[China] Explotation of Chinese workers by American Corporation [Archive]

slipthejab

28-Aug-2006, 05:27 AM

This whole Global Economy BS is affecting everyone single one of us.

True... but it's inevitable.

First our own workers losing jobs because manufacturers decided to move production to India, Fiji or China.

But what to do? It's a companies right to source workers from where they want to. From places that are financially most advantageous for that company. As long as they're not on the list of countries with US sanctions against them... who's to say they can't do it?

Secondly, there is hardly any quality control on the products made in those countries as the manufacturer only cares about profit $.

Not true. I've been to many a factory in China/SE Asia and much of the trade between China/SE Asia and the US is based on satisfying ISO quality standards.

What's more is that for as bad as some of the conditions sound... for many of the laborers it by far beats working in prostitution - a common job for many women from the poor agricultural areas of China/SE Asia.

For instance... in China... 4,000 RMB per month (if that!) is far more than they'd be making working their subsistance level farm back in the Henan province. Sad but true. Sad but true.

Secondly all those "cheapies" we buy will only last less than a year, hence pushing the consumer to buy more. Thus it creates an endless cycle. Using my own words: A bad karmic cycle.

In many respects this is true. Someone would rather buy three t-shirts of low grade cotton/stitch/quality than one t-shirt of qaulity cotton with qaulity thread manufactured by a company that holds to a higher standard of manufacture. But even in those cases... those t-shirts are NOT being made in the west.

Things today are not like in the past. Those mercenaries use marketing and advertising techniques that entice consumers to buy more and more due to increased competition. Increased competition only brings more bad karma.

Yes everyone is being beat over the head with adverstising... so much so that most don't even notice it anymore. But that's the whole point of advertising really isn't it. Advertising is not education... adverstising is not there to let you know the possible flaws in a product... advertising... is there to give you the hard sell on the product. Same as it's always been.

Solution?

Don't bad stuff you don't need and meditate more, and therefore you become more spiritual and less materialistic.

Agreed. But I don't see this as being a viable solution for the vast majority of people. Much of human nature is based on the 'me'. Humans by and large are selfish and for sooooo many this means... out of sight... out of mind.

Lily

28-Aug-2006, 07:19 AM

Ragnarok2005

28-Aug-2006, 12:30 PM

All the morals and that aside, did anyone else read the link to the article from Google bosses saying that the internet won't replace television? Does anyone else know hundreds of people who get their news, entertainment, music and part of their social life from the computer and don't watch TV?

leeless

28-Aug-2006, 01:00 PM

I just try to spend my money on brands I feel reflect my ethics and values. Its not easy and it is sometimes a little more costly but its worth it! I just compile a list of companies that I do and don't buy from and I apply this even when I'm buying gifts for people as well as telling my friends and family what I know. Every bit helps.

Keep it up. As STJ said, human nature is based on "ME". Well, as an individual, my morals and sense of identity prevent me from letting things be "out of mind". I'm sure that what I do doesn't make a difference, and I'm not as optimistic as to believe that some sort of social revolution based on treating people fairly is going to occur. But I am selfish enough to be true to myself, and the motivation behind it is just as strong as any altruistic philosophy.

Kwajman

28-Aug-2006, 01:30 PM

TheDarkJester

28-Aug-2006, 01:44 PM

I read an article over the weekend that said 90% of the items Wal Mart sells are from China. Include them on your list also.

Heres a thought though. If Haji in bangladesh is making your shirt for 20 cents an hour, and thats the going rate over there, why should we complain? He's putting food (albeit crummy food) on the family table....

Yeah but as rediculous a concept as it may be.. (and I'm not justifying this, just pointing it out) .. 20 cents to us may seem piss poor... not enough to buy a pack of gum or something out the quarter machine to quiet our fussing kid... 20 cents in their market might be worth a bit more than we make it out to be.. I still feel they should make a bit more however, but thats not how the world works... :(

Kwajman

28-Aug-2006, 03:01 PM

Yea I understand. I was just throwing something out there. Kind of a supply and demand thing I imagine.

Saz

28-Aug-2006, 03:28 PM

Apotheosis

28-Aug-2006, 03:37 PM

I prefer to ignore it, because thats really my only choice.

If theyre willing to work all day for a carrot, then someone is going to put them to work all day for a carrot.

If I was in charge of getting something manufactured, I also would go to the cheapest and most reliable labour source and if that happened to be very poor Chinese then that is who I would hire.

slipthejab

28-Aug-2006, 03:46 PM

I prefer to ignore it, because thats really my only choice.

As apathetic as that sounds I can understand why you might think this. On one hand it's a fair bit of work to decide which companies you buy from. Do they match up to your ethical expectations? On the other hand this reminds me of a prime example of the culture of 'me me me'.

If theyre willing to work all day for a carrot, then someone is going to put them to work all day for a carrot.

Hmmm... willing is not the same thing as having not much other realistic choice. The real problem is in the choice to remain a subsistance level farmer and well below the poverty level - or to strive to get enough money to send back home to keep the loansharks at bay.

If I was in charge of getting something manufactured, I also would go to the cheapest and most reliable labour source and if that happened to be very poor Chinese then that is who I would hire.

But you're not a manufacturer. So as a consumer do you feel you have any responsibility for how the companies you support with your consumer dollars treat their hired labor? :confused:

MadMonk108

28-Aug-2006, 05:24 PM

Don't bad stuff you don't need and meditate more, and therefore you become more spiritual and less materialistic.

You make Baby Buddha cry.

Kwajman

28-Aug-2006, 09:28 PM

90% sounds a bit high.

Wal-Mart sells mostly food, surely 90% of that doesn't come from China?

Food? Really? Maybe that was the % of "manufactured" stuff.....I'll dig into it further.

Apotheosis

29-Aug-2006, 04:05 AM

As apathetic as that sounds I can understand why you might think this. On one hand it's a fair bit of work to decide which companies you buy from. Do they match up to your ethical expectations? On the other hand this reminds me of a prime example of the culture of 'me me me'.

I suppose, but if I don't buy a pair of Nike shoes someone else will. You can only help someone if they want help, and the Chinese workers are willing to take what they can get.

Hmmm... willing is not the same thing as having not much other realistic choice. The real problem is in the choice to remain a subsistance level farmer and well below the poverty level - or to strive to get enough money to send back home to keep the loansharks at bay.

Then it seems like they are willing to take a job working in a sweatshop, it's not Nike or Walmarts job to supply the CHinese population with job options. They simply let them know that they are hiring and then it is up to the people.

But you're not a manufacturer. So as a consumer do you feel you have any responsibility for how the companies you support with your consumer dollars treat their hired labor? :confused:

No, because their hired labour are willing workers.

If I choose to work 7 hours a day, 7 days a week in return for a can of beans then that is my choice.

I don't place the responsibility on any companies or consumers, I place it on the employees and their governments.

slipthejab

29-Aug-2006, 05:38 AM

I suppose, but if I don't buy a pair of Nike shoes someone else will. You can only help someone if they want help, and the Chinese workers are willing to take what they can get.

The first part is a bit of a cop-out really. Apply that same train of thought to many other scenarios to see how apathetic it is.

Because Chinese workers are between a rock and a hard place doesn't translate into that they want to work in sweatshop conditions. Young children in Bangladesh don't want to work in sweatshops for 18 hours a day... of course they don't they want to be going to school and playing outside like normal children everywhere... but due to the socio-economic factors they are forced to work instead of play or go to school.

Then it seems like they are willing to take a job working in a sweatshop, it's not Nike or Walmarts job to supply the CHinese population with job options. They simply let them know that they are hiring and then it is up to the people.

Only it's a bit more than just the black and white simplicity that you state. What your essentially saying is that big corporations have no responsibility for their actions. They just put up the 'workers wanted' signs and the working environment and rights of the workers be damned.

Only it doesn't work like this. Look at the US - by law they are required to conform to certain standards to be able stay in business. Many US companies are getting around these sorts laws and restrictions because the Chinese government itself is slow to act with such laws. That doesn't make it right.

Again following the simplistic logic your using - we can easily see that companies are under no onus to be responsible in the countries in which they hire labor. And because (again by your logic) we see that at the end of the day someone else would have bought that pair of Nike/Adidas/whatever... that it doesn't really matter what Mega Corp. A,B or C does... as long as we get our good cheaply.

Again.. good to see you are raising the double-standard.

No, because their hired labour are willing workers.

If I choose to work 7 hours a day, 7 days a week in return for a can of beans then that is my choice.

I don't place the responsibility on any companies or consumers, I place it on the employees and their governments.

Again it's a convenient attitude that shows little understanding of how manufacturing and responsible trade between countries works.

By following this bizarre logic we can also assume that it'd be ok to by from what country run by whatever dictators with people working in whatever miserable conditions as long as we get our good cheaply.

Your train of thought fails to take into account social responsibility of the mega corporations in the countries in which they operate. It also fails to take into account that people vote in many ways with their consumer dollars.

Your train of logic applied to many other situations in the manufacturing and the industrial world is pretty much a casebook of why workers rights are important to understand. It's also a classic showcase of why it pays to have a better understanding of the implicit repsonsibility that mega corps should operate under when going into other countries.

You sound like a Union Carbide champion. Oh but wait... they did nothing wrong in India... as the Indians were willing workers. :rolleyes:

Copout. :rolleyes:

Lily

29-Aug-2006, 05:47 AM

Leeless - thanks! However I believe in the idea of 'critical mass'. If I make an ethical choice there is always a flow on effect, however small. I also educate my family and friends where I can and they put their money where their morals are. They then tell their friends and so on. I believe in people power.

Apotheosis - most multinationals don't want to pay minimum wages (as set by unions) in the parent country so close down their factories (people lose jobs) and set up in a developing country where people are desperate to work and make a better life. I don't deny that some end up earning more than they would in a local job but the conditions, work hours, child labour, fines applied by overseers, lack of investment by these companies in actually improving the lives of these workers is appalling. Travel, see the world, read more widely, open your eyes and don't close them again.

