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

Harry_Flashman

oldtoolie wrote: »

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.

So let these 'oppressed' workers do just that and think how good they'll feel for having freed themselves from 'oppression' (and probably starved in the process) rather than relying on the British chattering classes to do it for them.

BubbleFrogette

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

So let these 'oppressed' workers do just that and think how good they'll feel for having freed themselves from 'oppression' (and probably starved in the process) rather than relying on the British chattering classes to do it for them.

Your signature seems to suggest some belief of karma. What goes around, comes around, eh? You will get your comeuppance one day then for your mean-spirited, selfish POV.

!!!!!!.

Aldahbra

rag31 wrote: »

I wish I could say I was disappointed with the poll results so far, but having been on here a while I'd say that I'm just unsurprised. There are a fair few prats on here (did you look up long enough from the Daily Mail to really consider the question and the moral implications of ticking 'i don't give a sh...')

Becky

This comment seems very unfair as it is the daily mail that has highlighted the issue.

mippy

susan6780 wrote: »

,i would rather support a sweatshop condition than know that i forced those children into selling themselves to white middle aged men <shudder>

But in supporting sweatshops, that's just what you're doing. Who do you think is getting rich from workers being paid 7p per hour? Not just in the developing world, but in factories here too, where employees with little English are easily exploited.

If you can afford to make more ethical choices, then try and do so. I'd rather go without eggs if I couldn't afford free range (and have done) and it would be great if ethical fashion was made more accessible to all. Remember that charity shopping is ethical too - not only are you giving to a cause but also keeping an item out of landfill and removing the need for more stuff to be manufactured to keep up with consumer demand.

mippy

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

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).
.

Just out of interest, what's wrong with a desire to do good? I was brought up to believe that doing good was a positive thing.

stevemcol

turbotabby wrote: »

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%

All made sense (though I don't fully agree) until the last paragraph. You're saying you can't afford to pay the extra to protect humans (and understand here, people do die as a result of sweat shop labour) but you will go the extra mile to protect animals.

Also you shouldn't make sweeping assumptions about other peoples' incomes.

Saucepot

I prefer stuff made by child labourers in sweat shops. The small hands make for more precise work, but only if they keep their weight down by working 16 hour days & only eating one bowl of rice a day. You don't want stuff made by a chubby kid with fat fingers. I like to know they have been beaten regularly too.

Harry_Flashman

BubbleFrogette wrote: »

Your signature seems to suggest some belief of karma. What goes around, comes around, eh? You will get your comeuppance one day then for your mean-spirited, selfish POV.

!!!!!!.

And you simply demonstrate your low level of intelligence with your gutter abuse.

Harry_Flashman

mippy wrote: »

Just out of interest, what's wrong with a desire to do good? I was brought up to believe that doing good was a positive thing.

There is nothing wrong at all with a desire to do good and I salute you for it.

There is much wrong with expecting everyone else to share your views and sneering when they don't.

morg_monster

Not sure how to answer the survey - I don't mind paying extra for fair trade tea, coffee, chocolate, bananas, sugar etc, but I'm afraid I don't always buy ethical clothes.

However - I think companies who use sweatshop labour and then charge ridiculous amounts for their goods are worse than those who use the same labour but sell their clothes cheap. EG I won't buy nike stuff for this reason but primark I don't mind so much as they charge such low prices anyway. Gap is another I'm unsure of. Its so hard finding the truth about all companies you ever might use - I don't have time to research every piece of clothing I want to buy! I find most ethical clothing companies smug and self satisfied though; and as someone said they are high priced - and no i don't believe that is just down to paying a fair wage to their workers.