'Do you care if goods are made in sweatshops?' poll discussion

BubbleFrogette

mjjohnson38 wrote: »

All these "do-gooders" who think they are ethical would have these sweatshops closed down, but if they asked the workers they would find that they wish you would keep your interfering noses out. They want the work.
A load of ethical minded, self promoting,do gooders arranged to send tons of cans of tomatoes, (that were surplus and could have been given to OUR poor)to an african township, where the local tomato growers went bankrupt . So much for interfering busybodies, that don't realise the damage they do, or that charity begins at home. Much as the government insists on borrowing £millions, and gives much of it away, how mad is that?

Here, people, is a perfect example of the selfish thickos we seem to have too many of in our privileged and wonderful Great Britain. If charity begins at home, tell me, how many cans of tomatoes have you personally given to the hard up and poor in the town where you live? Not one, I'm willing to bet.

I doubt you have left your own living room (except perhaps to visit 'the Costas' to stay in a place serving up a full English daily), so how the phuk would you know what sweatshop workers want?

ISAmad

Exploitation is wrong. Period.

Sure, we as consumers can nibble at the edges to try and make a difference but only the intervention of the developed world's governments can really bring an end to this.

The Fairtrade code of conduct in trade is great - why isn't it enshrined in law? The EU and US alone, have an almighty amount of clout to get standards raised in the third world. Yes, we 'hardworking' Westerners might be forced to pay a bit more for essentials (and consequently less on our luxuries) but isn't it our fundamental moral obligation to ensure that people less fortunate than ourselves have their little luxury in life - the ability to be able to afford life's essentials.

We are completely spoilt in the developed world.

susan6780

rfburke wrote: »

To simplify your reasoning by breaking it down to two options, starve or work in a sweatshop, side steps the moral issue and justifies you’re choice.
Raising consumer awareness is a powerful tool in motivating retailers to procure best sourced products.
Free range eggs is a good example of this, where the sale of, now far exceeds the battery variety.
Retailers will continue to use exploitive sourcing measures as long as consumers purchase their products.
Consumer action can be powerful tool of change..
These working conditions were present in 19th century british coal mines, when you read about this at school you were probably shocked that people could exploit children in such a manner, yet it’s happening 200 years later!
Just because it’s no longer on our doorstep does not make it justifiable.
No one could convince me that a child working 12hrs a day 7 days a week for less than a pound a day is acceptable. You wouldn’t let your child do it, so why should someone else’s take their place.

so their alternative is? prostitution? begging? its sad that it happens but it will happen whilst we force our "western" ways on the world,i buy stuff from Primark,i would rather support a sweatshop condition than know that i forced those children into selling themselves to white middle aged men <shudder>

stevemcol

I am a bit of a hypocrite. I like to think I have a social conscience but if I see a decent T Shirt for £4 I'll generally go for it, thinking blissfully to myself, 'this must be a loss leader; probably cost much more to make.'

If there were 'Fair Trade' rails in the clothes shops with decent quality clothes at sensible, value for money prices, I'd probably pay a few quid more. I try to for other products.

mjjohnson38. If I thought you were capable of reasoning, I might enter into a debate with you. For now, just keep taking the pills.

turbotabby

As a disabled person living on the rapidly decreasing DLA that in no way keeps track of the real cost of things I can't afford to take the moral highground on things like this. If I can buy a t shirt in primark for a quid or two then I will - if I had to pay department store prices then I can't afford it.
It's all very well for the well off to take the moral highground and insist we should all buy fair trade this and british produced that; but some of us don't have that luxury and it makes me very cross when someone whose household income is probably thirty, forty, fifty times mine starts trying to apply the moral blackmail and suggesting I should be paying ten times more for stuff just to ensure that it meets their moral standards.
Have people forgotten we are in the middle of a credit crunch? There are a great many people in this country who can only afford to shop in poundland and primark and we shouldn't be made to feel bad about that.
I do stick to "non animal cruelty" household products and that is as much as I can do. I do this because I feel strongly about abolishing vivisection as a first step to creating a humane society and also as more people believe this too the price differential is only about 10% not 1000%

coxeey

My grandparents (and older relatives) went through these sweatshops years ago with lads being sent up chimneys and the like.

It is the natural order for a country to develop without giving charity.
They supply the goods that we get dependant upon, the price rises and they develop from their incomes and profits from their industries.
At some point they can almost 'name their price' because they have the market.
We won't have products or industries any more, because it was cheaper to let them do it and we go nearly bankrupt as a country and our money becomes worthless.
Eventually, it may be cheaper for us to produce products to sell here and abroad and they become the consumers. You are seeing the 'east' starting to take over from the 'west' even now as the powerhouse of the world.
No-one helped my ancestors and we got here. In 50 years time we will be that 3rd world and we will have to work our way out of it.

PS Don't confuse this with slave labour, where children/people get kidnapped and forced to work. I do not agree with anything like that.

NicoC_3

This is a subject I feel quite strongly about and it does annoy me when people justify buying cheap clothes with the- "if we didn't people would be out of work" argument.

I think in this case we should take the responsibility and stop buying these clothes and make it clear it is because they do not pay their workers enough. This way no one loses out as it will force the manufacturers to pay their workers more.

And we should never ever expect children to work to make our clothes

keithtalex

Its not been that long ago children were working down our coal pits long hours and low pay and crap conditions. This is how countries gain their wealth and eventually conditions for workers hopefully get better. If you look at our history you could draw comparisons with emerging third world countries now. Previous generations of your own kin had to struggle with very poor conditions. Perhaps we should think of them ! Prosperity does not come cheap. If our forefathers and their children had to do it why the fuss? or is it ok to subject our own to it, but in the typical English way, stand up for every on else but our own. If you didnt work you starved. Is it any different to our own past? I am very gratefull i live in this age and not 100 years ago.

oldtoolie

Yes, working conditions are better now in the UK than in the 18th and 19th century. But people organised, campaigned, went to jail, went on strike, formed unions and won those wages and benefits.

Back then the plantations of the West Indies were making a few people in the UK very rich with the slave trade and the sugar trade. Others thought that was wrong and started a campaign to end the slave trade. It took decades to end the slave trade and finally slavery.

The Fair Trade campaigns of today are heirs to those efforts. This campaign says buy clothing, coffee, bananas and more goods made by people who are treated with dignity by their employers. If you take part, it will make you feel good too.

Harry_Flashman

The moral highground must be a wonderful place for those who can afford to populate it (and sneer at those who disagree with their do-gooding opinions).

Number one - Why should I overpay for a product just because it has 'ethical' scrawled over the label?
Number two - What business of mine is it if a foreign country chooses to mistreat its own people?

The whole debate is very similar to the 'green' issue - a way to get the gullible to pay more for goods with a 'right-on' tag.