Durkhrod Chogori

29-Aug-2006, 08:24 AM

I prefer to ignore it, because thats really my only choice.

That is the problem with our <edited> world. Most of people think like that. Samsaric cycle??

If theyre willing to work all day for a carrot, then someone is going to put them to work all day for a carrot.

I guess they have no other choice, but why those Corporations don't treat those Human Beings (with the same rights as you and I) slightly better, hey?

If I was in charge of getting something manufactured, I also would go to the cheapest and most reliable labour source and if that happened to be very poor Chinese then that is who I would hire.

Glad to hear you aren't in charge of something like that.

>>>>>>

BTW, have you seen a documentary produced by the BBC and the way Nike treat the workers in South-East Asia (Vietnam and Indonesia came to my mind). Basically employing child labour (illegal in Western countries) and cramming them up like factory-bred chickens. The funny thing is that Nike always denied that even the day they put that film out...

Very sad that this kind of working conditions still exist in the XXI century.

<<<Some food for brain>>>:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Boycotts/NikeFacts_GX.html (Nike Real facts)
http://www.cic.org.hk/research.htm#j (How Hasbro, Mattel, McDonald's and Disney manufacture their toys? (pdf file available. Just scroll down that site)
http://www.reginaames.com/sample (Nike's Court Case in California, 2001)
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/01/malays9337.htm (general document about abuse suffered by Asian Migrant females)
http://www.newint.org/issue263/nimble.htm (more about abuse suffered by Asian female workers)

What about "child sex exploitation" in South-East Asia? Well that should belong to another topic.

You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes. (Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

Johnno

29-Aug-2006, 09:11 AM

You sound like a Union Carbide champion. Oh but wait... they did nothing wrong in India... as the Indians were willing workers. :rolleyes:That sums it up pretty neatly!

It's very easy to turn a blind eye, so long as we get the products we want at a price we like. But if paying a few pennies more means that the people producing the goods aren't made by kids in sweatshops then I'm happy to pay the difference.

The key is knowing which products are which. I think the growth in 'fair trade' brands will continue to grow. Our power as consumers is the only real power we have, so it's nice to use it!

Lily

30-Aug-2006, 06:39 AM

Johnno, I always suspected that you had a heart. Keep up the good work. :Angel:

(I'll put you down on my list of friends I send carob Easter eggs too. God that stuff is disgusting but ethics are ethics.)

Kwajman

31-Aug-2006, 12:22 PM

If I choose to work 7 hours a day, 7 days a week in return for a can of beans then that is my choice.

You know I agree completely, supply and demand. If someone comes to work for me for say $20 an hour, then starts bitching about how little they make, why is it my responsibility to say, oh, poor guy, heres another $3 an hour? They knew the pay when they started.

If I put a sign out saying I'm hiring people for $3 an hour, anyone who walks through that door will be explained the job and the pay/benefits and if they want the job, fine, if not, someone else down the road will or I'll be forced to raise the pay to find someone who will.

Johnno

31-Aug-2006, 12:36 PM

Johnno, I always suspected that you had a heart. Keep up the good work. :Angel:You only 'suspected' it? :eek: Damnit woman, I'm ALL heart! :bang:

(I'll put you down on my list of friends I send carob Easter eggs too. God that stuff is disgusting but ethics are ethics.)I'll, er, look forward to it...! :p

I tried Fair Trade coffee, but it was awful so I never bought it again. But I hope someone else does..... :o

Seriously, it's not just a matter of being all 'heart'. It's self-interest too, in the long-run. Globalisation hurts people in the 'developed' world just as surely as it hurts people in the 'developing' world. Not as dramatically - but just as surely. I don't want my descendants to suffer, so I have a stake in the future too. (Sort of.)

leeless

31-Aug-2006, 01:45 PM

You know I agree completely, supply and demand. If someone comes to work for me for say $20 an hour, then starts bitching about how little they make, why is it my responsibility to say, oh, poor guy, heres another $3 an hour? They knew the pay when they started.

If I put a sign out saying I'm hiring people for $3 an hour, anyone who walks through that door will be explained the job and the pay/benefits and if they want the job, fine, if not, someone else down the road will or I'll be forced to raise the pay to find someone who will.

But what if there was no choice for the worker. He could either take your $3 an hour or he could starve. He works for you. You sell your product that he made for you at a massive profit. You now make $1000 for every $3 that he makes. You have more power (economic at least) than him, his family, his community, his government.

When this scenario takes place on a multi-national scale, your government tax your profit and your society benefits from increased funds. His society gets little to nothing. Then you find out that someone is willing to work for $2 an hour in another country. You explain this to your $3 dollar mans government and they say "OK, we'll slacken our environmental policies and allow you to dump radioactive waste in our rivers. We'll suspend laws on workers rights and you can work him for as long as you like. Hell, we'll even force them to work for you by intimidation and assualt." That countries economy becomes dependent on your business. They neglect their agriculture and deforest woodland to make room for your factories. Then one day, you relocate to $2 an hour mans country. $3 an hour mans country has been stripped of resources and there's no alternative industry. Wonderful.

Ok, so it's extreme, but it has, and does happen this way. I accept that there are always going to be those that make more, and those that make less. But I don't believe that decisions should only be made on economic logic and determined by market forces. Morals and ethics have a place in any decision process.

Kwajman

31-Aug-2006, 03:40 PM

But what if there was no choice for the worker. He could either take your $3 an hour or he could starve. He works for you. You sell your product that he made for you at a massive profit. You now make $1000 for every $3 that he makes. You have more power (economic at least) than him, his family, his community, his government.

Ok, so it's extreme, but it has, and does happen this way. I accept that there are always going to be those that make more, and those that make less. But I don't believe that decisions should only be made on economic logic and determined by market forces. Morals and ethics have a place in any decision process.

I see your point, but thats really his governments issue not mine (or wal-marts) for example. I mean you can take that to an extreme if you wanted. Don't wear animal products, thats immoral to some people, don't use cotton because its the #1 chemical polluter of the Mississippi basin, don't use artificial fabrics because it's use of oil supports terrorists, don't buy a foreign car because its unamerican. Who's to say whats moral or not?

Lily

31-Aug-2006, 10:50 PM

Kwajman, your defeatist attitude is such a cop-out. Having morals and living by them also means one is aware that there are positive and negative effects to every action. However, we try to choose the path of least destruction using the knowledge we have and as human nature has it, given our personal interests. Its better than doing nothing.

And please don't tell me that its the government's responsibiilty in developing countries. Big businesses are the government and politics of the global economy. They are 100% aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it (i.e. using cheap labour, circumventing union laws, abusing human rights, abusing child rights, getting off scot-free for enviromental pollution in developing nations).

Oh and Kwajman, do you even know what the word choice really means? Supply and demand my arse.

Johnno, yeah I knew that. Just stirring :p Also, you're right that our actions as global citizens impacts the future. And since I believe in reincarnation I don't want to be born into a world where multinationals are buying the rights to water sources and will be selling water to us (too bad for the workers who earn $3 a month huh?), I don't want to be born into a little South American village where I spend my childhood weaving little blankets that will be sold in L.A. and going blind by the time I'm 12 from working in my little mudhut with bad lighting.

Johnno

01-Sep-2006, 11:53 AM

And since I believe in reincarnation I don't want to be born into a world where multinationals are buying the rights to water sources and will be selling water to us (too bad for the workers who earn $3 a month huh?), I don't want to be born into a little South American village where I spend my childhood weaving little blankets that will be sold in L.A. and going blind by the time I'm 12 from working in my little mudhut with bad lighting.
Lily,

It could be even worse. You could be reincarnated as an Australian. :eek:

Apotheosis

01-Sep-2006, 01:26 PM

The first part is a bit of a cop-out really. Apply that same train of thought to many other scenarios to see how apathetic it is.

Because Chinese workers are between a rock and a hard place doesn't translate into that they want to work in sweatshop conditions. Young children in Bangladesh don't want to work in sweatshops for 18 hours a day... of course they don't they want to be going to school and playing outside like normal children everywhere... but due to the socio-economic factors they are forced to work instead of play or go to school.

Of course they want something better, everyone does. I want to be paid 500/hr but that isn't going to happen. It isn't a companies job to pay me what I want or treat me how I want to be treated, their only responsibility is to let me know what a job entails and how I will be compensated for that job, the rest is up to me.

I would love to see everyone have the chance to go to school, but that isn't how life works and if you think it is possible I would love to hear how.

Only it's a bit more than just the black and white simplicity that you state. What your essentially saying is that big corporations have no responsibility for their actions. They just put up the 'workers wanted' signs and the working environment and rights of the workers be damned.

Of course it is, unless you want a book long dissertation I will have to condense things a bit. What I am saying is that big corporations are not responsible for individuals choosing to work for them. Workers have no universal rights instead they only have the rights they demand. If you are unwilling to stand up for what you perceive to be your right, then you will never get them.

Again following the simplistic logic your using - we can easily see that companies are under no onus to be responsible in the countries in which they hire labor. And because (again by your logic) we see that at the end of the day someone else would have bought that pair of Nike/Adidas/whatever... that it doesn't really matter what Mega Corp. A,B or C does... as long as we get our good cheaply.

Again.. good to see you are raising the double-standard.

No, they are repsonsible but not for the problems you are discussing.

It does matter what Mega Corp A,B,C does, but not what individual workers choose to accept.

I am not endorsing slave labor, I am simply stating that what a consenting adult chooses to accept is up to them just as they are the ones who put a price on their time and efforts.

What double standard are you talking about?

Again it's a convenient attitude that shows little understanding of how manufacturing and responsible trade between countries works.

By following this bizarre logic we can also assume that it'd be ok to by from what country run by whatever dictators with people working in whatever miserable conditions as long as we get our good cheaply.

I never said that.... If a consenting adult chooses to work in miserable conditions for miserly wages then that is their choice.

