[Rolling Bones]

US retail giant Wal-Mart has been hit with a lawsuit that claims it ignores sweatshop conditions at many of its suppliers' factories around the world.

As if no one ever knew.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4243676.stm

[turtle777]

What's the news ?

-t

[olePigeon]

It's called Free Trade. 95% of the companies in the major countries ignore sweatshop conditions.

[OldManMac]

One day, when most workers of the world will be working in sweat shop conditions (including those in the U. S.), we'll all scratch our heads and wonder what went wrong.

[Eriamjh]

They should move the shops to cooler climates...

[Cubeoid]

ice shops?

[cmeisenzahl]

My take on "sweatshops" ...

If a person is making a free choice without coercion to work in one of these factories, I think it's great. Everyone is left better off than before.

If an employee feels that they would be made worse off by taking one of the these jobs, they wouldn't do it.

http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3488

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell012704.asp
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell012804.asp


Chris

[nbnz]

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart has failed to monitor working conditions at its overseas suppliers.

Why is this up to Wal-Mart to monitor, they must have 1000s of suppliers, and those suppliers must supply more than one retailer? If those suppliers were ran or owned by Wal-Mart they would have a point.

It further claims that the low prices Wal-Mart demands force some suppliers to resort to sweatshop conditions.

Wal-Mart has to demand low prices because consumers demand low prices, so this suit should be aimed at everybody that shops at Wal-Mart!

[andi*pandi]

it's a fair trade issue more than worker concerns. If the employers in the US are bound by certain humane practices, it will cost them more, and their goods cost more. If employers in other countries are not bound by those rules, their goods are cheaper. US businesses that buy foreign goods that are made under those circumstances... they're bypassing US laws. Connect the dots.

Of course I don't check the labels on everything I buy.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by nbnz

Wal-Mart has to demand low prices because consumers demand low prices, so this suit should be aimed at everybody that shops at Wal-Mart!

Clearly you don't know how Wal-Mart operates.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

My take on "sweatshops" ...

If a person is making a free choice without coercion to work in one of these factories, I think it's great. Everyone is left better off than before.

If an employee feels that they would be made worse off by taking one of the these jobs, they wouldn't do it.

Of course a fair number of people on the planet do not have a choice. Or, if they do the choice is: Work here, accepting the conditions we're offering, or starve.

[budster101]

Wait a second... who shops at Wal-Marts for the most part?
Whenever I've been to one, it looked like little Mexico or a White trash convention center. If you don't get my point, give it two more seconds thought before flaming.

[cmeisenzahl]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Of course a fair number of people on the planet do not have a choice. Or, if they do the choice is: Work here, accepting the conditions we're offering, or starve.

>> "Or, if they do the choice is: Work here, accepting the conditions we're offering, or starve."

It is absolutely a choice. It may not be a great list of options, but it is a choice nonetheless.

In this example, the "sweatshop" has offered a potential employee a choice they did not previously have. How is giving someone a new option exploiting them?

Prior to the job offer in this scenario, they had one option, starve.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

My take on "sweatshops" ...

If a person is making a free choice without coercion to work in one of these factories, I think it's great. Everyone is left better off than before.

If an employee feels that they would be made worse off by taking one of the these jobs, they wouldn't do it.

All of this is very true, but it requires one flawed assumption: that the choice is free. Most sweatshops exist in nations where decent (or at least non-sweatshop) working conditions are not made available. In some cases, such as India, the local government gets in on the act, deliberately using the laws of the land to keep working conditions poor, in order to attract businesses. Businesses don't bother offering decent working conditions even when they could legally do so, because this would be missing the point of outsourcing: decent working conditions cost money, and the point of outsourcing is to eliminate that overhead. As a result, workers are effectively coerced to work in these factories, because they are the only jobs available. Certainly they are better off than they might otherwise be: any job is better than none at all. But the choice is not a free one when it's one job or nothing.

