10p knickers at Primark

ThinkingOfLinking

I am not trying to boycott discussion of the ethical issues involved; in fact, I support them, but this thread was only meant to point out the bargain bin of 10p knickers I saw in a branch in case other branches offered it and it helps other MSE'rs.

robin_banks

milkybars wrote: »

I feel consumers' hands are tied on this matter. The options are:
1. Keep buying and workers get low pay with poor working conditions.
2. Boycott and workers, many are homeless or orphan children, no longer have jobs and do not get paid at all.

Which would you choose?

Has it occured to you that children shouldn't be employed in the first place?.

Consumers hands aren't tied, don't buy Primark.

adouglasmhor

The one in the BBC story above hapened in Manchester though. It can happen anywhere.

Primark are owned by Penneys in Ireland BTW so any Irish members can make their choices too. But Penneys are owned by Associated British Foods so if anyone is boycotting them they should be avoiding all of the brands below too.

Allinson
Kingsmill
Mazola oil
Ovaltine
Ryvita
Silver Spoon
Sunblest
Twinings
Patak's



Gets complicated having to make moral choices sometimes.

Idiophreak

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The news Item is posted above and PRIMARK did not employ those people, a contractor/supplier did and Primark are investigating.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You're right...Primark have *no* responsibility here at all...:rolleyes:

This is by no means Primark have been caught with this kind of behaviour in their supply chain...and it doesn't seem too unfair that they're viewed as one of that least ethical names on the high street. (indeed, they actually won a "least ethical" award in 2005! go them!). Time and time again it seems that their "ethical policy" is lipservice and nothing more.

They offer suppliers peanuts for their product and turn a blind eye to how they manage to produce it for such a low price - in exactly the same way many consumers decide not to think about it.

milkybars

robin_banks wrote: »

Has it occured to you that children shouldn't be employed in the first place?.

Consumers hands aren't tied, don't buy Primark.

Are you suggesting that these children shouldn't work and therefore would not be able to buy food for themselves? Often this employment allows them to sleep on the factory floor - less than ideal I know but a damn sight better than sleeping on the street.

cheap_charlie

milkybars wrote: »

Are you suggesting that these children shouldn't work and therefore would not be able to buy food for themselves? Often this employment allows them to sleep on the factory floor - less than ideal I know but a damn sight better than sleeping on the street.

Or worse - in prostitution.

It's not as cut and dried as some people seem to think

robin_banks

I am suggesting that these jobs shouldn't exist, do you think it is appropriate for children as young as 7 to work and to be paid a pittance even by local standards.They then are charged 'rent' and in effect are paid nothing. It's not employment, it's slavery.

adouglasmhor

Idiophreak wrote: »

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You're right...Primark have *no* responsibility here at all...:rolleyes:

This is by no means Primark have been caught with this kind of behaviour in their supply chain...and it doesn't seem too unfair that they're viewed as one of that least ethical names on the high street. (indeed, they actually won a "least ethical" award in 2005! go them!). Time and time again it seems that their "ethical policy" is lipservice and nothing more.

They offer suppliers peanuts for their product and turn a blind eye to how they manage to produce it for such a low price - in exactly the same way many consumers decide not to think about it.

Where did I say Primark have no responsibility. I have even posted info which could help people put pressure on the owners of Primark without victimising the sweat shop victims. Like I said it's complicated. If people boycott some of their other stuff they will soon buck up their ideas. Like I said it has happened to M & S before and they don't exactly target the cheap end of the consumer spectrum.

adouglasmhor

robin_banks wrote: »

I am suggesting that these jobs shouldn't exist, do you think it is appropriate for children as young as 7 to work and to be paid a pittance even by local standards.They then are charged 'rent' and in effect are paid nothing. It's not employment, it's slavery.

Is this happening in MANCHESTER? Inform social services immediately. I am of to borrow the outrage bus from another forum.

cheap_charlie

robin_banks wrote: »

I am suggesting that these jobs shouldn't exist, do you think it is appropriate for children as young as 7 to work and to be paid a pittance even by local standards.They then are charged 'rent' and in effect are paid nothing. It's not employment, it's slavery.

I agree the jobs shouldn't exist but these families don't live in a country where it is outlawed and I'd rather see a child working in a factory than cast out into the streets.

This is why I refuse to boycott stores such as Primark and would repeat a simple boycott is not the answer.

The problem lies not just with the company who deals with these contractors but also the culture in the countries these factories are located in.