Your train of thought fails to take into account social responsibility of the mega corporations in the countries in which they operate. It also fails to take into account that people vote in many ways with their consumer dollars.

Social responsibility? Corporations to not have a responsibility to look out for society, they have a responsibility to follow the law and to do their best for their stockholders.

Your train of logic applied to many other situations in the manufacturing and the industrial world is pretty much a casebook of why workers rights are important to understand. It's also a classic showcase of why it pays to have a better understanding of the implicit repsonsibility that mega corps should operate under when going into other countries.

What implicit responsibility?

It is not a corporations job to tell me what I should be paid per hour, or what rights I deserve, or what working conditions I deserve, that is all up to me the individual.

Johnno

01-Sep-2006, 02:31 PM

It isn't a companies job to pay me what I want or treat me how I want to be treated, their only responsibility is to let me know what a job entails and how I will be compensated for that job, the rest is up to me.

.....

It is not a corporations job to tell me what I should be paid per hour, or what rights I deserve, or what working conditions I deserve, that is all up to me the individual.I've only quoted a couple of bits from near the start and end of your post, but the gist of your argument is flawed because you seem to be totally disregarding the fact that in more 'developed' countries (such as the UK, for example) there are laws regulating how employees can be treated and the conditions they work in, whereas workers in many 'developing' countries do not enjoy the same rights and protection which we tend to take for granted.

Apotheosis

01-Sep-2006, 02:47 PM

That is the problem with our <sniped> world. Most of people think like that. Samsaric cycle??

I guess they have no other choice, but why those Corporations don't treat those Human Beings (with the same rights as you and I) slightly better, hey?

Of course it would be nice if they were treated better, but it isn't a corporations responsibility to treat their employees the way we would like them too.

>>>>>>

BTW, have you seen a documentary produced by the BBC and the way Nike treat the workers in South-East Asia (Vietnam and Indonesia came to my mind). Basically employing child labour (illegal in Western countries) and cramming them up like factory-bred chickens. The funny thing is that Nike always denied that even the day they put that film out...

Very sad that this kind of working conditions still exist in the XXI century.

Child Labour may be distasteful, but when it comes down to it- Nike was exploiting them but the children were getting something out of it as well, that something would be food.

I am sure that given a choice between starving and working under terrible conditions everyone would choose working under terrible conditions.

The fact is, companies like Nike are doing something good when they employ children. While it would be preferred if the children were given food and did not have to work, I don't see anyone offering to feed, clothe, provide shelter etc to those working in child labour factories....

Not that Nike is doing it for the children, but they are helping the children by providing them a means to live that they otherwise would not have.

What about "child sex exploitation" in South-East Asia? Well that should belong to another topic.

Your correct, this belongs in another topic.

Apotheosis

01-Sep-2006, 03:01 PM

I've only quoted a couple of bits from near the start and end of your post, but the gist of your argument is flawed because you seem to be totally disregarding the fact that in more 'developed' countries (such as the UK, for example) there are laws regulating how employees can be treated and the conditions they work in, whereas workers in many 'developing' countries do not enjoy the same rights and protection which we tend to take for granted.

We have those rights because we demanded them, we won't work without them.

Until they demand the same, they won't get it.

Lily

01-Sep-2006, 10:07 PM

Johnno - I typed out a whole rant and you had to pick that bit to comment on didn't you? :D I'll see you in your next life.

firecoins

01-Sep-2006, 11:44 PM

I liked the good old days when American corporations used to exploit American workers. Now we aren't important enough to exploit.

Many countries arre now going through their own industrial revolutions. In time these practises will end as these countries become more modern. India, China and so fourth are growing by leaps and bounds and so will the labor laws.

Soon these manufacturing jobs will be replaced by machines. Who will help the machines that get exploited?

slipthejab

02-Sep-2006, 11:31 AM

I took a look at Apothesis' response and was almost tempted to respond.
But after a quick think... I found his stance so absurd that it basically doesn't merit the effort involved to respond.

Basically it would entail having to explain basic concepts of social responsibility and corporations and the interaction of the two.

I haven't the patience to go back over basics with someone who obviously has his mind made up the corporations don't bear any responsibility in the societies in which they operate.

Absurd is the only word that comes to mind. :rolleyes:

liokault

02-Sep-2006, 01:00 PM

leeless

02-Sep-2006, 02:19 PM

This whole thread is made up entirely of bleeding heart liberals!

The basic fact is that (just taking China), in China, because we want cheep foot wear and crappy plastic toys, 400 million people (whats that? Close to the total population of the UK, USA Australia and Canada?) have been lifted out of poverty. 400 million people (over 10 odd years) now eat properly, dress properly, can offer their kids the education that they never had and can start to exert force on the government for social change.

Of course the big issue is in 20 years when China and India make up half the worlds population and are just as rich as USA, then they decide that they don't like america

China is an awesome story. Such a massive labour pool has attracted big business and investment. China, therefore fostered much economic-political power. They've gradually taken control of that power and soon they will be in a position to exert it.

Then they will do the same thing as we did. Exploit someone else. They certainly don't have the resources to provide for their population, so they'll "lift others out of poverty" by consuming their resources. In the worst case scenario, they'll go to war for it (behaving like the US). Short-term gain creating long-term problems. The solution: Sustainable resource management? A limit to free market capitalism? Who knows.

I certainly don't profess to know how the effects of the global economy will pan out, or even understand it entirely. There is no such thing as absolute truth. All I can say is that as an individual, I value morals. I detest those that discard them for personal gain, especially if that means exploiting others. However, perhaps global capitalism really is the way in which all people will eventually benefit from high standards of education, health and minimul suffering. But then where will we be? A highly affluent society with no soul or character in my opinion.

I will concede, the argument in this thread has been rather one sided. Perhaps you'll continue to make it more rounded.

Matt_Bernius

02-Sep-2006, 02:56 PM

This entire situation is far more complex than simple arguements of right or wrong.

The fact is that corporations are taking advantage of other country's labor and business laws (or lack their of) to get extremely cheap labor who works far more hours than workers in the US. They also typically are able to use cheapers and more wasteful (read as producing various forms of industrial waste and pollution) modes of production.

And this does put US people out of work. And often those same folks are the ones who are shopping at the low price stores, looking for "deals" and effectively supporting the exact same practices that are getting them into trouble. We also need to acknowledge that there aren't always viable options.

Wes we look at the foriegn labor pool, standards of living are so radically different in these countries that it's difficult to compare them with the US in any way. In some of these countries, the difference between life and death can be being able to buy $5's worth of misquito netting to protect your family from malaria. And in that respect (as has been the case in many areas of the industrialized world) before a group can worry about equal social rights they need be economically stabilized. So this is a generational thing. Take black americans and the civil rights movement. It's no coincidence that the major advancedments in civil rights took place approximately a century after the US slave population was freed. It took that much time for that population to be economicaly stable enough that they could stop worrying about basic human needs and move onto basic social needs.

So, btw, we're decades away from the Chinese labor pool being in a functional position to mobilize. At best there may be some social uprisings in the urban areas. But I don't expect that will happen too soon. The real change will come when and if the countryside gets on board.

Heck, I expect that eventually China is going to be broken up as what they're heading for is more and more of a divide between urban and rural. And it's not China has ever been a united country in anything other than name anyway.

Is it fair? In the grand scheme, no. Should US corporations be held to higher standards, yes.

Let me note that the global version of Capitalism that is presently at play, is about as close to Adam Smith's original conception of the free market system as the USSR and China version of Communism was to Marx's writings. It's just that "modified Capitalism" works better than "modified Communism."

- Matt

liokault

02-Sep-2006, 04:00 PM

So, btw, we're decades away from the Chinese labor pool being in a functional position to mobilize. At best there may be some social uprisings in the urban areas. But I don't expect that will happen too soon. The real change will come when and if the countryside gets on board.
- Matt

But to promote social change, they dont need to 'mobilize'. they just need to worry the government enough. This is not decades away. This is happening now in China. After something like 3000 riots in the country side last year (theres a thread here somewhere), china is now looking at making the countryside as rich as the cities, and more social laws are comming through.

Just because they are communist, dont mean the only way to get better is revolution.

Matt_Bernius

02-Sep-2006, 04:23 PM

But to promote social change, they dont need to 'mobilize'. they just need to worry the government enough. This is not decades away. This is happening now in China. After something like 3000 riots in the country side last year (theres a thread here somewhere), china is now looking at making the countryside as rich as the cities, and more social laws are comming through.

Just because they are communist, dont mean the only way to get better is revolution.I guess this is a by degrees thing. There will probably be a bit of give and take for decades. And the Chinese beaurocratic machinary has always been good at playing hard and fast -- pragmatically giving certain rights to one region (or turning a blind eye to certain activites). That said, I expect that substantive changes and legistalated rights are decades away, and at this point I'm not backing down from that perspective.

Especially since the pattern of rural riots has been an ongoing issue for years (dating back to the Mao era). It's just we're hearing a lot more about them now.

And, please note, my analysis has little to do with China as a communist nation and far more to do with it as an authorian beaurocratic government.

- Matt

AZeitung

02-Sep-2006, 04:52 PM

And, please note, my analysis has little to do with China as a communist nation and far more to do with it as an authorian beaurocratic government.

- Matt
Interesting that you should mention that. One of the people in my (physics) research group last summer had been an organizer of the protest at Tiananmin Square. He's still actively trying to change things in China and is planning on going back there soon, despite the fact that he had been in prison for several years.

He indicated to me that China post communism was very much the same in many ways as it had been pre-communism. The main problem, at least, as he described it, seemed to be the amount of government and the amount of power given to the government (which on the lower levels sounded more like the mafia than any legitimate organization). IIRC, he said that each street had someone in charge, each small region (like a ward of a large city), then another region on top of that, etc. and that at each level, the officials were fairly wealthy.

His English wasn't all that good, so I missed quite a bit of what he was saying, but he did seem to enjoy talking about the subject, so I heard quite a bit. I wish I could remember more of it better, though.

