking cocoa, it's fine to forgo that chocolate (or whatever,) but Bangladesh is a different calculation. Westerners have to be very careful not to impose their values on developing democracies, because it's a great way to piss people off.

geo

Now, if you're talking about some African kleptocracy where the people have no say and kids are picking cocoa, it's fine to forgo that chocolate (or whatever,) but Bangladesh is a different calculation. Westerners have to be very careful not to impose their values on developing democracies, because it's a great way to piss people off.

The instruments of governance are a long way from efficient or effective in Bangladesh. Its a very poor nation with enormous stresses and few resources... Democracy is part of their development, as is the establishment of competent effective tools of government.
The values may not be imposed on the country however standards can be imposed upon contractors.
You can get any quality of product delivered in China. If like, in the west, you are willing to pay for the improved standard.
Accordingly, if the supplier contracts include worker standards that are enforceable and audit-able - a company is not imposing its standards on the nation. Only on the companies that want to do business with his,.....

agreed for the most part above, However, I do have a bit of a problem simply accepting free trade from a country just because they are a democracy. I have no clue what the laws are in Bangladesh (I assume they are VERY lax) but I want to see things that keep us competing on a fairly even playing field when it comes to pollution standards and dumping laws etc. It's tough enough having to compete with low labor costs but I want at least somewhat equal footing.

Geo, the owner of the building was a prominent member of the ruling political party, heading up the local youth section.

I supposed it's how you read it. I believe he was a criminal who had, according to the NYT, had "what appeared to be an innocuous position as secretary of the local student wing for the Awami League," and no doubt he took and used that position solely to further his criminal enterprise. But make no mistake, he was a criminal first who found it useful to take a minor position within the party so that he could further his enterprise:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/asia/bangladesh-garment-industry-reliant-on-flimsy-oversight.html?%20partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

And further read the concern that Bangledeshi's have over western nations pulling their garment work out:

But ceasing the purchase of Bangladeshi-manufactured goods, as some have suggested, would not be the compassionate course of action. Economic opportunities from the garment industry have played an important role in making social change possible in my country, with about three million women now working in the garment sector. I have dedicated my life to alleviating entrenched poverty, and I know that boycotting brands that do business in Bangladesh might only further impoverish those who most need to put food on their tables, since the foreign brands would simply take their manufacturing contracts to other countries.

More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/opinion/bangladesh-needs-strong-unions-not-outside-pressure.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&seid=auto

Certainly I agree that Bangladesh is going to want to improve its image. Stronger unions would be good, as would evidence of a national crackdown.

And I'd be shocked if this wasn't a polarizing event in Bangladesh that changed the course of the country's history. Perhaps the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of Bangladesh, which because it is a democracy, it can become such an event. I hope the west gives them the chance.

I don't know why we would even think of punishing the people of Bangladesh by not buying their goods. However, I think we can put pressure on western companies to ensure that their Bangladeshi suppliers meet minimum labor standards or face boycotts.

Indeed, freeman. I don't see any need for a boycott of Bangladesh, and have not been talking about one (Tom may be misunderstanding, but that seems par for the course). Individual companies are going to differ and it is really about those more tham the country itself. That is, of course, providing that Bangladesh takes it seriously - which it seems they are.