How about this? An innovative way to stop sweatshop labor

[vadger1]

I thought I'd post this in GD since the "Labor" forum is more US-oriented and it's pretty serious. This is just an idea I wanted to share with people.

From my study of economics I've realized that as independent entities, corporations don't respond to anything but money. Any time there's legislation by a government body to raise labor standards corporations either try and find loopholes or move their production to other countries with more lax standards (a la the "race to the bottom").

As we've seen with green products, companies begin producing sustainable and conscience-minded products only when there's a demand for it and they see it as profitable. This is basic stuff, obviously, but I think it's fundamental because I've found people have not been approaching labor issues and sweatshops form this perspective. They want to set regulations without offering incentive. Corporations don't have a heart (imo). Corporations are out to maximize profits. They're not going to better their conditions in Malaysian sweatshops unless there's an economic incentive to do so.

How about we make one? Like http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/nike-reebok-puma-somebody-please-stop-using-sweat-shops-and-well-totally-buy-your-shoes">this. This is a campaign to create a market for sweatshop-free shoes. It was only started a few days ago so they don't have a lot but I think it's the right kind of idea.

Why is American Apparel popular? Part of the reason is because there was a demand for sweatshop-free clothing that was widely available. People who were trying to buy fair trade clothes years ago had to order from catalogs or from the internet. They bought ill-fitting clothes that happened to bare the "Made in US" tag because they couldn't bring themselves to buy from GAP or American Eagle.

This is the same kind of idea. I like Nikes but I don't want to buy shoes made from borderline-slave labor (honestly Nike's probably the worst at this. Just take a http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qzm7MCusGM&feature=email">look.)

We can totally do the same for shoes. Tell Nike, PUMA, Adidas, etc. that we will buy whatever shoe they make if they guarantee it's made in good conditions. It doesn't matter if it's made in the US or in the Third World provided that wherever they do it complies with basic human rights and standards for all of its workers.

What does everybody think about this? I think this is probably the best way to use the free market to our advantage. It's clear that the usual petitions for better standards and government regulations haven't worked since Nike et al. is still doing the same thing they did in the 90s. I think the best way to confront this issue is through the markets themselves.

[IntravenousDemilo]

1. I respectfully somewhat disagree.

A faster approach would be to pass legislation requiring that US companies with factories abroad pay exactly the same wages to their foreign employees that they would have to pay domestic employees, and if their domestic employees are unionized, so must their foreign employees. This could go either of two ways. Either the sweatshops would become non-sweatshops, or the companies, no longer having an advantage in offshore outsourcing of labour, would close those factories and move them back home.

There can be no exceptions.

[vadger1]

2. I think that's wishful thinking.

Obviously I agree with your premise and I think that would be the ideal situation, but how would that happen? There has been no equivalent legislation in the past and it seems like the US government goes out of its way to make corporations free to pay their workers whatever wage is available to maximize profits. The US is extremely pro-free market. I can't see a scenario where they decide to suddenly impose sanctions on Nike et al. for paying their workers next to nothing knowing full well they will make less money.

This campaign idea is not wholly-encompassing. It's not out there with the intention of shutting down every sweatshop in existence. Believe me that won't even happen with a legislative approach.

The idea is that you can use the free market to fix a problem created essentially by the free market. It's about creating a demand for products that are not made in sweatshops, giving corporations an incentive to be more responsible. Ultimately this should set a precedent for future corporations. They'll begin to see that there are profits in making responsible products because people are willing to pay for responsibility and accountability.

That's the idea behind this campaign. You can go the legislative route if you want, but it doesn't look like that has worked yet and this I think is an ultimately more powerful approach.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. Perhaps a little of both is in order.

You and I agree on the wished-for result. A two-pronged attack might be effective. I'm not talking about sanctions, however. I'm advocating jail time for non-compliance.

Perhaps once there's a new sheriff in town, eh? Maybe Obama will be a new FDR.

[vadger1]

4. Doubtful.

"Perhaps once there's a new sheriff in town, eh? Maybe Obama will be a new FDR."

Hmm... don't hold your breath. Maybe I'm just pessimistic but the American government is just so entrenched in corporate bureaucracy that I doubt even a change as fundamental as president would make a huge difference. Hopefully Obama could pass some sanctions here and there but I can't see him ever criminalizing exploitive labor like you suggested.

Plus the problem with that is that corporations don't own the factories where their products are produced, they indirectly outsource the production to local companies who in turn commit the crimes. So it would be very hard to prove in court who was responsible -- that's how Nike and GAP have been dodging accusations of exploitation for years. Technically they're not the ones responsible.

The more I think about it the more I think change has to come from the consumers, and not the legislators.