Free choice is a wonderful thing, and by far it is the best way to run an economy and society. However, this does not necessarily mean a lack of control, because it requires that choice actually be free. That requires choice and balance between employer, employee, and client. If any side gains all the power -be it employers under mercantilism, employees under communism, or clients under some system yet to be devised- then the system has developed a serious problem, which will eventually cause its collapse if not corrected. This is just about the only time that the law has any business interfering with... well... business, but it's important enough that it should not be overlooked.

When employers gain all the power over clients, we call it a monopoly. When employers gain all the power over employees, we call it a sweatshop. Are these not equally problematic?

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

It is absolutely a choice. It may not be a great list of options, but it is a choice nonetheless.

No, it's not. A sane person has only one choice in this situation, and one choice is no choice.

[cmeisenzahl]

I never said the power was equal. I said it was a free choice. My comment remains. If you give a person one more choice than he previously had, you have helped him, not harmed him, especially if he himself considers it to be his best option.

[olePigeon]

You and your children can either starve to death, or all of you can work here for 12 hours a day at 10 cents an hour with no benefits and a "replace as needed" work ethic. If you miss one day or are late more than twice, we'll replace you. We don't care if you're sick, just had a child, or were hurt at our facility.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I never said the power was equal. I said it was a free choice.

The power need not necessarily be equal, but there does need to be a balance, does there not?

My comment remains. If you give a person one more choice than he previously had, you have helped him, not harmed him, especially if he himself considers it to be his best option.

For any sane human being, there is still only one option, so you really have not given him any more choice than before. You have indeed helped his situation out, as his only option is no longer starvation, but you have not gone so far as to offer him choice.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I never said the power was equal. I said it was a free choice. My comment remains. If you give a person one more choice than he previously had, you have helped him, not harmed him, especially if he himself considers it to be his best option.

The father and mother can either work harder than you or I could possibly imagine (and very likely killing themselves very slowly if working with chemicals or other harmful agents), or, they can also have their 8-year-old work just as hard and go blind by the time he or she is 30.

Yeah, those options are much better.

What is wrong with you?

[cmeisenzahl]

Don't confuse having some choice with having great choices. I doubt any of us would want to trade places with this hypothetical person. But the fact remains that he has more choice than before, and he wouldn't have accepted the job (again, barring slavery, physical threats/coercion, etc.) unless he believed it was a better option than the other choices available.

[Mastrap]

I am sorry but I fail to see what you're arguing for. Are you saying that exploitation can be justified because it is better for the worker to be exploited than to not have the option to be exploited?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I just don't give a sh*t becasue it's happening so far away and not to me.

Fixed.

[budster101]

There are sweatshops in Downtown Chicago and the suburbs, just look. I don't give a crap about it because it's so far away and there are problems so close to home. You have a choice. LEAVE and go elsewhere, like Chicago...

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

Don't confuse having some choice with having great choices. I doubt any of us would want to trade places with this hypothetical person. But the fact remains that he has more choice than before, and he wouldn't have accepted the job (again, barring slavery, physical threats/coercion, etc.) unless he believed it was a better option than the other choices available.

Is death ever a viable option for a sane, healthy human being? Answer this, and you'll find why I say that the number of choices hasn't increased. You have increased the number of options by one, but only one of these is viable, and so there is no choice in the matter. Choice requires multiple viable options.

Now, if for example some sort of situation were to be devised such that the current sweatshop workers could easily migrate to places where working conditions were decent, then you would have multiple viable options. Similarly, if businesses were allowed by local law to offer the kinds of conditions we in the West find acceptable, then we would once again see multiple viable choices. The situation as it stands now, however, does not often allow for either of these.

[GSixZero]

So is a person who is a slave, in the old time, "black person picking cotton" sense, there by choice? The other choice being escaping and risking a brutal beating or death?

Because being bought and sold, and working for nothing is a better choice than getting beaten up.

Of course I'm being facetious, but I would tend to argue that having the choice between having no job and starving or having the only job that is awful while barely making enough to live is a similar situation.

[cmeisenzahl]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

So is a person who is a slave, in the old time, "black person picking cotton" sense, there by choice? The other choice being escaping and risking a brutal beating or death?

