The People Who Make Our Clothes And The Conditions They Face
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-11/people-who-make-our-clothes-and-conditions-they-face
Dozens of Bangladesh workers making clothes for the U.S. market were killed in a factory fire last month. Debate over the safety of apparel makers and what can be done to improve conditions.
Guests
Steven Greenhouse
labor and workplace reporter, The New York Times
Scott Nova
executive director, Workers Rights Consortium
Kalpona Akter
labor activist, Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity
Alice Tepper Marlin
founder and president, Social Accountability International
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Cynthia Tanabe wrote:
"Is it possible that the governing boards of these large corporations are actively choosing profits for shareholders/officers over slight increase in costs? I think it is very little to do with what consumers want. It is more about how shareholders/officers make the most profit"
Hey Cynthia, Imagine this ... a company that is 137B in debt, yet has almost 2000 employees making a median salary of 200K, and more than 300 VPs making a median salary of 388K. Anyone want to invest in that company? Anyone care to guess who it is?
" THX1138 wrote:
Ferdnam wrote: ridiculous
No one in their right mind expects entry level jobs to "sustain themselves with food, a roof over their heads, affordable health care..." They are entry level jobs for people that have other support structures in their lives. Teenagers seeking experience or part time employees looking for some additional cash. Strange you consider yourself a follower of Milton Friedman's philosophies and then proceed to distort them to the extent you do to fit your own."
First of, I did not write "ridiculous."
Second, I stated elsewhere that Milton Friedman is one of my favorite economists... But I am not a follower of anyone.
Third, yes, there are some people whose situation enables them to piggyback on the contribution of others, a high school student whose livelihood is guaranteed by his parents, for instance. This does not suggest that the firm ought to valuate the added value provided by workers performing the same function at the level subsidized by that high school student's parents.
Job evaluation is about the job, not the situation of the worker.
We are in agreement that the government does not have the tools to set a mandatory minimum wage. This ought to be set by the mechanisms of the free economy.
I am adding that it is in the interest of any firm to provide a "living wage."
Walmart has a compensation model which makes heavy use of indirect government subsidies (food stamps, medicaid) to make it possible for its workers not to be totally destitute... This is not what a free capitalist economy is about... Sorry.
I am not attacking you. I explore a topic. Please do not attack me. Thank you!
@ A friendly voice
Thank you for your very good analysis...
"ecgberht wrote:
"twenty-five workers died in a fire at the Imperial Poultry plant in Hamlet, North Carolina. One reason for the high death toll was that their employer had locked the doors on suspicion they were taking chicken parts home from work"
Hey mchaun. Have any documentation for that? I didn't think so. Some of the WORKERS claimed that was the reason but there was never any evidence that it was so. Actually the reason was that the plant had experienced a number of breakins so there were locks on the doors and the windows were boarded. The owners were terribly at fault - and went to prison. But additionally, "In 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection. Investigators believe a safety inspection might have prevented the disaster...The poultry inspector visited the site daily and knew of the fire violations." That is clearly a failure of government oversight. You can pass all the laws you want, but if there are no cops on the road, people are going to speed.
December 11, 2012 - 3:09 pm"
As I suggested above, you Rats are feeling the heat and Rat Scrambling to get out from under blame for the chaos and misery you all have caused.
What a pathetic, lame spin your Dementia addled brain put on a clearly certifiably preventable tragedy!!
You really are sick, sick, sick!!!
The case speaks for itself- you do not lock Fire Exits, ever, ever!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"unions were the cause of improving working conditions, this would be wrong. It was competition and the free market that was the catalyst."
Yeah, the robber barons gave us all the workplace benefits, including building the middle class.
Its your attitude that is destroying it...
Ferdnam wrote:
"Walmart has a compensation model which makes heavy use of indirect government subsidies (food stamps, medicaid) to make it possible for its workers not to be totally destitute... This is not what a free capitalist economy is about... Sorry. "
Absolutely correct! Every time government intervenes in a market it gets distorted. Same for the Real Estate market and yesterday's discussion. That's why Article I, Section 8 requires Congres to REGULATE commerce between the states (and the impetus for this was the placement of tarrifs), not to control every aspect of commerce and/or create it.
mchaun wrote:
"As I suggested above, you Rats are feeling the heat and Rat Scrambling to get out from under blame for the chaos and misery you all have caused.
