October 28, 2007
Sweatshops
An interesting and disturbing article from The Observer:
Amitosh concentrates as he pulls the loops of thread through tiny plastic beads and sequins on the toddler’s blouse he is making. Dripping with sweat, his hair is thinly coated in dust. In Hindi his name means ‘happiness’. The hand-embroidered garment on which his tiny needle is working bears the distinctive logo of international fashion chain Gap. Amitosh is 10.
Horrible. And Gap - which has been caught by surprise by one of its subcontractors - has promised to destroy the blouses involved. No doubt there’s little alternative to that, but I feel uncomfortable about the way such stories tend to be reported and debated. Child labour is an appalling practice but it is not a contaminant like salmonella. You cannot fix the problem by destroying the tainted goods.
The aim here should not be to break the link between child labour and our consumption. It is to end child labour and replace it with something better - children well-cared for, well-fed and well educated. Does the one lead to another? Not automatically.
To The Observer’s credit this question - usually neglected - is asked if not entirely answered:
Gap’s own policy is that if it discovers children being used by contractors to make its clothes that contractor must remove the child from the workplace, provide it with access to schooling and a wage, and guarantee the opportunity of work on reaching a legal working age.
I completely agree with Tim in that “You cannot fix the problem by destroying the tainted goods” and which in my book at least just signifies guaranteeing that all those children’s sacrifices meant nothing.
No! GAP should instead sell those blouses at $300 a piece with a good description of how they were produced and then use all the proceeds to buy those poor children their freedom, education and a chance for a better tomorrow. The whole concept that if I do not buy it or I do not sell it I have done my part, is just shameful.
You want to have a new product line that helps children well then perhaps you are better off setting up a factory with children labour that guarantees decent conditions, all financed by the products being sold at a premium, instead of abandoning the children completely… and on top of it all feeling smugly good about it.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | October 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm | Report this commentSweatshops. Unfortunately it is a part of life for many young people in foreign countries. Every time we hear about some major company being linked to sweatshops, we often hear of how they are against it and what their policy is in regards to sweatshops. Remember several years ago when Kathy Lee’s line was found to be linked to sweat shops? Well here we are several years later and still dealing with the same old BS. It is still happening and it is something we can not continue to ignore. Even though companies act as if they are really concerned, but if they were that the concerned they would be on top of their mess and periodically go to where their products are being produced and make sure that they aren’t making a profit off of a child’s hard work who makes next to nothing for it.
You know, it seems to me that if Gap was a smarter company, they would not destroy this little boys hard work. Think of it like this, you struggle for months maybe even years writing a book own your own. You finally finish the book and plan on printing it up or putting it on a disk and right as you are in the process, your computer crashes and you lose everything. granted now days we have are smart enough to have everything or most everything else saved somewhere else, but never the less, imagine how you would feel. All of your time and hard work just gone. It would be hard for one not to cry. It is my believe that Gap should not destroy this little boy hard work, but instead turn around and auction it off or something. Sell it for a crazy price, we all know that there are many rich people who will buy anything just because they can. The money made from doing this could in return go back to the child who was taken advantage of. I can guarantee that however much is made from this item, it is far more than this child could have ever imagined and would be so beneficial to him and his family. Far more beneficial than if the were to just destroy the items.
The Gap is a company that is fairly well known, at least in the United States and has several other companies attached to it, such as Old Navy. It seems to me that the company has enough money to make a difference and should do whatever they can in order to help these children. Destroying what they worked so hard on is not what they should be doing. At the very least they should give the clothing to the poor who really need it. If they truly want to make a difference they need to alter their way of thinking and stop trying to get rid of the evidence and do the best that they can in order to embrace the situation and turn a negative into a positive, after all, isn’t that what good business is all about?
Posted by: Steph2614 | October 30th, 2007 at 6:32 am | Report this commentThe idea that you can benefit someone by firing him always struck me as being a little odd.
Following this argument: how does refusing to hire someone benefit him?
Posted by: ad | November 1st, 2007 at 8:13 pm | Report this comment