Matt_Bernius

02-Sep-2006, 05:10 PM

He indicated to me that China post communism was very much the same in many ways as it had been pre-communism. The main problem, at least, as he described it, seemed to be the amount of government and the amount of power given to the government (which on the lower levels sounded more like the mafia than any legitimate organization). IIRC, he said that each street had someone in charge, each small region (like a ward of a large city), then another region on top of that, etc. and that at each level, the officials were fairly wealthy.This is a critical point. Communist China (and the USSR for that matter) quickly became the old structure of control with an new "idological polish."

I should have been more exact about that in my first posting.

- Matt

cullion

02-Sep-2006, 06:08 PM

Western workers have all the rights we do because our economies can afford them. China will get there, but you can't thwart supply and demand.

Everybody might feel that electricity and running water are 'basic human rights', but it doesn't matter how emotional you get about it until somebody actually gets round to building the pylons and pipes.

Most 'third world exploitation' that I hear people worrying about actually represents a moderate improvement in the living standards of the people now working in factories making consumer goods for the west.

People voluntarily take jobs in these factories because it beats subsistance farming as a way of getting by. No more worrying about droughts and crop failure. You think 60 hours a week, 35% of the time, in an indoor job, is a long working day ?

Try living in a hut where you have to trek a few miles to fetch dirty water from a well and growing your own food without much in the way of modern agricultural machinery or fertilizer. Imagine spending, say, 10 hours tending to crops and livestock, fetching water, mending fences etc.. and then having to spend several more hours making/mending blankets and clothing.

Imagine watching a relative literally starve to death because you hadn't been able to grow enough food that year. Or dying of some horrible waterborne disease which never got treated by a doctor because aside from the odd charity-funded visit, your little farming hamlet just doesn't generate enough surplus wealth after feeding (most) of the inhabitants (most of the time), to support a specialist like a properly trained full time doctor.

You would soon be jealous of the people who had nice factory jobs.

These people will not suddenly be able to live in a nice western suburb simply by demanding that the government/western corporations give it to them.
That takes years of pipe and cable laying, the building of roads and schools etc.. It has to be paid for somehow.

The companies offering these jobs to people in China or elsewhere are not, by and large, the evil empire. They make a profit by offering you something you want at the best price they can do it for, and in the process they are offering some _very_ poor people a choice between subsistance farming and a factory job. It might seem harsh that they can't enjoy the same standard of living as yourself, yet, but you have to think about what their alternatives are, and what it was that got you your standard of living (it had as much to with people working hard in tough conditions to create the wealth and technology you now enjoy as it had to do with social activism).

Our current labour protection laws are essentially luxuries which our economies can carry precisely because they have been so highly developed by centuries of relatively free trade and technological advance. China has some catching up to do, but they'll get there. The last thing they need is people attempting to impose a wealthier countries standards on their economy right now though.

slipthejab

02-Sep-2006, 07:15 PM

Apotheosis

02-Sep-2006, 09:46 PM

He isn't arguing that poverty no longer exists, simply that what you call exploitation they call opportunity....

Sweat Shops and the like offer those starving to death the opportunity to earn enough money to survive. Getting rid of these types of factories would condemn those in poverty to remain in poverty.

leeless

02-Sep-2006, 10:49 PM

Most 'third world exploitation' that I hear people worrying about actually represents a moderate improvement in the living standards of the people now working in factories making consumer goods for the west.

Hmmm...when I think of "Third World Exploitation", I think of Coke Cola proclaiming ownership of the water supply of a local village. They use it to make the soft drinks we all love, whilst a community dies of thirst. When I think of exploitation, I think of Shell laying poor quality piping that spills oil over agriculatural land and wildlife habitat, with no system in place to make them responsible or stop them from employing locals to intimidate and murder those that protest. When I think of exploitation, I think of pharmacutical companies claiming ownership of local medicines of third world peoples and making it illegal for them to sell it themselves.

As I've said before, this is a matter of ethics, morals and principles, not just money.

slipthejab

03-Sep-2006, 12:13 AM

He isn't arguing that poverty no longer exists

err... go back and read what he posted. :rolleyes:

oh wait here it is....

The basic fact is that (just taking China), in China, because we want cheep foot wear and crappy plastic toys, 400 million people (whats that? Close to the total population of the UK, USA Australia and Canada?) have been lifted out of poverty. 400 million people (over 10 odd years) now eat properly, dress properly, can offer their kids the education that they never had and can start to exert force on the government for social change.

Like I said... this is simply not true. Either he's a mouthpiece for the CCCP or he's severely misinformed. That whole schtick sounds like it's straight out of the Xinhua Daily - the government paper that does nothing but extoll the virtues of the the CCCP.

The reality on the ground is far different. I know I live in China. :rolleyes:

Apotheosis

03-Sep-2006, 02:09 AM

Hmmm...when I think of "Third World Exploitation", I think of Coke Cola proclaiming ownership of the water supply of a local village. They use it to make the soft drinks we all love, whilst a community dies of thirst. When I think of exploitation, I think of Shell laying poor quality piping that spills oil over agriculatural land and wildlife habitat, with no system in place to make them responsible or stop them from employing locals to intimidate and murder those that protest. When I think of exploitation, I think of pharmacutical companies claiming ownership of local medicines of third world peoples and making it illegal for them to sell it themselves.

As I've said before, this is a matter of ethics, morals and principles, not just money.

Those you listed are of course exploitation, and I agree it is wrong.

However many people view so called "sweat shops" as exploitation which is something I strongly disagree with.

Apotheosis

03-Sep-2006, 02:12 AM

err... go back and read what he posted. :rolleyes:

oh wait here it is....

Like I said... this is simply not true. Either he's a mouthpiece for the CCCP or he's severely misinformed. That whole schtick sounds like it's straight out of the Xinhua Daily - the government paper that does nothing but extoll the virtues of the the CCCP.

The reality on the ground is far different. I know I live in China. :rolleyes:

How does that go against what I said?

I said that he did not say that povery no longer existed in China, and he didn't.

400 million isn't even half of the population is it?

liokault

03-Sep-2006, 02:25 AM

err... go back and read what he posted. :rolleyes:

oh wait here it is....

Um....I dont get it, where did I say poverty no longer existed in china? Unless there are exactly 400 million people in china.

Like I said... this is simply not true. Either he's a mouthpiece for the CCCP or he's severely misinformed. That whole schtick sounds like it's straight out of the Xinhua Daily - the government paper that does nothing but extoll the virtues of the the CCCP.

The reality on the ground is far different. I know I live in China. :rolleyes:

Not true.....hmmmm:

This one gives 174 million lifted from poverty 1990-2002
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/17500.html

This one gives 100 million 1985-2005
http://english.people.com.cn/200608/23/eng20060823_295946.html

Interesting one here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6578

"Between 1987 and 1998, there was only one region of the world that saw a dramatic fall in both the number of people and the proportion of the population living on less than a dollar a day. That region was East Asia," observes economist Martin Wolf. "But this was also the only region to see consistent and rapid growth in real incomes per head."

High growth allowed East Asia to reduce the share of its poor during this period from 26 to 15 percent and the number of poor from 417 million to 278 million people. With annual growth rates of nearly 9 percent since 1979, when it began introducing market reforms, China alone has pulled more than 100 million people out of poverty.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n1/cj26n1-12.pdf
This one quotes 1 million lifted from poverty every month.

Interestingly, I cant find anything on Chinese people getting poorer....but I can find quotes of poverty growing in USA as jobs move to Asia....who'd a thunk it.

Matt_Bernius

03-Sep-2006, 02:27 AM

Those you listed are of course exploitation, and I agree it is wrong.

However many people view so called "sweat shops" as exploitation which is something I strongly disagree with.Oh, wait a sec, make no mistake, they are explotative. Sweat shops are all about exploitation and they always have been.

It's just that said exploitation is part of larger and far more complex social systems to be simplified as being either good or bad/moral or immoral.

But regardless of simplication or not, the business practices are preditory and exploitative. And recuding it to an "ain't capitalism wonderful 'cause we're modernizing all these backwards yokels and tearing down corrupt social systems arguement because people are earning money" is just as incorrect as "we should shut down the factories and send people back to starving and living on indegenous garbage heaps*." Neither arguement captures the complexities of the whole issues.

- Matt

* - note that in many countries, there are whole classes of people who do in fact live on or near garbage heaps and earn a living salvaging for scrap metal in these dangerous environments.

Apotheosis

03-Sep-2006, 02:42 AM

How is it exploitative?

It is not using the workers unfairly to give them jobs....

Is McDonalds exploiting all of their American employees because they only pay them minimum wage?

No, they are using them as cheap labour however they are also compensating them fairly for their area(you can't apply a global standard of wages/working conditions).

cullion

03-Sep-2006, 11:03 AM

Hmmm...when I think of "Third World Exploitation", I think of Coke Cola proclaiming ownership of the water supply of a local village. They use it to make the soft drinks we all love, whilst a community dies of thirst.

Cite a source for your claim that Coca Cola corporation killed a village by stealing their water.

When I think of exploitation, I think of Shell laying poor quality piping that spills oil over agriculatural land and wildlife habitat, with no system in place to make them responsible

Cite an example of Shell spilling oil without being fined. You do understand that Shell has no more interest in losing oil through leaky pipes than you do in watching it spill, right ?

stop them from employing locals to intimidate and murder those that protest.

Cite an example.

When I think of exploitation, I think of pharmacutical companies claiming ownership of local medicines of third world peoples and making it illegal for them to sell it themselves.

Please give an example of a pharmaceutical company making it illegal for an aboriginal tribe to market a local herb or potion to the west.

As I've said before, this is a matter of ethics, morals and principles, not just money.