What a pathetic, lame spin your Dementia addled brain put on a clearly certifiably preventable tragedy!!
You really are sick, sick, sick!!!
The case speaks for itself- you do not lock Fire Exits, ever, ever!!!"
That's why the owners are in jail - and the inspectors SHOULD be.
Amid the insults and personal attacks, translation: "You are right - I have no credible support for stating that the doors were locked to keep people from stealing chicken".
" ecgberht wrote:
Ferdnam wrote:
"Walmart has a compensation model which makes heavy use of indirect government subsidies (food stamps, medicaid) to make it possible for its workers not to be totally destitute... This is not what a free capitalist economy is about... Sorry. "
Absolutely correct! Every time government intervenes in a market it gets distorted. Same for the Real Estate market and yesterday's discussion. That's why Article I, Section 8 requires Congres to REGULATE commerce between the states (and the impetus for this was the placement of tarrifs), not to control every aspect of commerce and/or create it."
So, we are "basically" in agreement on this... The government's role is to put in place the mechanisms that make profitable private enterprise possible and to guarantee that all participants in the competitive environment play by the same rules... It is not to pick and chose winners and losers...
But it definitely has a duty to invest in things that benefit everyone; pure research, defense, social welfare and health, infrastructure, education, etc...
Ferdnam wrote:
"So, we are "basically" in agreement on this... The government's role is to put in place the mechanisms that make profitable private enterprise possible and to guarantee that all participants in the competitive environment play by the same rules... It is not to pick and chose winners and losers..."
"put in place the mechanisms that make profitable private enterprise possilbe" is too broad. If you mean roads and infrastructure, sure. Everyone should play by the same rules, yes, but the rules should be few and far between, designed to protect the citizenry - from being defrauded for example, but little more.
"But it definitely has a duty to invest in things that benefit everyone; pure research, defense, social welfare and health, infrastructure, education, etc..."
Not a chance. The FEDERAL government has a duty to do what is in Article I, Section 8. Defense, infrastructure, patents, coinage and a few others. If you can find "social welfare and health, and education" in there, you let me know, ok? State governments may do some of those things depending on their state constitutions. In fact, I have maintained that for the FG to make payment to any INDIVIDUAL citizen is an unconstitutional activity. That is why the U.S. Constitution specifies "promote the GENERAL welfare" and why every duty of Article I, Section 8 applies to all citizens equally, and to none individually.
And anyway, Ferdnam, if I 'member raht, yer a ferner, ain't cha?
Cynthia Tanabe wrote:
"Is it possible that the governing boards of these large corporations are actively choosing profits for shareholders/officers over slight increase in costs? I think it is very little to do with what consumers want. It is more about how shareholders/officers make the most profit"
Hey Cynthia, Imagine this ... a company that is 137B in debt, yet has almost 2000 employees making a median salary of 200K, and more than 300 VPs making a median salary of 388K. Anyone want to invest in that company? Anyone care to guess who it is?
No takers? C'mon, somebody has to have a guess!
Obviously, a high profile fire or two will start to lead to local changes in foreign manufacturing areas - just as it did in the United States.
Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) is a poor country. Conditions are harsh for almost everyone in almost every economic sector. Basic subsistence agrarian jobs tend to be among the most dangerous. However, only export industries tend to be highlighted in our media and by domestic labor interest groups.
Threat of restrictive U.S. import legislation once lead to Bangladesh expelling minors from textile industry work. This seemed like a good idea to many, but it did not lead to better working conditions for children as many of these young workers ended up working as prostitutes or in underground mines instead. UNICEF even took a stance against such legislative efforts.
As exports increase and foreign money continues to come into the country wages will increase. Then living and working standards will also increase. We've seen this in Hong Kong and South Korea. It's happening in China now.
Right now Bangladeshis are more concerned about poverty, hunger, and disease than they are about any particular fire exit. We focus on sensational fires, not pervasive daily poverty. In time, Bangladeshi working conditions will improve and in time they will outgrow textile work just as we and other countries have.
"ecgberht wrote:
And anyway, Ferdnam, if I 'member raht, yer a ferner, ain't cha?"
Errrrhhhh! What does this mean????
Ooooh! I got it... Finally... Yes, you remember right, I am a foreigner...
