Re: the whole sweatshop thing

["Peter T. Chattaway" <petert at interchange_ubc.ca>]

On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Don Smith wrote:
> This is such a thorny and knotty issue that I feel a little
> uncomfortable discussing it in such an email forum as this, where
> subtleties and connotations can be so easily lost or misconstrued.

[ nod ]  And I have to say I don't know whether to be thrilled or nervous
now that we seem to have found a topic we disagree on.  :)

> I'm hardly an expert and can only react to what I've read.

Same here.

> First of all, let me address your concern about the politicizing of the
> word "sweatshop" and limit my comments to *just* the tax haven EPZs.
> What it comes down to for me is this: "better than the alternative",
> even if it is true, is not good enough.  It does not seem right to me
> that a company can spend millions of dollars for a celebrity to appear
> in their commercial, but won't spend the thousands it would take for the
> people who actually make their products to live humanely.

I really don't know how to respond to this.  It may not seem "right" but I
can't say it's wrong, either.  The simple fact of the matter is, the
celebrity is worth more to the company than any individual labourer, and
thus, the celebrity is paid more.  I do not believe there is something
inherently wrong with the inequal distribution of wealth, per se, and even
if I did, there is simply no way to distribute wealth equally anyway.  
Heck, it's practically a mathematical *law* that wealth will be unequally
distributed across all cultures, regardless of political make-up.

http://www.newscientist.com/features/features.jsp?id=ns225217

(That URL is no longer active, but you can find the pertinent article by
punching that URL into the archives at web.archive.org.)

> You wrote: "then clearly, they are working at the so-called sweat-shop
> because they can't find better work anywhere else -- and is that really
> the company's fault?"  I don't think that is anywhere near clear.  First
> of all, you are assuming that these people are cognizant of all the
> choices available to them, and are able to act on those options, which
> from what I've read is often not the case.

I am not necessarily assuming that.  I certainly don't think *I'm* fully
cognizant of all the choices available to *me*.  And yet I make choices.

> It also assumes that those choices can be made in a pressure-free
> environment, which is often not the case, given the realities of
> government corruption and military power.

No, I am not assuming that, either -- in fact, I assume anybody who would
choose to work at a "sweat-shop" would do so in response to all sorts of
pressures in his or her life.  I certainly don't think working at a
"sweat-shop" is the sort of thing anybody would do for *fun*.

> If your traditional livelihood is farming, but Shell Oil has polluted
> your family's land to the point where it can't sustain life, and if you
> complain to the government about it, you get killed because they don't
> want to lose the lucrative Shell contracts (same with Chevron), is it
> really fair to ask "is it the company's fault?" that you don't have
> other options than cheap manufacturing labor, as if these things are
> completely unrelated to each other?

No, it would not be fair to ask that, if Shell was flooding my farm *and*
Shell was running the "sweat-shop" where I found employment afterwards.  
But what if the company that runs the "sweat-shop" is not the same company
that flooded my farm?  Is it fair to blame the corporation for my woes
even if it is not the corporation that caused my woes?  If so, why?

> If the lucrative contracts weren't going to support corrupt governemts
> like in Burma or Columbia (where government death squads have killed
> workers trying to unionize in Coca-cola factories), maybe the people
> could get real land reform and start finding better options for
> themselves.

Government corruption is a big problem, sure.  FWIW, the stories that have
been horrifying me the most lately have been the stories coming out of
Africa (Zimbabwe etc.).  My father grew up there, so I tend to hear about
those more than others; perhaps I should be paying more attention to other
countries, too.  But I'm not about to condemn what goes on in Thailand
(which is where the NYT authors were based, and which is where my
missionary friend worked) because of what goes on in other countries.

> I think that article, as written, is totally making a
> post-hoc-propter-hoc argument with respect to the prosperities of
> various Asian countries.  It may well be true, but the conclusion is
> *not* justified by the data they give in the article.

Sorry, you lost me on "post-hoc-propter-hoc".  :)

> My thoughts are rushing much much faster than I can type over this ISDN
> line from the mountaintop in Australia, so I will just leave it with
> this: whatever the convoluted economic and political theories and
> statistics might be to argue this way or that on the issue, for me the
> basic issue is very simple: do unto others as you would have done unto
> you.

For me, it's always been a tad more complicated than that: do unto others
as they would have you do unto them.  Not necessarily the same thing.

> I would not want to be treated as those people are treated.  I can't say
> "well, yes, they house workers in firetraps, expose children to
> dangerous chemicals, deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors, force
> people to work double shifts or dismiss anyone who tries to organize a
> union... *but*..."  there is no "but" that can justify that list.

I don't think anybody here has said that there *is* a "but" that can
justify that list.  The authors of that NYT article cite these as things
that need to be worked on, as things that need to be changed.  But they
see change as something that is achieved from within the system -- and
they argue that boycotting products made in "sweat-shops" will have the
effect not of improving the system, but of shutting it down.

To quote the entire paragraph from which you took those words:

   http://www.topica.com/lists/dadl-ot/read/message.html?mid=801553511

   This is not to praise sweatshops. Some managers are brutal in the way
   they house workers in firetraps, expose children to dangerous
   chemicals, deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors, force people to
   work double shifts or dismiss anyone who tries to organize a union.
   Agitation for improved safety conditions can be helpful, just as it was
   in 19th-century Europe. But Asian workers would be aghast at the idea
   of American consumers boycotting certain toys or clothing in protest.
   The simplest way to help the poorest Asians would be to buy more from
   sweatshops, not less.

No one is saying we should *justify* these sorts of practices.  No one is
trying to "praise" sweatshops, and no one is denying that "some managers
are brutal" or that "agitation ... can be helpful".

> Whether it's better to buy fewer products from such places or more I do
> not know, but I simply cannot rationalize the status quo.

Luckily, no one's asking you to!

--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
 If true love never did exist how could we know its name? -- Sam Phillips
          Happiness happens but I want joy. -- Marjorie Cardwell

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/