Yes it is a matter of ethics, which is why I don't want these poor people to have their attempts to work themselves out of poverty thwarted by well-intentioned but misguided liberals who live in comfortable modern towns and cities in the western world and don't understand what was involved in reaching that state.

firecoins

03-Sep-2006, 02:37 PM

When I think of exploitation, I think of pharmacutical companies claiming ownership of local medicines of third world peoples and making it illegal for them to sell it themselves.
.
It is illegal for me to manufacture most medications that have a patent. Even if I had access to the proper ingredients.

cullion

03-Sep-2006, 04:06 PM

It is illegal for me to manufacture most medications that have a patent. Even if I had access to the proper ingredients.

Only in the country where the patent is granted, and the patent is for an entire industrial process. Patents do not make it illegal to distribute an unrefined herb, or snake venom.

Matt_Bernius

03-Sep-2006, 08:13 PM

I'm going to answer your points in slightly different order:

Is McDonalds exploiting all of their American employees because they only pay them minimum wage?No. Didn't suggest it was. Though, trying to compare McDonald's in-country practices to those of multinational businesses operating in the developing world is a ridiculous stretch -- the type of rhetorical argument style that works well on talk radio but doesn't acknowledge the complex realities on the ground.

No, they are using them as cheap labour however they are also compensating them fairly for their area(you can't apply a global standard of wages/working conditions).Let's be careful with the notion of "fair" compensation, because it takes us down a rather subjective path. Carried to an extreme, you would then have to agree that in the pre-civil war US, slavery wasn't exploitative because it was a legal protected and sanctioned system of labor practices. Personally, I'm not willing to accept that under any rubric slavery isn't inherently exploitive, even if it is legal.

This is why, pure subjectivity, like pure objectivity, fails in the real world.

How is it exploitative?Well first of all, businesses often choose their manufacturing locations based on the lack of established business practices. So they are inherently looking for locations where they can best exploit the existing resource pool (read as both natural and human).

Further, you need to also consider that in many locations the practices on the ground differ from laws on the books. Look no further than China where you need to be well versed in bribery (especially bureaucratic bribery) in order to do business there – something that has been a huge issue for American corporations to get used to. So often the system that they are operating in is inherently corrupt and given to exploitation – note that I’m not laying all of this at the feet of the companies.

But anyone who starts to do real research into specific labor practices discovers that in many places they allow the labor pool to be chewed up and spit out without any social protection – this can include no child labor protection, long hours, 7 day a week work, and no allowances for health care (meaning that if you are injured on the job, the company doesn't need to provide any care or support if you are no longer able to work). In some countries, there are forms of indentured servitude practiced that essentially make it nearly impossible for someone to stop working once they begin.

These exploitive practices can also extend to the intentional or unintentional lack of oversight for local supervisors who can go so far as using physical and mental abuse on workers to help facilitate labor.

Now, again, I'm not going to paint all multi-nationals as "bad/evil" or suggest that this isn't, at this point, a frustrating and seemingly necessary step in industrialization in these countries. To do either would be guilty of the same generalization or reduction that you seem to be making.

To deny that any of the above are exploitative practices because "that's the way business is done" is utter BS. Especially in cases where business choose to turn a blind eye to those activities and or choose to locate where regulating bodies are unable or unwilling to enforce standards.

Like I said, unless you're willing to concede that "slavery wasn't really exploitative as long as it was legal," I can’t buy into the argument that you are making. I just think that ideology is blinding you to realities on the ground.

- Matt

cullion

03-Sep-2006, 09:31 PM

To deny that any of the above are exploitative practices because "that's the way business is done" is utter BS. Especially in cases where business choose to turn a blind eye to those activities and or choose to locate where regulating bodies are unable or unwilling to enforce standards.

Like I said, unless you're willing to concede that "slavery wasn't really exploitative as long as it was legal," I can’t buy into the argument that you are making. I just think that ideology is blinding you to realities on the ground.

- Matt

Slavery was immoral because the slaves in question were essentially prisoners of war who were sold as property (and their descendants). There was no freely entered contract. Somebody building a factory in a country like China offering people jobs on more attractive terms than subsistence farming isn't committing the same crime.

I think emotive terms like 'exploitation' are being used very loosely. Aren't workers 'exploiting' an employer when they quit a job for a better paying one ? Aren't you 'exploiting' supermarkets when you shop around for cheaper steaks and milk ?

Apotheosis

03-Sep-2006, 09:44 PM

^^Exactly, I agree completely.

Not sure where you got the idea I was arguing it was right because it was legal....

firecoins

03-Sep-2006, 10:34 PM

What options do the Chinese workers have?

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 12:25 AM

Slavery was immoral because the slaves in question were essentially prisoners of war who were sold as property (and their descendants). There was no freely entered contract. Somebody building a factory in a country like China offering people jobs on more attractive terms than subsistence farming isn't committing the same crime.I agree, note that I said that I was making a gross generalization to counter a gross generalization.

I think emotive terms like 'exploitation' are being used very loosely. Aren't workers 'exploiting' an employer when they quit a job for a better paying one ? Aren't you 'exploiting' supermarkets when you shop around for cheaper steaks and milk ?No. Inherent in the notion of exploiting is the fact that it's an unequal power situation (expoit: To make use of selfishly or unethically). Shopping around isn't exploitation. Choosing to do business in an area where you know you don't have to comply to existing local labor laws is exploitative. Inherent in there is the practice of bad faith. Likewise it turning a blind eye to local supervisors who break local labor laws.

- Matt

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 12:47 AM

Not sure where you got the idea I was arguing it was right because it was legal....If I read your statement right you were arguing that it wasn't exploitation because the businesses were following local labor practices. This arguement assumes that the local labor practices aren't exploitative or don't allow for exploitation of laborers. The case is that often (including in China) they do.

Again, please note, I'm not trying to boil this down to multinationals are evil or immoral because they engage in exploitative practices. Or that the people on the ground are not benefiting in some way from the presence of multinationals. Again, I say it isn't that simple. You can be exploited and still be making social advances. One doesn't necessarily negate the other.

As with many things, nobody gets out clean.

- Matt

Apotheosis

04-Sep-2006, 03:18 AM

No my argument is not based on them following local labor practices, sorry if that show it came across.

Instead my argument is quite simple- Sweat Shops(and some similar practices but for sure not all of them) are offering locals a better alternative to their current life.

It may not be enough to give them a life of luxury, but it is better than nothing(which is what they had/have).

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 11:26 AM

Instead my argument is quite simple- Sweat Shops(and some similar practices but for sure not all of them) are offering locals a better alternative to their current life.

It may not be enough to give them a life of luxury, but it is better than nothing(which is what they had/have).Ahh, but this is a zero sum arguement. Either it's expoitive and things don't get better or it's not exploitive and things do. Again, this is far to simple and doesn't represent a far more complex reality -- namely one where people are often being exploited AND their situation is improving (albiet very slowly in most cases).

- Matt

cullion

04-Sep-2006, 11:39 AM

Ahh, but this is a zero sum arguement. Either it's expoitive and things don't get better or it's not exploitive and things do. Again, this is far to simple and doesn't represent a far more complex reality -- namely one where people are often being exploited AND their situation is improving (albiet very slowly in most cases).

- Matt

Your use of the word exploitation doesn't make sense. You seem to use the word 'exploit' to mean any economic transaction between a wealthier and a poorer party even when the poorer party benefits. By this logic the wealthier person is an 'exploiter' when they offer somebody a job, sell something or buy something. It's pretty Grammscian actually. You're making it sound like being wealthy is itself immoral. I know you don't mean to.

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 01:06 PM

Your use of the word exploitation doesn't make sense. You seem to use the word 'exploit' to mean any economic transaction between a wealthier and a poorer party even when the poorer party benefits. By this logic the wealthier person is an 'exploiter' when they offer somebody a job, sell something or buy something. It's pretty Grammscian actually. You're making it sound like being wealthy is itself immoral. I know you don't mean to.Again, I'll restate that the foundation of the concept of exploitation is that there is a skewed power relation where a party is not acting in good faith/unethically. That's the critical part --> not good faith.

(Edit: I now see the problem, in the previous response I had said uneven power situation -- obviously that can boil down to economics -- that was incorrect phrasing on my part, hopefully the way I explained it here is more coherent).

It is not exploitation to make contacts and stick to them.

It is exploitation to conduct business where you don't have to comply with local labor laws.

There are a number of multinationals that practice good labor practices. I don't consider them to be particularly exploitative (though it could be argued that local labor laws are exploitative).

There are other multinationals that either allow or turn a blind eye towards siginficant violations of workers rights. Some are actively involved in supporting government crackdowns on union organizers who are often held for years without formal charges. Others, as part of "doing business," are bribing local officials to ignore labor law violations. All things in this paragraph I consider exploitative practices because they are founded in unethical dealings.

Again, let me stress that the relationship I'm trying to establishing isn't management:labor::expoitors:exploited! And I'm doing my best to avoid a Marxian analysis (though depending on which era of Marx you're reading, some of his economic analysis matches what I'm saying). As far as my making a Grammscian analysis, I haven't read his work so any relation is accidental (and I suspect, not correct based on my bit of understanding of his work).

- Matt

cullion

04-Sep-2006, 01:26 PM

Again, I'll restate that the foundation of the concept of exploitation is that there is a skewed power relation where a party is not acting in good faith/unethically. That's the critical part --> not good faith.

But why assume that Chinese factory owners are acting in bad faith ? Define bad faith.

It is exploitation to conduct business where you don't have to comply with local labor laws.

Who's ignoring local labour laws in China ?

There are a number of multinationals that practice good labor practices. I don't consider them to be particularly exploitative (though it could be argued that local labor laws are exploitative).

There are other multinationals that either allow or turn a blind eye towards siginficant violations of workers rights. Some are actively involved in supporting government crackdowns on union organizers who are often held for years without formal charges. Others, as part of "doing business," are bribing local officials to ignore labor law violations. All things in this paragraph I consider exploitative practices because they are founded in unethical dealings.

Get specific. Which companies are you accusing of doing this ?