So we don't agree on everything... But we agree on some general principles... That's already something...
I stand by my view of the role of government... I would interpret "general welfare" as a broad statement. It would be interesting to define the boundaries of general welfare. I find your notion of general as not covering "individuals" (if I understand you correctly) to be too restrictive. This is because, in my view, general welfare derives from the systems put in place to guarantee some degree of welfare to all individuals.
Another issue is that of the free economy... I am in favor of a free economy "with enforceable and enforced rules."
We'll have a chance to explore this further, I suspect...
Cheers!
"ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"As I suggested above, you Rats are feeling the heat and Rat Scrambling to get out from under blame for the chaos and misery you all have caused.
What a pathetic, lame spin your Dementia addled brain put on a clearly certifiably preventable tragedy!!
You really are sick, sick, sick!!!
The case speaks for itself- you do not lock Fire Exits, ever, ever!!!"
That's why the owners are in jail - and the inspectors SHOULD be.
Amid the insults and personal attacks, translation: "You are right - I have no credible support for stating that the doors were locked to keep people from stealing chicken".
December 11, 2012 - 3:49 pm
I will admit that "I have no credible support for stating that the doors were locked to keep people from stealing chicken", if you can explain why it matters.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Ferdnam wrote: " I would interpret "general welfare" as a broad statement"
Yes you would interpret it as you usually do with everything else, as a catch all for all your big government desires.
The term 'general welfare' in 1787 is a term that means general well-being. The terms common defense and general welfare go hand in hand. The framers of the Constitution are talking about Congress having the power to provide for the defense of the country and the safety of its citizens. Nothing more. Nothing less.
"I stand by my view of the role of government... I would interpret "general welfare" as a broad statement. It would be interesting to define the boundaries of general welfare. I find your notion of general as not covering "individuals" (if I understand you correctly) to be too restrictive. This is because, in my view, general welfare derives from the systems put in place to guarantee some degree of welfare to all individuals. "
Ferdnam, meaning no disrespect. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what the Constitution says. To me, the two most misunderstood and misinterpreted phrases in that document are, "general welfare", and the commerce clause. Look at the preamble - all references are to the population as a whole, "we the people", "common defense", "ourselves", "our posterity".
The commerce clause; designed to allow the Congress to create laws to regulate commercial disputes between states, has been so perverted as to be a "get out of jail free" card for the Congress to, essentially, do anything it wants. Just look at the ACA.
Finally, the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8. Why is it there? Why do the Founders take the trouble to list the powers of the Federal Government? I've yet to find anyone who can answer that. Why didn't the Founders just say, "Congress can pass any law and grant any power it wants"? And why does the following power close out the list of enumerated powers? "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the FOREGOING Powers, and all other Powers VESTED BY THIS CONSTITUTION in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." (my emphasis).
mchaun wrote:
"I will admit that "I have no credible support for stating that the doors were locked to keep people from stealing chicken", if you can explain why it matters."
Because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, that's why.
Thinking with your hearts and not your heads. The factories people in developing countries because of very low wages. If do-gooders force the price of labor up with onerous regulations, the employers will go elsewhere. Trust me, the factory workers prefer those conditions to the alternatives - subsistence agriculture, prostitution, etc.
thrashertm wrote 'Thinking with your hearts and not your heads'
For liberals the intention is all that matters, actual results of those intentions, irrelevant.
loony tunes mchaun wrote: "The only demand that unions can make is that Employees are entitled to arbitration before discharge. Do you really expect us to believe your idiotic claim??"
They are back on the job despite the wishes of Chrysler, being filmed intoxicating themselves on lunch breaks not enough. What more needs to be said.
Ferdnam wrote: "I am not attacking you. I explore a topic. Please do not attack me. Thank you!"
My opinion is not an attack. Your "exploration" does appear to have some teeth, deal with it.
mchaun wrote:
"ecgberht wrote:
Thanks for that monte. I posted this on a different board in September of 2009.
'...2010 may be the most important election in American history. It would be normal for the left to give up seats of course, it just depends on how many and who. My only concern is if BHO loses too many seats, he may try some kind of coup between 2010 and 2012. And that, BTW is not black helicopter. Don't think, "it can't happen here". This is reality. Know the man's history. Know who is friends are. And know that HE (and his ideology) are the most dangerous threats to freedom and democracy in our nation's history.'
