Apr 27 2014
Comment on Nike: People are people no matter where they work | Bill Waddell
See on Scoop.it – lean manufacturing
“How […] can we understand […] Nike’s institutional commitment to systemic exploitation of folks working in factories? […]
The ‘manufacturing’ people at Nike are merely the internal champions of seeking out and making maximum use – abuse – of cheap labor. If they were actually manufacturing people they would be ashamed of and outraged over factories such as the one they championed in Bangladesh – the one in which they “slogged up a dirty staircase to the top floors of an eight-story building” and had “rolls of fabric were strewn across the production floor and some windows were bolted shut.”
No serious manufacturing person with even the least measure of pride would have urged the company to perform production in such a pig sty of a factory. Only some sort of mercenary focused solely on grubbing for pennies wants to be associated with such a plant.”
Not that long ago, the awful conditions Bill Waddell is describing in Bangladesh factories were common in the US, UK, Germany, France, Japan,… Right or wrong, today’s advanced economies did sacrifice generations of factory workers on the altar of development, including my grandparents, and perhaps Bill’s. It was a decade-long struggle to get past this but, by and large, we have.
What attitude should we have towards countries where workers are treated today the way they were here 100 years ago? Bill is suggesting a boycott, but how would this play out? Specifically:
- Would the factories be improved?
- Would the adult workers find other employment under conditions that meet our standards?
- Would the child workers go back to school?
Unless we are in a position to make these outcomes happen, how sincere is our concern?
See on www.idatix.com
April 27, 2014 @ 5:15 pm
I have to agree with Bill’s comments. Unless we are prepared to make or change these work places and accommodations. Closure or boycotting could bring more harm to the present employees and I’m sure, there is a line of people waiting to replace them.
April 28, 2014 @ 11:30 am
I am puzzled, because it seems to be my comments that you agree with rather than Bill’s.
April 28, 2014 @ 6:39 am
The three questions raised by Mr. Michel Baudin are important but we should not be discouraged to device remedy. All three questions are interrelated and need solution. The child education needs special attention as the under developed countries budgets allocate negligible funds for it whereas we see them spending a lot on their personal facilities.
April 29, 2014 @ 12:51 am
Let’s not forget another reason for these conditions, the consumers constant desire for cheaper and cheaper products. personally, rather than a boycott, I would prefer to see these large companies working with the producers to improve working conditions and wages, as well as eradicationg child labour of course. We as consumers can play a part also, in accepting that prices may have to rise slightly to help share the cost (as long as Nike and the like don’t just pocket the difference!).
May 1, 2014 @ 9:19 am
As you point out, the people of the developed western nations have unanimously determined that abusing workers is immoral, unethical and illegal. Why should the owners of western companies and the consumers of goods in those countries be allowed to benefit from treating people from other countries in a manner they have deemed immoral and unethical for themselves? I would not advocate a boycott. Instead I suggest an equivalency tariff. Add a tariff to imported goods that charges the importer what it would have cost had the goods been produced under environmental, worker safety and minimum wage laws in the country to which the goods are being imported. That way the importer can take advantage of superior productivity or superior logistics, but it and its customers cannot profit from producing a different country to skirt environmental or worker protection laws in its own country. If the laws are appropriate for its own people they should be appropriate for all people. How can you disagree with that?
It is not our responsibility to assure that workers in other countries are treated better, or that their children attend schools. Only their leadership can do that. The people are forced to take those jobs and their kids don’t go to school because their leadership is corrupt. While western companies cannot fix corrupt third world leadership, they should not be allowed to go into collusion with it for profit.
May 1, 2014 @ 10:57 am
As citizens of advanced economies, we have a long-term interest in the development of the rest of the world. If you agree with this, do you believe that “equivalency tariffs” are the best way to help it along?