Again, let me stress that the relationship I'm trying to establishing isn't management:labor::expoitors:exploited! And I'm doing my best to avoid a Marxian analysis (though depending on which era of Marx you're reading, some of his economic analysis matches what I'm saying). As far as my making a Grammscian analysis, I haven't read his work so any relation is accidental (and I suspect, not correct based on my bit of understanding of his work).

- Matt

I don't think you're deliberately trying to establish that, I just think that such views are so widely held in some quarters of academia and the media that it's coloured lots of people's views without them realising it. I don't think you're an exponent of Gramscian propaganda methods, I think you're a victim of them.

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 01:39 PM

Who's ignoring local labour laws in China ?Ok, I'm happy to do the homework. NPR's Marketplace did a rather extensive week long report from China a while ago. I'll go through thier website and dig it up.

Get specific. Which companies are you accusing of doing this ?Again, I'm going to have to go back and go after some of this data, so I'll hold my tounge for a bit.

I don't think you're deliberately trying to establish that, I just think that such views are so widely held in some quarters of academia and the media that it's coloured lots of people's views without them realising it.Wow... personally, I feel like I've been closer to objective (or at least rigorous) than a lot of folks in this discussion so far.

Unfortuately Cul, you've painted me into a bit of a corner, because the places that I'm going to have to go back to in order to retrieve evidence are media reports and academic work -- both of which you've summarily suggested are too riddled with ideology to be reliable sources. So you've effectively locked me into an iron trap where I'm not sure I can meet your burden of proof.

- Matt

cullion

04-Sep-2006, 01:57 PM

Wow... personally, I feel like I've been closer to objective (or at least rigorous) than a lot of folks in this discussion so far.

I don't think you've been personal or attacked anybody in an improper way, I just think your view has been coloured because you're accusing 'corporations' of 'exploitation' rather than specific companies of specific crimes.

It's a common thing to see in the media. It's at the root of a lot of woolly 'green' projects etc..

I regularly read article or hear 'news' reports intended to shock where they mention, in almost reverent tones, workers 'who only earn $x per day' without ever mentioning what various things like a week's food or a week's rent cost where that worker lives. Much less thinking carefully about whether $x actually represents a better standard of living than the worker had before the factory was built. This kind of sloppy thinking permeates public discourse by repetition without usually being challenged, so I think it does colour an awful lot of people's views.

Unfortuately Cul, you've painted me into a bit of a corner, because the places that I'm going to have to go back to in order to retrieve evidence are media reports and academic work -- both of which you've summarily suggested are too riddled with ideology to be reliable sources. So you've effectively locked me into an iron trap where I'm not sure I can meet your burden of proof.

- Matt

Well it's nothing personal. I like a lot of what you post, but I think the reason you can't meet the standard of proof required to demonstrate your argument is that your argument is wrong. :)

Matt_Bernius

04-Sep-2006, 03:21 PM

Admittedly, the first stuff I would point to is the work of academics like A. Ong who've documented lots of worked issues in "free commerce zones" in Indonesia. But since she's an activist as well as a researcher, I didn't want to go there. Additionally I got the chance to know a number of on the ground researchers in China during my last stint at University, and I expect I'm going to get to know a lot more very soon.

I should also note that I spend about 8 years working at Eastman Kodak, and did spend time discussing issues about doing Business in China. So I'm not specifically anti-corporation by any means. In fact, there are numerous in-country buisnesses that are explointing far worse than multinationals.

You're right, the next step is burden of proof and I'm going to work on that. What I was trying to do was mediate a middle ground between "there's no exploitation going on, capitalism is wonderful and fair, and all of you are just wooly-headed-self-hating-liberals" and "multinationals are evil and keeping the common man down, anarchy in the PDR!"

- Matt

slipthejab

04-Sep-2006, 05:04 PM

I don't think you've been personal or attacked anybody in an improper way, I just think your view has been coloured because you're accusing 'corporations' of 'exploitation' rather than specific companies of specific crimes.

It's not as if the stuff is just unsubstantiated fluff. Here's a bit for you with some explanation of the hows and whys of exploitation in the third world by western mega corps.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/nike/faq.html

and here's more:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/

and some more:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/

and some more - which shows how misinformed some people can be:

http://www.nmass.org/nmass/articles/8myths.html

and here is yet another specific company named:

http://www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/setisa/

and here's a term worth considering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

a NY Times article on sweatshops:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html

academic work on the issue of sweatshops:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901689

for those who want to talk about living wages:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=67

There's plenty more when your done here.

slipthejab

04-Sep-2006, 05:18 PM

I should also note that I spend about 8 years working at Eastman Kodak, and did spend time discussing issues about doing Business in China.

ahh interesting. I spent about 5 years living and working in Xiamen, China (basically right across from Taiwan). Where Kodak was building and operating one of it's factories... right next to a Rolls Royce factory. It was one of the first Special Administrative Regions in China where western companies were allowed to set up and own factories. Shenzen (Hong Kongs land border with China) is another such region as is Zuhai.

slipthejab

04-Sep-2006, 05:22 PM

Here's a rather lengthy and tragic case... classic in some senses of the word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_Disaster

There are plenty of links at the bottom of the page.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2698000/2698709.stm

further academic work with a lengthy bibliography at the end:

http://www.hu.mtu.edu/hu_dept/tc@mtu/papers/bhopal.htm

and some more info:

http://www.bhopal.net/oldsite/poisonpapers.html

leeless

04-Sep-2006, 06:47 PM

Cite a source for your claim that Coca Cola corporation killed a village by stealing their water.

Firstly, that is not what I directly claimed.

It's quite impractical to go through all the newspapers, textbooks, journals, lectures, websites and television programmes I have ever watched to bring up the correct citations for you. However...I have attempted a search with the corporations I mentioned and their activities coincide with much of what I'm saying. Admittedly, they are subject to bias, inaccuracies and even missinformation so you can easily argue that it's all a bunch of woolly-liberal cow turd.

But still...

http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2006/1035.html

http://www.killercoke.org/viewmag905.htm

Cite an example of Shell spilling oil without being fined. You do understand that Shell has no more interest in losing oil through leaky pipes than you do in watching it spill, right ?

Well you could argue that I don't want to see it spill, where as Shell don't want to see me see it spill. Accepting that oil-spills do happen despite it not being in the interest of the company, the next thing to do is deal with it. I propose the arguement that if it's cheaper to shrug it under the carpet, they would.

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html

Please give an example of a pharmaceutical company making it illegal for an aboriginal tribe to market a local herb or potion to the west.

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=31

Yes it is a matter of ethics, which is why I don't want these poor people to have their attempts to work themselves out of poverty thwarted by well-intentioned but misguided liberals who live in comfortable modern towns and cities in the western world and don't understand what was involved in reaching that state.

It is not a question of "the end justifies the means" but of the morals that prevent someone from preforming these actions that cause suffering.*

Further, I don't want these poor people to have their attempts to work themselves out of poverty thwarted by poorly-intentioned and misguided capitalists who live in comfortable modern towns and cities in the western world and don't understand that perhaps resources are finite and perhaps future technological advancement won't remove limits to growth.

*Having said that, I do consider the Nietzschean position to be an equally valid philosophy. I'm not criticising you morally, just that I argue for a different type of ethics.

Lily

05-Sep-2006, 12:07 AM

I'm with the bleeding hearts all the way!!!

Exploitation to me pretty much means that there is big discrepancy in situation and negotiating power between two parties.

Have you'll heard of the case in India where large agricultural multinationals have patented some sort of GM 'Super rice' and sold the seeds to local farmers? These seeds have replaced their local rice crop and the worst part is that the farmers have to buy the seeds every year (many were unaware of this initially) because they are engineered to only produce a small numbers of harvests. Furthermore, if the farmers buy seeds and share them with their neighbours they are fined heavily by these multinationals. We're talking about uneducated, rural, non-English speaking farmers who don't know the first thing about science/engineering/big business/contracts/patents. Where the h3ll is this 'globalisation gives people a better life' aspect to this story?

cullion

05-Sep-2006, 12:26 AM

It's not as if the stuff is just unsubstantiated fluff. Here's a bit for you with some explanation of the hows and whys of exploitation in the third world by western mega corps.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/sweatshops/nike/faq.html

They cite an isolated example of a violent forman, and then talk about how Nike should be willing to pay the workers more.

and here's more:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/

and some more:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/

You've just posted the URL twice. It talks about are people having to work hard. A lot of the examples given are in California, where it talks about illegal aliens earning less than the minimum wage.

I don't see how any of this supports your point ?

http://www.nmass.org/nmass/articles/8myths.html

and here is yet another specific company named:

http://www.nlcnet.org/campaigns/setisa/

The first link is about illegal immigrants in the US again, the second article talks in exactly the sloppy generalities I pointed out earlier. It gives a wage which is supposed to shock the reader without comparing it to local wages. It doesn't explain what the workforce's livelihood would be without the factory and it complains that the employer doesn't offer free healthcare ? Sorry, you'll have to try harder.

and here's a term worth considering:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

You're just using emotive terminology without engaging with economic reality.

a NY Times article on sweatshops:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-sweatshops.html

It's more of exactly what I pointed out earlier, implied shock by quoting wages without quoting living costs or any attempt to analyse how the workers would live without the employment.

academic work on the issue of sweatshops:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=901689

for those who want to talk about living wages:

http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/index.php?s=67

There's plenty more when your done here.

You've just given some more articles about sweatshops staffed by illegal immigrants in the US.

You just seem to have alternated between quoting stuff which is sloppily written in exactly the way I pointed out earlier, and posting articles about the working conditions of illegal immigrants in the US, which is not the topic under discussion.

cullion

05-Sep-2006, 12:46 AM

Firstly, that is not what I directly claimed.

Yes it was.

http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2006/1035.html

There are some environmental abuses specified in that article, it's true.

http://www.killercoke.org/viewmag905.htm

The second article only cites allegations made by left-wing activists and doesn't mention any actual convinctions or claims tested in a court of law.

