freeman2 wrote: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.

It's ironic considering our other thread, but Walmart had previously refused to use stuff made in these sorts of unsafe factories in Bangladesh.

While I agree, I see a real problem with what some people are saying now vs what they said earlier.
I said almost this exact same thing:

and if nobody shopped at walmart, what would these people in Bangladesh do? Working for peanuts is probably better than working for nothing at all?...

Danivon claimed:

"and if nobody bought cotton from slave plantations, what would the Negroes do? Working for room and board is probably better than not working at all? This does help prop them up slightly and get them on their way once they've been manumissioned" (shameless, yes, but where do you draw the line?)

but now he claims he sees nothing wrong with purchasing from Bangladesh and that I am confused, you bet I'm confused !

and as far as this situation goes, I also hope things improve in Bangladesh but if they force change through too fast, it could result in prices rising too much in turn making items produced there less desirable and we see the production moved elsewhere. Again, the poor get poorer! Change is good, change is needed, but I hope they drag their feet just enough to prevent unintended consequences while still protecting the workers, seldom is anything all that black and white is it?

Ray Jay wrote:

freeman2 wrote: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.

It's ironic considering our other thread, but Walmart had previously refused to use stuff made in these sorts of unsafe factories in Bangladesh.

Credit where it's due, although if course that's the bare minimum I would expect.

GMTom wrote:but now he claims he sees nothing wrong with purchasing from Bangladesh and that I am confused, you bet I'm confused !

Easily done, I wager.

To clarify things for you, consider the difference between:

not buying stuff from a company that has bad practices, and

not buying stuff from a country that has companies in it that have bad practices.

Still confused? I'll simplify further - the difference is the same as that between a 'company' and a 'country'

Got it?

and as far as this situation goes, I also hope things improve in Bangladesh but if they force change through too fast, it could result in prices rising too much in turn making items produced there less desirable and we see the production moved elsewhere. Again, the poor get poorer! Change is good, change is needed, but I hope they drag their feet just enough to prevent unintended consequences while still protecting the workers, seldom is anything all that black and white is it?

Well, ideally we'd want to see the same things happening in other countries as well, not just Bangladesh. Starting with enforcing their own laws properly.

Never thought I'd see a call to 'drag their feet' though. I see what you mean though - some people might be affected by your as yet unquantified "unintended consequences", just because of the deaths of a few hundred people.

I am sympathetic to their plight, I certainly want improvement for them and some pretty simple safeguards would go a long ways. HOWEVER, if they make knee jerk reactions to this, they could do too much too fast and cause the entire industry to relocate. Slow and steady most certainly is the way to go is it not? I honestly can see a huge problem developing if they want to do too much too soon, or do you simply want to ignore the obvious?

Some things need to happen more quickly than others. Enforcing the existing laws would presumably be something they should do quickly, to restore confidence.

I am always for enforcing existing laws...

bbauska wrote:I am always for enforcing existing laws...

Indeed (notwithstanding that the law can be an ass sometimes), but if it is found that breaches of the law are widespread, would it be 'too quick' for our cautious Tom to start right away?

Further to this, it does seem Bangladesh does have a problem: Majority of Bangladesh garment factories 'vulnerable to collapse' (Guardian).

The survey's revelation that the lives of millions of Bangladeshi workers, often making goods for western firms, are at risk will concern western retailers which, following global outrage after the Rana Plaza collapse, are now moving to improve security and conditions in the Bangladesh factories that supply their shops. Bangladesh is the world's second biggest supplier of clothes. More than 80% are exported to Europe or the US. The £13bn industry employs about 3.5 million people, mainly young women, and is a major foreign currency earner for Bangladesh.

The survey is the work of a team of engineers from the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET). They have so far surveyed a sixth of 600 buildings that house more than 3,000 clothes factories.

"Somewhere around 60% of the buildings are vulnerable," said Prof Mehedi Ansary, who leads the team. "This doesn't mean they will collapse in the next week or month, but it does mean that to leave them unchanged would be irresponsible."