Because being bought and sold, and working for nothing is a better choice than getting beaten up.

Of course I'm being facetious, but I would tend to argue that having the choice between having no job and starving or having the only job that is awful while barely making enough to live is a similar situation.

I thought I made it very clear in 2 posts that slavery and coercion are the antithesis of free choice. That is the abscence of options.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by budster101

I don't give a crap about it because it's so far away and there are problems so close to home.

Because people work in sweatshops in Chicago because they like it. Oh, of course they'd move out of there into a nice home in the burbs. Get a respectable job, drive a nice car...

Is it because the minorities of this country are lazy? Or because society doesn't give them the same opportunites as white people? Once you answer that question, I'm sure you'll discover the answer to why people are working in sweatshops in Chicago and not moving out like you so casually suggested.

[cmeisenzahl]

I punt. ;-)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I thought I made it very clear in 2 posts that slavery and coercion are the antithesis of free choice. That is the abscence of options.

I think Eddie Izzard had it well put.

Cake or Death. That's not exactly a choice because no mentally healthy person would choose Death over Cake.

[budster101]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Because people work in sweatshops in Chicago because they like it. Oh, of course they'd move out of there into a nice home in the burbs. Get a respectable job, drive a nice car...

Is it because the minorities of this country are lazy? Or because society doesn't give them the same opportunites as white people? Once you answer that question, I'm sure you'll discover the answer to why people are working in sweatshops in Chicago and not moving out like you so casually suggested.

I wish I could be like you and just quote one sentence, then let both barrels fly, but I can't.

Did you read my post? I said there are sweatshops all over. In the burbs and Chicago... I've seen them. My point was, I'd rather take care of business at home and help those people here first. If that is ok with you?

Where in my post did I state anything that meant it was the blame of the person in the sweatshop? Are you under the impression that I don't care about them? I don't care about the one's over seas, until my hometown slaves are freed. Cool? Get it?

Some people just don't see opportunity when it's nearby, and or cannot take advantage because of where they are in their lives. It's unfortunate, but I'll tell you what. The library is free and you can get a hell of an education by just reading... and get ahead. So you discount the poor white people who can't get ahead? Only black people can be poor and work in sweatshops? Most of the sweatshops I've seen were filled with mexicans and they were all illegals.

[andi*pandi]

and they should be shut down.

The fact that there is illegal activity in the US does not make it alright for other places. It's illegal here for a reason.

[budster101]

Yeah. Let's start here though. (Or rather if you are not living in the US, start at home)

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by budster101

Did you read my post? I said there are sweatshops all over. In the burbs and Chicago... I've seen them.

I know, Illinois is such a big place. You couldn't possibly devote time or money in helping such a place so devoid of human life.

Originally Posted by budster101

My point was, I'd rather take care of business at home and help those people here

And I wouldn't expect anything more from you. I truncated your response because you've already stated you didn't give a crap about those other people. So puting crap you don't care about on a list of things to want to do is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by budster101

Are you under the impression that I don't care about them?

Err... well, yes. Perhaps it was when you said "I don't give a crap about it because it's so far away" led me to believe that you, well, don't give a crap?

Originally Posted by budster101

I don't care about the one's over seas, until my hometown slaves are freed. Cool? Get it?

Sure. But would the slaves be freed if people didn't give a crap about Benjamin Franklin over in France?

For that matter, what do you care about a war in Iraq and peoples' freedoms half a world away when you don't give a crap about the conditions and freedoms of the people not 50 miles from you?

You care, but only when it suits your own personal agenda.

Originally Posted by budster101

So you discount the poor white people who can't get ahead?

Yes. When presented with the same opportunites as any other person of color, the white person will get it. Well, unelss that opporunity involves working fields and orchards. Or maybe hand sewing leather shoes. Perhaps literally cleaning sh*t up?

Are poor, white people incapable for manual labor at minimum wage or less with no benefits?