Well you could argue that I don't want to see it spill, where as Shell don't want to see me see it spill. Accepting that oil-spills do happen despite it not being in the interest of the company, the next thing to do is deal with it. I propose the arguement that if it's cheaper to shrug it under the carpet, they would.

But it's not. They have more incentive than anybody to prevent oil from leaking, because it represents money leaking away.

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html

You've found a good example of a western corporation ******** on people. I won't argue with this one.

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=31

You're now trying bring an article about biological patent disputes between the US an Mexico into a debate about factory work conditions in China. It's just not relevant.

Further, I don't want these poor people to have their attempts to work themselves out of poverty thwarted by poorly-intentioned and misguided capitalists who live in comfortable modern towns and cities in the western world and don't understand that perhaps resources are finite and perhaps future technological advancement won't remove limits to growth.

Ah, so it's about the 'environment' rather than the people. That's a different argument. You've found a couple of examples of abuses much milder than the routine degradations inflicted in communist regimes as the core of your critique of capitalism.

It doesn't make any difference when it comes to the point I'm making which is 'it's not immoral to employ people at the local market rate and import their goods to countries where the workforce charge more'.

slipthejab

05-Sep-2006, 04:24 AM

They cite an isolated example of a violent forman, and then talk about how Nike should be willing to pay the workers more.

You've just posted the URL twice. It talks about are people having to work hard. A lot of the examples given are in California, where it talks about illegal aliens earning less than the minimum wage.

I don't see how any of this supports your point ?

The first link is about illegal immigrants in the US again, the second article talks in exactly the sloppy generalities I pointed out earlier. It gives a wage which is supposed to shock the reader without comparing it to local wages. It doesn't explain what the workforce's livelihood would be without the factory and it complains that the employer doesn't offer free healthcare ? Sorry, you'll have to try harder.

You're just using emotive terminology without engaging with economic reality.

It's more of exactly what I pointed out earlier, implied shock by quoting wages without quoting living costs or any attempt to analyse how the workers would live without the employment.

You've just given some more articles about sweatshops staffed by illegal immigrants in the US.

You just seem to have alternated between quoting stuff which is sloppily written in exactly the way I pointed out earlier, and posting articles about the working conditions of illegal immigrants in the US, which is not the topic under discussion.

You can take them or leave them. You asked for some articles which cite specific instances of abuse by specific companies. Which some of them do.
You're more than welcome to find you own articles if you like. :rolleyes:

If you can't see the similarity between how labor abuses take place in foreign countries and the abuse of illegal labor in the United States then I'm not gonna take the time to spell it out for you. So maybe it's you who has to try a bit harder.

It's not exactly that far off topic so stop acting like it shouldn't or won't come up in this thread. It has - so deal with it. ;)

cullion

05-Sep-2006, 08:48 AM

You can take them or leave them. You asked for some articles which cite specific instances of abuse by specific companies. Which some of them do.
You're more than welcome to find you own articles if you like. :rolleyes:

If you can't see the similarity between how labor abuses take place in foreign countries and the abuse of illegal labor in the United States then I'm not gonna take the time to spell it out for you. So maybe it's you who has to try a bit harder.

It's not exactly that far off topic so stop acting like it shouldn't or won't come up in this thread. It has - so deal with it. ;)

Oh, OK then.

1) If the minimum wage was applied to illegal immigrants then there would be higher unemployment amongst them. The only reason they have these jobs in the first place is that they are willing to work for less. What's your solution ? stop them from arriving in the first place (I doubt it), or try and apply the minimum wage to businesses which are already completely willing to flout the law (think it through) ?

2) You found a small smattering of genuine abuse amongst a vast amount of hearsay and unfounded left-wing rheotoric of exactly the type I pointed out.

3) You've failed to engage with the point about there being nothing immoral about shopping around for cheaper labour.

If you can't see how weak your argument is, both in terms of it's shakey grasp of economics, and the scarcity of real evidence amongst propaganda, then I'm not going to spell it out for you :rolleyes:

slipthejab

05-Sep-2006, 09:07 AM

You asked for some specific incidences of abuse... I posted them. Whether the amount is small or large wasn't really the issue.

I didn't fail to engage the point of shopping around for cheaper labor. Obviously some of the links I provided show the flip side of the coin as well. Obviously there is propaganda... on both sides. Nothing new there.

I don't quite understand why you think it has to go down such polarized road. You seem to think that one or the other is the only option on the issue. It's not.

No one is asking you to spell anything out for anyone. Don't flatter yourself. You asked for some specific examples of which some were provided so if you can't respond to that which you've asked for then I doubt your going to spell much out period. :rolleyes:

You made a good attempt to gloss over Nike's repeated issues of using labour in SE Asia that doesn't offer a living wage and uses exploitative labour practices (go back and read the article the was posted if you don't understand that in reference to Nike). Nike also doesn't allow independant monitoring of the working conditions of their factories - why would they? Bringing in PWC to do it is hardly the most promising of monitoring situations. Again go back and read the article - then perhaps you might understand the issue and stop trying to right them off as propaganda. :rolleyes:

slipthejab

05-Sep-2006, 09:19 AM

Here's yet another specific example of exploitation by Amercian corporations abroad using labor in third world countries.

STOP FIRESTONE'S EXPLOITATION AND CRUELTY

Bridgestone Firestone – Child Labor in Liberia, Africa

Liberia, West Africa, which was founded by freed slaves from America in the 1820s, is suffering from serious poverty and unemployment. This is because a Liberian Civil War, that ended in 2003, destroyed the infrastructure and economy. In this country where people do not even have peace, a Japanese company and its American subsidiary are committing labor abuses including forced labor.

TAKE ACTION NOW

Child rubber workers. Photo from Save My Future Foundation.On July 26, join a global movement delivering personal letters of concern to your local Firestone.

Send a letter to Firestone president Dan Adomitis now asking him to end the exploitatation of Liberia's land, children, and workers.

Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC has had a rubber plantation in Liberia since 1926. Bridgestone Firestone abuses their local workers by subjecting them to slavery and encourages the adult workers to bring their children to help them meet their daily quota of rubber production. This situation is against international laws including ILO Conventions, American and Liberian labor law. Because of Bridgestone Firestone’s clear violation of the law, a legal complaint was filed in 2005 against and Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC. This lawsuit is currently ongoing.

The workers are assigned a quota which takes 21 hours a day at least to complete, and if they cannot complete, their wages are halved, and they cannot earn a livable wage. Therefore, the workers have to make their families perform hard labor from early morning in order to meet the quota. The children work 12-14 hours a day and most do not have proper nutrition in their diets given the low wages.

The company stated that they forbid child labor, but in fact it knowingly assigned excessive quotas that can only be met by workers bringing their children to the plantation. Children cannot get a proper education and are forced to endure heavy physical labor in which they have to carry heavy buckets full of rubber latex many times a day. Just imagine a 10 year old child forced to carry 70 pounds of rubber using a stick and 2 pails several times a day. Because of these harsh conditions the children cannot fully grow up physically and mentally. They are being used as beasts of burden.

Furthermore, though working in a rubber plantation is not safe, the company has no means to protect their workers. Rubber latex can cause permanent damage on contact with the eye. Toxic pesticides are used and workers are routinely exposed to harsh chemicals.

The company insists that they offer free education and medical care to workers’ families. However, the schools require some expenses be paid and both systems heavily restrict the range of children who can get education. Moreover, the medical system is not adequate because its clinic’s open hours are limited. Furthermore, houses provided for workers are broken-down shacks built in the 1920s, with no running water and no indoor toilets. This is a stark contrast from the luxurious houses of many foreign managers, often white or Asian.

What is worse, the workers cannot get appropriate wages because they are illiterate and cannot read the pay stub for their wages, which includes reductions for housing or food deductions. This has evolved into a cycle of three generations that have grown up on the plantation and continue to be limited in their access to education or other job opportunities aside from that of a rubber tapper.

In Liberia, where people suffer from poverty and unemployment, losing a job means a loss of any way to make money, which easily leads to starvation. Therefore, the workers cannot freely oppose the company and must keep continue to work without appealing anything. This system, where generations of workers are born in the plantation and exploited from their youth, has continued for 80 years and constitutes modern-day slavery.

International Labor Rights Fund, Institute for Policy Studies, Friends of the Earth, NAACP, Transafrica, and other US based organizations demand that Bridgestone Firestone (1) take responsibility of this situation and follow the law; (2) improve the assignment of achievable quotas for the average worker to negate the use of child laborers; (3) increase wages to raise the standard of living of plantation workers; and (4) supply modern tools to protect workers on the job from coming into contact with harmful chemicals; (5) redress all environmental damages as a result of its Liberian operations; (6) stop releasing chemicals into the environment and stop exposing workers to any compounds and chemicals that are internationally recognized as most toxic; (7) fully disclose all key project payments, contracts, and concession agreements for all Firestone projects in Liberia. Detailed list of demands.

READ MORE: The Firestone Rubber Plantation And Liberia: A History Of Broken Promises, Shell Games, And Hidden Profits by Carl Patrick Burrowes, PhD

slipthejab

05-Sep-2006, 09:29 AM

Here is yet more information and more circumstances surrounding exploitatitve labour in China. Not surprising that the current American administration is not willing to do anything about it. :rolleyes:

Sanction Countries—or Corporations?

China Labor Watch

August 28, 2006

For the second time in two years, the Bush administration has rejected a petition by the AFL-CIO to pressure the Chinese government into raising labor standards. The petition was filed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 on behalf of the 13 million members of the AFL-CIO, including nearly 6 million manufacturing workers in the United States . The petition charges that the Chinese government egregiously and systematically violates workers' rights—especially the right to form a union and bargain collectively—and fails to enforce its own labor standards with respect to minimum wage, overtime pay, and health and safety. The petition argues that such exploitation costs 1.24 million U.S. manufacturing jobs and puts downward pressure on U.S. wages.

