New York, 8:45 AM
Wed Nov 11
68 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jezebel.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
Email | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan
Email | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
Email | Twitter
Sadie Stein
Email | Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
Email
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
Email | Twitter
Contributors:
Jenna Sauers
Email
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Lizzie Skurnick
Email
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
| posts about #thirdworld more → |
Do You Know Where Your Clothes Come From? |
Why Don't People Care More About The Leather Industry? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Jezebel 
12/05/08
12/05/08
In Kerala, India, labor laws are strong, but there's no manufacturing for multinationals because those companies have the option to build factories in the north where they are free to pollute and exploit child labor. Workers lave no leverage in those places, and ancient monuments are being destroyed with the smog and acid rain. Kerala isn't a socialist utopia, but they do have local agriculture, fishing, service, and creative industries. The state guarantees people's basic needs like health care. Kids all go to school and the population is highly educated.
Consumer boycotts, along with laws and trade agreements, are one of the most effective ways of stopping this race to the bottom. I haven't read this guy's book yet, but from what I've seen in India, those factories harness children into the cycle of poverty.
12/05/08
12/05/08
The ILO has a convention seeking to eliminate the worst forms of child labor - slavery, prostitution, involvement in illicit activities, and most pertinently, "work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children".
I'm completely with you on boycotting companies that violate that standard, but "all child labor = bad" simply isn't accurate.
Also, children have agency. Some willingly work. Some would rather be in school, but understand their families' situations and work instead. Your concern about "benefitting off their little backs" is not so much "kneejerk reactionary" as it is "white man's burden".
12/05/08
@CherriSpryte: This is an interesting point. In another discussion thread I noted how when there is a en masse movement (voluntary, not forced) of children out of the labor force, the economic situation for the society as a whole improves (simply: labor supply goes down, adult wages go up). It is definitely a different case when children are forced out of jobs. Perhaps this is where we need to start concentrating our efforts - not in boycotts, but in promoting social programs, like fully-subsidized educational programs, that can lead to voluntary mass migration of children out of the labor force.
12/05/08
No, when all is said and done, it is just so much rationalization. Someone else is just going to take advantage of those children? Why not us? We're nicer about it. That's what it boils down to. Nothing "White man's burden" about that. Really, how dare you?
12/05/08
What I was really referring to in my comments about children having agency is the fact that there are labor unions in a few different countries - Peru, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, at least - founded, operated, and ran by children. And they're not campaigning to not have to work. Here's a thing about the Peru group, and child labor in general: [www.unesco.org]
All child labor is bad, fine, but children starving to death is worse. Children getting sold into slavery and the sex trade is worse than children working in (safe) factories. Its a spectrum, and while deliberately going out and buying child-labor produced goods is ridiculous, your condescension and refusal to acknowledge the harsh facts in this issue is also not helping anything.
12/05/08
I'm not sure what impact that's had on wages in general, but its an interesting aspect.
12/05/08
Yes. There are child labor unions in those countries. They exist because child labor exist in those countries! Not because they're overly fond of labor. You think they'd not be better off getting an education? And you believe it's condescending for me to think so? That is 1000 ways of fucked up. That is not me refusing to acknowledge harsh facts. That is you pretending that children actually want to work instead of go to school. Those labor unions could cease to exist if their countries improved, and they could go to school. That would be a good thing. That's a goal we should be working toward.
12/05/08
However, while we're working towards these fantastic goals, some children have to work to survive. Some turn down education to work when its absolutely necessary. I'm advocating safer factories and part-time education for those children, so they don't spend a lifetime in those factories and fields.
What, exactly, is your problem with that?
12/05/08
As others pointed out, child labor was common just 100 years ago in the US. It wasn't until labor unions and the government worked to change labor and put laws in place on wages, hours and working conditions that it ended.
12/05/08
12/05/08
Also, the way we got rid of most child labor (although there is STILL a ton of child labor in agriculture particularly with migrants)in the United States was raising the wages of their parents. Parent's don't want their kids to work and generally only allow that to happen when they are desperate. If parent's are paid enough to support their whole family, children are less likely to work. So working towards fair and living wages around the world will impact this problem.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
@LauraNOLA: @Kivrin: This must be a common tactic, bc they did it at my college too.
12/05/08
12/05/08
It is a tough issue to handle. An article I read cited a case where, in New York City, it came to light that a factory that some of the department stores were using for their private label didn't use union employees. The workers in the factory (all women) successfully fomented a boycott and were allowed to unionize. But because the factory had been exposed for unfair labor practices, no one wanted to use the company anymore. The owners secretly set up more factories in Brooklyn and eventually fired the women. So, even in the U.S., there is no easy answer.
I wonder what would happen if, instead of simply boycotting apparel companies for using child labor, those companies were boycotted for using unsafe practices. The economy in a lot of "third world" countries (I hate that term)relies on exporting clothing. What if governments were forced to ensure safe manufacturing opportunities because of "first world" consumer demand? What if "third world" countries were able to bring in designers, CAD software, and other more cerebral aspects of the fashion industry that are currently reserved for "first world" companies? What if "third world" countries were able to complete the industrialization process? Apparel manufacturers would be forced to support countries growing into the next phases of the industrial revolution to keep the trade deficit intact.
So, in short, boycott to end child labor AND to effect social change in the producing nations through government support and "first world" corporate initiatives. But even all of that, I'm sorry to say, wouldn't put an end to child labor or the sweatshop.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
it's the same situation in these other countries (as pointed out by the author). if sound educational opportunities for all were provided for all children in every country on this planet, that one change would create a huge shift in the dynamics of poverty and the desperate situations it fosters.
12/05/08
God damn it, why does everything suck?
I had a lit teacher who once talked about The Iliad it terms of "moral bad luck": a condition in which all available options are morally reprehensible.
It's enough to make a guy go crazy.
12/05/08
And January 20 is coming.
12/05/08
Kids in poor countries work. A lot. Hard. Just a part of life. LIFE is hard. NOT working for anyone, whether "retired," or even in childhood, is a luxury.
12/05/08
12/05/08
While it's a right and a mandate now, he was never afforded what he considers the luxury of an education. Oh, you oughta hear him fuss and cuss about these clueless kids these days.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
I'm not sure how factual these students' claims were and I tried to draw attention to more adverse conditions that a boycott might result in. No one wants to listen to that though, when you can sit cross-legged in the President's office all night, and daydreaming about getting arrested for your cause.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
Perhaps any future protestors should have to sign up for a protest workshop in which they have to read this book (or another one relevant to whatever it is that they are protesting).
It's so complex that it makes my Friday brain hurt.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
I'm well aware that I'm a dreamer -- I was trying to imagine a perfect solution, and there isn't one.
12/05/08
12/05/08
12/05/08
Perhaps this would eventually lead to stricter labor laws where only older children could work, and so on....
There must be NGOs and other types of organizations that could staff the school with volunteers, so that it would cost only building maintenance, upkeep, living expenses for staff, books and perhaps uniforms for the kids. That's a lot, sure, but not a lot in some of these regions, and certainly organizations would see its viability.
Just a pipe dream? Yeah. But one undergraduate woman started an orphanage in an extremely down-trodden slum in India with her own hard work and resource-hunting...these kinds of things are possible
12/05/08
There's also the "paying parents to send their children to school" model that's fairly successful in latin america.
That doesn't make me feel less guilty about my H&M habits, but at least its a good thing?
12/05/08
I think this book will go a long way towards educating all of us a little further and at the very least, get us to think about the issue in more depth.