Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

SingleSue

James was the first in our family to go, Josh was the second alongside his cousin, youngest will go at the same time as another cousin and as my brother's oldest daughter wants to be a nurse, she will go in 3 years time.

Of the younger ones, I have no clue, really can't see brother's son going but you never know, he might get his head in the game at some point.

Generali

bugslet wrote: »

Whilst not disagreeing with you, it gets complicated to make moral choices on the ground. A friend of mine is in a reasonably senior position in M&S on the clothing side. When the Rana Plaza disaster happened, I asked if they had any clothes manufactured there. They didn't, though they did in other Bangladesh factories. I have no reason to believe that they don't pay a fair rate for the clothes and therefore the workers, but I don't know, nor do I know anything about the safety for those workers. At one point M&S were discussing pulling out of Bangladesh and is that helpful to Bangladeshi workers?

I had a bit of a moment at the start of the year about only buying British goods ( excluding food ) - and it's hard work at times, not to mention expensive and extremely limiting as far as choice goes.

I made peace with my industry ( you know, mowing down wildlife with gay abandon, totally responsible for child asthma in the UK and simultaneously thundering through villages and lumbering up hills for no reason at all, just out for the fun of it ) and the specific sector I work in, which tends to attract protestors.

You've got me thinking there now Gen. I'd close the firm before I'd move livestock, but I'd move cheese - as someone that eats little animal products, then where's the logic in that? Goes away to ponder.....

We were involved in discussions with the large clothing retailers in Aus prior to Rana Plaza and then have continued those discussions since.

We're never said to a company, "Make your clothes at xx factory and we'll divest from you" but what we have done is made a case that if you buy from a small number of well run Bangladeshi factories you have two advantages:

1. Your clothes will be better made and the net cost to your business will be nil due to fewer returns so you can still compete on price
2. If you buy from the next Rana Plaza, when it falls over you won't have any clothes to sell!

One of the problems you have if you buy from factories like Rana Plaza is that you are just another one of hundreds of clients so you have no say in how your clothes are made or by whom. The owners don't care about you any more than they care about their workers and that is reflected in the quality of their product.

On top of that there is reputation, being able to look at yourself in the mirror and all that but by working with one very large Aussie company we showed that there were very real competitive advantages from acting in a better way and they are moving ahead of their chief competitor almost every quarter.

This isn't some sort of experiment or an attempt to win 'Investor of the Year' by the Guardian. This is a genuine, multi-billion dollar fund trying to win more clients and give those clients the best financial returns. We don't play at this stuff.

vivatifosi

I don't know if anyone is interested (Gen might be, fc would be if she were around), but a court has ruled on the Trunki case. Trunki being the inventors of the funky children's suitcases... a brilliant idea.

Trunki took its competitor to court for copying its designs and tried to block their sale in the UK. It has lost the case in the Supreme Court. The Judge stated: "This court has sympathy... but design right is intended to protect designs, not ideas".

bugslet

Generali wrote: »

On top of that there is reputation, being able to look at yourself in the mirror and all that but by working with one very large Aussie company we showed that there were very real competitive advantages from acting in a better way and they are moving ahead of their chief competitor almost every quarter.

This isn't some sort of experiment or an attempt to win 'Investor of the Year' by the Guardian. This is a genuine, multi-billion dollar fund trying to win more clients and give those clients the best financial returns. We don't play at this stuff.

If you can translate that to the consumer, then undoubtedly there is. Whilst being far from wealthy, I will pay more if I think that people are receiving better wages and for those that can afford to, it's a definite trend. As a company that is something that you can investigate to a greater degree than individual consumers.

Our products are made by people with strong Health and Safety departments and paying well above minimum wage. As long as its never used, it's all very lovely.:A

Generali

bugslet wrote: »

If you can translate that to the consumer, then undoubtedly there is. Whilst being far from wealthy, I will pay more if I think that people are receiving better wages and for those that can afford to, it's a definite trend. As a company that is something that you can investigate to a greater degree than individual consumers.

Our products are made by people with strong Health and Safety departments and paying well above minimum wage. As long as its never used, it's all very lovely.:A

What the company we worked with found was that because returns of bad product fell they could pay a little more for their supply and yet still sell at the same price.

Not only do they make the same profit per item they are increasingly gaining a rep as a quality seller at low prices rather than just another company selling $10 Ts.

silvercar

EDIT 3: Hmm... now the maths doesn't quite add up. But I do "know" I've got the right person.

It was common, in the old days, for ladies of a certain age to lie about their age. Even on official documents.

vivatifosi

PM me if you want me to check anything on FMP/Anc. I'll have access again either tomorrow or Friday.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

We were involved in discussions with the large clothing retailers in Aus prior to Rana Plaza and then have continued those discussions since.

We're never said to a company, "Make your clothes at xx factory and we'll divest from you" but what we have done is made a case that if you buy from a small number of well run Bangladeshi factories you have two advantages:

1. Your clothes will be better made and the net cost to your business will be nil due to fewer returns so you can still compete on price
2. If you buy from the next Rana Plaza, when it falls over you won't have any clothes to sell!

One of the problems you have if you buy from factories like Rana Plaza is that you are just another one of hundreds of clients so you have no say in how your clothes are made or by whom. The owners don't care about you any more than they care about their workers and that is reflected in the quality of their product.

On top of that there is reputation, being able to look at yourself in the mirror and all that but by working with one very large Aussie company we showed that there were very real competitive advantages from acting in a better way and they are moving ahead of their chief competitor almost every quarter.

This isn't some sort of experiment or an attempt to win 'Investor of the Year' by the Guardian. This is a genuine, multi-billion dollar fund trying to win more clients and give those clients the best financial returns. We don't play at this stuff.

It is very interesting what 'ownership' of a company means as a shareholder. Should you try and influence the company directly or should you only do so indirectly via trading the shares?

Loanranger

Pastures, I can watch Iplayer on my computer with the sound on. Can you not watch the prog again like that? Apologies if I misunderstood what you meant.

PasturesNew

BBC - Some new programme on the telly tonight. 200 years ago some toffs went into the slums of London for some reason.

What the programme's done is started with those roughs and toffs and have traced both down 200 years and got all their living descendants together.

It's a short series, not a one off.

They're on The One Show discussing it.

It looks at social mobility as a purpose for the programme.

They 'discovered' if you're born into wealth, 200 years later your descendants will probably still be wealthy; if not, your descendents will still be working class/etc.