The extensively documented petition is similar to the one filed and rejected in 2004, so it is not surprising that the notoriously anti-worker Bush administration has again rejected it. The petition performs a valuable function in compiling labor rights abuses in China in a comprehensive and systematic way and makes the indisputable point that Chinese workers need better treatment, stronger rights and independent labor unions. China Labor Watch has issued numerous investigative reports and editorials on these issues. We agree with the problems the petition has pointed out.

We also agree that the Chinese government has the undeniable responsibility to enforce its existing labor laws, stop the widespread violation of workers' rights and ensure employers provide workers with legal wages, safe production environment and adequate social insurance. Most importantly, the Chinese government must recognize workers' freedom of association and right to bargain collectively. That is one of the fundamental human rights recognized by virtually the entire international community, as well as the most powerful tool of workers to defend their other legitimate rights and interests.

The AFL-CIO petition is meant to be a means to that end but we do not believe it is an effective method for reaching its objective. In the first place, given the profound hostility of the Bush administration to workers' rights everywhere in the world, not least of all in the U.S. itself, the likelihood of its approving such a petition is next to nil. So it is not realistic politically.

Yet even if it succeeded, for example, in raising wages in China , it is highly doubtful that they could be raised to a degree that could have a meaningful impact on the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs. In China and other developing countries, direct (non-supervisory) labor in the production of apparel, for example, generally accounts for 7-11% of a factory's overall production costs; in most cases and in most countries, the percentage is at the lower end of this range. Hence, for a typical sportswear garment, doubling labor costs (by doubling wages) would result in a price increase of roughly 1-3%; tripling wages would result in price increases of 2-6%. (Source: Workers Rights Consortium) In another independent research conducted by the New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI), the result is similar: based on an analysis of export of readymade garments from Bangalore to the U.S. , the labor cost is only 2.8% of the retail price. The brand therefore has a margin of between 70-75% for all distribution and retailing costs to be incurred at the retail end. (Ashim Roy and Mohan Mani, draft paper “Towards an Asian Floor Level Wage Campaign in the Garment). According to some authoritative sources, the percentage of the retail price attributed to labor costs is even lower. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Apparel Industry Partnership stated that “labor typically accounts for less than 3% of the U.S. retail price of clothing made in domestic sweatshops and as little as 0.5% for garments sewn abroad.” (Letter sent from Joel L. Klien, U.S. Assistant Attorney General to Kenneth A. Letzler and Richard M. Lucas, Legal representatives of the AIP, April 2000)

No doubt cheap labor and the free flow of capital have led manufacturers to move production plants from developed countries to developing countries. Yet, the drastic wage differentials between the developing world and more highly industrialized countries have historical and social reasons, and it is a reality we will be living with for some time to come. China (and India , Bangladesh , Vietnam , Mexico , and other heavily populated developing countries) will have large reserves of comparatively low-wage workers even with vastly improved worker's rights. Cheap made-in-China products will continue to find willing buyers, if not in the U.S. , then in Europe or elsewhere. Of course much more can and should be done to address these wage differentials, such as the kind of development policies applied by the European Union as it brought in lower wage countries, but even under the most benign circumstances such an effort applied globally would still take many decades to succeed.

There is a missing actor in this discussion. While governments are to blame for lack of protection of workers, it is the big multinational corporations that put manufacturing workers into exploitation and mistreatment. In fact, factory workers in China and the United States face some surprisingly common problems. In both countries, the real wages of most manufacturing workers have stagnated and job security has diminished in the last decade, even while manufacturing productivity has increased rapidly. These problems are not only similar. They are linked. Global corporations from Wal-Mart to Proctor & Gamble to Disney to Dell relentlessly squeeze labor costs in their Chinese affiliates and suppliers and use the threat of low-wage competition to roll back decades of hard-won gains in wages, benefits, and dignified treatment for workers in the U.S. The severe exploitation of China 's factory workers and the contraction of the American middle class are two sides of a coin.

Trade sanctions are a means to an end, in this case securing the legal and internationally recognized rights of Chinese workers. But trade sanctions, when they are applied and actually enforced, are drastic measures that can have widespread and sometimes unforeseen consequences. It is difficult to imagine what a trade war between China and the U.S. would do today, given the mutual economic dependence that exists between the two countries, but it would surely have a destabilizing impact on both countries.

Perhaps we would be more effective approaching the problem with a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer. It is true that governments have a responsibility to protect labor rights and work toward greater social equality, which is not only essential to maintain social stability in the short term, but also one of the fundamental objects of a democratic society. But it is also true that the entities that directly violate the rights of workers are more often than not the big multinational corporations and banks that scuttle around the globe in search of ever cheaper labor—and that the reason they are able to get away with this policy is the tremendous imbalance of power between workers and their employers. We would therefore suggest that U.S. legislation aimed at corporations that produce goods in illegal and substandard conditions would have a better chance to be passed into law and also be more likely to accomplish its objective of protecting the rights of workers both in China and the U.S.

Ultimately, workers must be entitled to the right to bargain collectively and the right to strike, so that they can protect their interest and voice their concerns legally and strongly to counterbalance the management. Corporations then will be forced to address labor rights abuses responsibly and discipline themselves with higher labor standards. Such results cannot be achieved unilaterally or even bilaterally. It requires states, corporations, NGOs and workers all working together to win this global fair labor campaign.

Although the AFL-CIO petition was rejected, it has highlighted the urgent need to improve working conditions in China and support Chinese workers in their struggle for just compensation and decent treatment. But to do this more parties must be brought to the table, and most importantly, Chinese workers themselves must take part in the negotiation. In order to achieve that, the Chinese government must allow workers to form unions democratically and let NGOs operate without government interference in China . Without the above conditions, the bargaining table will always be missing two legs.

-Xiaomin Zhang

cullion

05-Sep-2006, 11:09 AM

You asked for some specific incidences of abuse... I posted them. Whether the amount is small or large wasn't really the issue.

Actually I was responding to Matt, but the amount of evidence you have to support your case absolutely is an issue.

I didn't fail to engage the point of shopping around for cheaper labor. Obviously some of the links I provided show the flip side of the coin as well.

No they don't, where any credible information is presented at all it talks about a couple of cases of land dispute.

No one is asking you to spell anything out for anyone. Don't flatter yourself.

I'm mirroring your own rhetoric, you used the term first.

You asked for some specific examples of which some were provided so if you can't respond to that which you've asked for then I doubt your going to spell much out period. :rolleyes:

Nothing you've posted demonstrates your point about outsourcing being 'exploitative'.

You made a good attempt to gloss over Nike's repeated issues of using labour in SE Asia that doesn't offer a living wage and uses exploitative labour practices (go back and read the article the was posted if you don't understand that in reference to Nike).

I do understand what was written, but I don't think the source for 'living wage' is credible nor the analysis deep enough. If you don't understand why, go back to my original post about why the articles which just quote wages but not living costs aren't useful here.

If you think I'm glossing it over, ask yourself the following simple questions and answer them logically and honestly :-

1) If Nike isn't paying a 'living' wage, why are it's workers still alive ?(pretty obvious when you think about it)

2) What were they living on before, and why is the current job preferable ?

Nike also doesn't allow independant monitoring of the working conditions of their factories - why would they? Bringing in PWC to do it is hardly the most promising of monitoring situations. Again go back and read the article - then perhaps you might understand the issue and stop trying to right them off as propaganda. :rolleyes:

I've read the article and just understood the subtexts and logical fallacies better then you. You even posted an article talking about how the Bush administration had refused to sign a petition asking that Chinese factories be made to pay higher wages written in the indignant tone of a thwarted activist as some kind of proof.

You can't use an emotionally worded article which basically says 'Group X asked for higher wages and shorter working hours and didn't get it' as the basis of proof of exploitation.

Workers not getting what they ask for is not automatically a sign of exploitation.

Now stopping using that snooty roll-eyes smiley and do some real thinking.

leeless

05-Sep-2006, 12:07 PM

Yes it was.

Well then, I'd have to disagree. It was not what I'd DIRECTLY quoted. It wasn't Coke Cola that KILLED a village. It was more "villagers die of thirst as a result of Coke Cola owning local water resources". I only mentioned it as it appeared to me like you were sensationalising what I was saying and making it more emotive. That is something that you've complained about with regards to the "bleeding-heart-liberals".

The second article only cites allegations made by left-wing activists and doesn't mention any actual convinctions or claims tested in a court of law.

Yes, I see what you're trying to say. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take allegations seriously. I'd argue that perhaps both the situation and the resources availiable to gather enough evidence to take it to court is much more hindering in cases in the less economically "developed" world.

But it's not. They have more incentive than anybody to prevent oil from leaking, because it represents money leaking away..

Yes, and I think I said that. But my point wasn't refering to prevention. Once it does leak (and it happens), companies have already lost the money. It is the clean up and cover up that I am criticising.

You're now trying bring an article about biological patent disputes between the US an Mexico into a debate about factory work conditions in China. It's just not relevant.

Actually, I never said anything about China. I was accusing multi-nationals of exploitation in general before the discussion moved more to China specifically. You never mentioned anything about me citing examples for my claims about China. How could you? I hadn't said anything about exploitation specific to China.

Ah, so it's about the 'environment' rather than the people. That's a different argument. You've found a couple of examples of abuses much milder than the routine degradations inflicted in communist regimes as the core of your critique of capitalism.

Actually, I was being ironic. You insinuated that I was a "liberal" who knew nothing about the world. In response, I insuniated that you were a die hard "capitalist" who knew nothing of the environmental limits that effect economic growth. My aim in doing so was to make you aware that neither of us can be so easily categorised, especially so stereotypically.

It doesn't make any difference when it comes to the point I'm making which is 'it's not immoral to employ people at the local market rate and import their goods to countries where the workforce charge more'.

Morals are subjective, therefore, so is exploitation. I see your arguement, and I hope you see mine. Cheers for the discussion, it's interesting :)