Incase you haven't noticed, White Civil Rights leaders aren't exactly jumping up and down because their most basic civili liberties are benig sh*tted on. Well, unless you count the white people complaining that immigrants are stealing our jobs. I know I hate it when I can't pick my own cabbage.

Originally Posted by budster101

Only black people can be poor and work in sweatshops?

Um. If you say so.

Originally Posted by budster101

Most of the sweatshops I've seen were filled with mexicans and they were all illegals.

Right... so what was the comment about black people for?

[budster101]

I'm honored you took the time to parse my post in quotes, but at least make some sense before you flame me, I responded directly to your post... Out.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by cmeisenzahl

I thought I made it very clear in 2 posts that slavery and coercion are the antithesis of free choice. That is the abscence of options.

Exactly. And when there is only one viable option present, that's coercion.

Think about this. At any given point in time, any one of us could simply choose to commit suicide if we decided we didn't like our situation. That's always an "option". It's not an option that most serious people would even give serious consideration to at most times, and even among those who seriously consider it, most wouldn't go through with it. For any particular given person, you might be able to find one or two situations where that person might choose suicide, but these are rare enough and diverse enough among people that in no case can it really be considered a viable option.

Given that, sweatshops do in fact raise the number of viable options: namely, from zero to one. However, one option does not make a choice. Monopolies and sweatshops break capitalism for the same reason: they remove the freedom of choice on which capitalism depends.

[andi*pandi]

back in the day, in this country, companies had what they called the "company store." If you needed food, clothes, etc, that was the only place you were allowed to buy them--you weren't paid in money, but credit for the store. Sometimes your apartment was also the company's. Of course the prices weren't honest. You always ended up owing the company store, and had to keep working there.

by cmiesenzahl's theory, those folks had a choice too--the company store or starve. Is that a choice, or different way of saying indentured servitude?

[Doofy]

Sweatshops are an inherent part of any country's initial growth towards their industrialisation - we went through it a couple of hundred years back. Would it actually be healthy for any country to skip "paying their dues"?

Sad but true.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Sweatshops are an inherent part of any country's initial growth towards their industrialisation - we went through it a couple of hundred years back. Would it actually be healthy for any country to skip "paying their dues"?

Sad but true.

By your logic we shouldn't bother about promoting healthcare or democracy in developing nations. After all, it's all part of paying one's dues.

Sweatshops are by no means restricted to the third world. They exist anywhere there is a population desperate for work, be that the result of poverty or lack of education. Sweatshops exist in the East End of London, in Paris and all over the US and Canada. Talk to the immigrant community to find them.

[sminch]

and they should be shut down.

i hate to say it but i kinda agree with chris - so we shut them down, or force them to pay more in which case they are shut down because the buyer dumps them in favour of a sweatshop in another country which hasn't been forced to pay more, and all this achieves is the removal of the one way the workers had of making a living. you might argue that they had no choice before, but if you take away that one non-choice and they have no option but to starve.

lucky bastards - we saved them from working for a pittance! huzzah! now they and their children can starve while enjoying their new, sweatshop free lives!

sminch

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

By your logic we shouldn't bother about promoting healthcare or democracy in developing nations. After all, it's all part of paying one's dues.

Well... How's the democracy promotion going in Iraq? Or Afghanistan?

In order to gain stability, countries need to find it for themselves. Sweatshops, the quest for democracy, the creation of national healthcare - all growing pains which a country must go through. Did America get where it is by not having the million man march (and the conditions that led to this event)? Did British women get the vote by not having the suffragettes (and the conditions that caused normal women to become suffragettes)? If you ever need to look at a catalogue of errors, simply go and look at countries (or continents, let's not leave Africa out of it) which have external help in getting where they're going.

Let's devolve the concept to individual level... Do you feel good about the business which you have built or would you have preferred to have it handed to you? Don't answer that - I already know which way you'd prefer it (and rightly so).

No, whether you're an individual or a country, you need those growing pains to have any hope of a lasting stability.

"The point of the journey is not to arrive" - Neil Peart.