by frog
Should we boycott companies that produce goods using sweatshop labour? That’s the question that was up for debate last month between the resident left-wing and right-wing columnists at Salient, Victoria University’s student magazine. The proponent of not boycotting, right-winger Christopher Bishop, wrote:
There’s no doubt that the conditions of those who work in sweatshops are appalling. They are paid very little. The hours they work are long. They work in factories with atrocious safety standards. Unions are non-existent. They are employment conditions we would not tolerate for one second in the West. Yet people line up to work for companies that use them. Workers in cities in places like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and China worry when companies think about leaving their towns.
The choice for workers in the Third World is not between a high-paying, cushy, unionised job, and a job in a sweatshop. The choice is between a job in a sweatshop and living on a rubbish dump. The choice is between eating and not eating. The choice is between buying a mosquito net to cover your children while they sleep, and having your children die slowly of malaria. A shit job at a shit wage is better than no job at all.
However, the smart supporter of the boycott isn’t hoping that the companies using sweatshop tactics will shut up shop and leave Third World nations. Rather, they’re hoping to jolt them into behaving better, into treating their workers with more dignity. The point of the sweatshop boycott is not to rob the Third World poor of jobs, but to make them better-paying, safer jobs.
Pie in the sky stuff? Well, no. Nike, the number one target for opponents of Western companies using Asian sweatshop labour to make their products, has just released an audit of the conditions in its factories worldwide. It is surprisingly frank, and the company has promised to improve its ways, bringing in much more stringent standards for its factories around the world.
Why? Well, because its reputation (and thus bottomline) has been hit hard by sweatshop boycotts by Western consumers.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Mon, April 25th, 2005
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Interesting stuff. But what now for the boycotters? Suppose Nike put their $ where their mouth is and improve conditions a bit. Should one keep boycotting or not? After all, conditions will still be crap compared to western workplaces.
And what should we make of the view of Jeff Sachs, leading development economist, pal of Bono, and author of the stunningly bold new book “The End of Poverty” who has views pretty similar to the ones you’re criticising here?
Sorry, no answers today, just questions…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hopefully the boycott is called off if good progress is made…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So, that would mean that I’m correct and Christopher is wrong? Jeez, what a surprise!
“But what now for the boycotters? Suppose Nike put their $ where their mouth is and improve conditions a bit. Should one keep boycotting or not?”
-it depends on how much they have raised standards. The boycott should remain until the working standards are the same, but they should be loosened to allow the company to get the motivation for raising the level that far. Pretty much it will come down to a decision by each person. Some will say ‘this is enough, I will no longer boycott Nike’, which provides reward to Nike for their actions. But at the same time other people will say ‘This is not enough, I will continue to boycott Nike’, and that will create the incentive on Nike to do even more.
It is all about using the market to change Nike!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hi. This may seem a bit odd, but I’m currently preparing for a move to NZ from the U.S., and I’m trying to catch up on as much NZ politics as I can. Of course, not having any idea what seperates each political party from the next… well… it can get a bit confusing.
Imagine that I literally just came out from under a rock and have no knowledge of New Zealand politics. Could you help me understand exactly what the Green party stands for, what it’s plans are, where it fits in the NZ governmental system, etc?
Thanks.
Brian Boyko
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mate you want to check out wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Parliament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Clark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_general_election_2002
etc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You know, I did check out Wikipedia, but what Wikipedia is pretty bad at is telling the subjective story. The way things look to different people. It’ll give you facts and figures, and it’s about as useful as the Wall Street Journal. I’m looking for something else though. I’m looking for the stories. For the ideas. You can read on Wikipedia about the politics of the United States, but you need to talk to people one on one and let them tell you their own stories before you get a rough idea about how people think politically.
There’s a reason people choose to vote Green… or Labour, or National, or ACT, or NZ First, or Alliance… or any of the other parties in the history of your country. I want to find out more than just the facts – I want to understand the flavor of New Zealand politics.
– Brian Boyko
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I need to know what has been going on with the Nike boycott….if anyone knows. I have searched almost everywhere and the only thing I have found dates to 2001. Has anything changed on it…..the sites are outdated or expired and I need it for school. Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)