August 11, 2011 - 10:05 am"
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
A trip down memory lane. The real monte, small m, is a sharp cat if I say so myself, ecgberht ain't no slouch either.
Thanks
THX1138 wrote:
ecgberht wrote: "Do you give a thought to anything you post here", mchuan?
I don't think they are even being read by anyone except me an you. Most of the time I'm not sure who wrote what by the way he lays them out. To the average reader of this comment board, they probably don't get past the first sentence or two.
****************
Piercing insight, THX and succinctly put. Thanks.
" THX1138 wrote:
Ferdnam wrote: " I would interpret "general welfare" as a broad statement"
Yes you would interpret it as you usually do with everything else, as a catch all for all your big government desires.
The term 'general welfare' in 1787 is a term that means general well-being. The terms common defense and general welfare go hand in hand. The framers of the Constitution are talking about Congress having the power to provide for the defense of the country and the safety of its citizens. Nothing more. Nothing less."
First, I am not an advocate for "big government."
Second, I can accept your definition of "general welfare" in 1787 as meaning "general well-being." This leaves us with a problem of interpretation. What does "general well-being" mean? How does "general well-being" manifest itself? How do you ensure "general well-being?" How do you make "general well-being" happen?
This is a constitutional interpretation problem that is typically handled at the level of the supreme court (in any country). And I suspect that this issue has already been resolved... All of the social welfare programs in this country that are currently made available to all have been repeatedly ruled as constitutional...
Either you accept the rulings of your supreme court or you have to find a way to change the constitution as it is currently interpreted...
" THX1138 wrote:
Ferdnam wrote: "I am not attacking you. I explore a topic. Please do not attack me. Thank you!"
My opinion is not an attack. Your "exploration" does appear to have some teeth, deal with it."
Yes, my explorations generally have "intellectual teeth."
I am not accusing "you" of being a right wing extremist or such... I remain strictly at the level of the debate of ideas.
Can we agree that we have different opinions on things and that we are exploring each other's views and underlying principles without help from dismissive qualifiers?
"ecgberht wrote:
...
Ferdnam, meaning no disrespect. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what the Constitution says. To me, the two most misunderstood and misinterpreted phrases in that document are, "general welfare", and the commerce clause. Look at the preamble - all references are to the population as a whole, "we the people", "common defense", "ourselves", "our posterity"."
I replied to your point in a post to THX...
Some issues were already adjudicated by your supreme court...
The issue of the interpretation of the constitution on the question of "general welfare" has been resolved over and over.
Your only recourse is to constitutionally revert to a different interpretation and this would be very difficult.
It is not what you think is unconstitutional that makes it so. It is what the supreme court says is unconstitutional that makes it so...
"ecgberht wrote:
...
Ferdnam, meaning no disrespect. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks. It matters what the Constitution says. To me, the two most misunderstood and misinterpreted phrases in that document are, "general welfare", and the commerce clause. Look at the preamble - all references are to the population as a whole, "we the people", "common defense", "ourselves", "our posterity"."
I replied to your point in a post to THX...
Some issues were already adjudicated by your supreme court...
The issue of the interpretation of the constitution on the question of "general welfare" has been resolved over and over.
Your only recourse is to constitutionally revert to a different interpretation and this would be very difficult.
It is not what you think is unconstitutional that makes it so. It is what the supreme court says is unconstitutional that makes it so...
Anything published by either the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation has about as much credibility as anything broadcast by Fox "News."
What people like Ecgbert and THX want to do is return Americans to the kind of working conditions like those that caused the factory fire in Bangladesh. They want to bring back child labor and no regulation on corporations whatever. They want to abolish social welfare prigrams and leave workers unprotected to the mercy of the corporations in their insatiable greed for more and more profit. They're hoping some of that will trickle down on them, probably because they might own some stock in tbese sweat shops. Its ridiculous.
I think you are incorrect Jokr8790. I doubt they want to return Americans to Bangladeshi sweat shop conditions.
My office provides free coffee. Sometimes pizza and donuts. There is no law requiring them to provide coffee. No union bargained for office donut entitlements. And my wage is not some sort of legally mandated minimum.
Prosperity and competition for labor does a lot more to improve working AND living conditions than any law or labor organization.