The report also mentions that things maybe changing - there are two agreements being negotiated with Western companies to improve conditions and the Bangladeshi trade association are implementing more checks.

However...

The manufacturers complain of "massive pressure" from buyers to keep prices low.

"Every year our cost of production is rising. Land, utilities, salaries, everything is going up. But the price of apparel is going down, It's a sick industry now," said Islam.

The 'market' is leading a race to the bottom, to sate our tastes and maximise margins for our retailers. But markets are amoral. People can have morals, and it's down to them whether to continue such a downward spiral.

And from that page I saw a link to this: Supply chains and forced labour after Rana Plaza: lessons learned, which discusses what measures companies can take to live up to their own ideals on social responsibility.

American Apparel is a vertically integrated fashion company that pays its garment workers in LA $12 an hour, provides generous benefits and yet seems to be profitable. I listened to its owner interviewed yesterday. He pretty clearly defined the moral question that manufacturers have dodged, till now. Paying a dollar an hour would raise the cost of a garment 20 or 30 cents...
He also suggested that one of the tactics of fashion companies is to force production schedules by insisting on 100% delivery of a contract on time, or the fashion retailer refuses to accept delivery. Meaning the manufacturer then owns the production of the garments, but doesn't have a customer. And can't sell them without modification as they have been branded. It destroys many contract manufacturers who force their labour to work ridiculous hours to deliver on time...
Its not just the Contractors who are exploiting the workers. The fashion companies are exploiting the contractors with policies that force enormous risks on them.
The whole interview is linked below.
The morality of the business practices don't become an issue unless there is media exposure. Either through investigative reporting or because of disasters like the building collapse.

Since the factory collapse in Bangladesh that killed more than 1,100 workers, the controversial CEO of American Apparel has been speaking out. Dov Charney tells Jian that paying workers anything less than a dollar an hour amounts to slavery. And he says if fast fashion competitors can't pay workers more, they should stop making clothes.

http://www.cbc.ca/q/2013/06/03/dov-char ... ndustry-1/

rickyp wrote:He also suggested that one of the tactics of fashion companies is to force production schedules by insisting on 100% delivery of a contract on time, or the fashion retailer refuses to accept delivery.

I'm told that timing is everything in fashion, and that this is one reason why you still see rows and rows of sewing machines with short black haired ladies hunched over them in Manhattan lofts. Supply chain can even trump insane real estate costs for the right product.

Timing may be everything. And, thats arguable whether delivery Thursday instead of Monday is a death blow.

But here's how it affects a contractor.

If he he has only 90% of a shipment ready on time, the entire contract is cancelled and he eats the cost completely. Finding another customer for the product is nigh impossible because he wouldn't have the right to sell it as labelled, or sell it at all if the design is the fashion companies..
can you imagine the stress that places on a business and how the contractor would press his labour to avoid defaulting?
What Dov Charney suggested that there needs to be an independent arbiter involved to which the parties can appeal to resolve contractual problems. like this... Perhaps if only 90% is ready when required its acceptable, but the remaining 10% needs to be discounted? Some resolution that is fairer, and doesn't drive contractors to be slave drivers...

The problem with industrial morals is that there is a disconnect between cause and effect. Fashion companies willfully ignore the effect that their policies have on their contractor companies and the employees of those contractors. Not caring, defines the companies.
Not knowing, also defines the companies. Because if they aren't willing to educate themselves about their entire supply chain, is that because they are afraid that if they inform themselves fully .... they have to start taking responsibility?
I think thats what essentially has happened with the building collapse. And in the past, the Nike factory revelations, Kathy Lee Gifford, Apple in China and etc.

When it comes down to it, paying an extra dollar a day in wages and improving standards makes a very minor difference to the end price, but in an ultra-competitive industry (which low end clothing is) or one based on total avarice (which the more 'branded' fashion clothing industry is) will not want to pass on those costs or eat them.

Just as when we expose politics to sunlight, we see a lot of shabby deals and graft, it takes exposure either through disaster or consumer/media/activist pressure for us to see how an industry really behaves.