The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Strong topic heading, but this is a subject I feel most strongly about.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Page:
Really it's everybody’s fault, that's why child Labour is going to last. Nobody is willing to stand up and say, "Yeah, i'm wrong, i'm going to make a difference" Everybody needs to do their part but it's just too much hassle and hard work. It's easier for companies like Nike and the countries in which child labour is used to ignore the problem and hope nobody else notices it.
The Customer:
That's you me and everybody else who buys cloths. When i buy shoes, shirts, trousers, etc i have no idea how they are made and, most of the time, have no idea where they are made but like Goatboy said if we didn't buy cloths that were made by children in foreign countries Nike and other companies would have to change. However i don't think it's going to happen. I don't think enough people know about the conditions that children work in and even if they did would they be willing to stop buying these cloths? I know a few people who would and a lot more who wouldn't give a damn, they just want to look good and be "in style"
Companies:
Nike, Adidas and the rest who knowingly employ children and other workers in foreign countries to work in the factories for about $2 a week then sell it for $90. Companies are largely to blame and share most of the responsibility for child labour. But Nike don't give a damn about children in some countries they have never heard off, all they care about is money. Making a large profit so they can live in luxury while their employees live in horrible, deceased and filthy conditions. It's sickening and i think it just as bad as people who make cigarettes which actually kill people.
Countries:
The Countries where children work are more concerned about their neighbour than anybody else. As Stranger In Paradise has pointed out they have huge armies and large nuclear capabilities but they have terrible human right records and frankly don't really care about the general population. If they step out of line they will just move the army in and straighten them out. The people in these countries have no freedom of speech and yet the rest of the world just turns their back on these people.
The only innocent people are the people who work in these conditions. While they suffer, while they are mistreated and while they die we and the rest of the world just put our hands over our eyes and walk away. It's easier to ignore the problem then solve it. If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
Darkreaper
The Customer:
That's you me and everybody else who buys cloths. When i buy shoes, shirts, trousers, etc i have no idea how they are made and, most of the time, have no idea where they are made but like Goatboy said if we didn't buy cloths that were made by children in foreign countries Nike and other companies would have to change. However i don't think it's going to happen. I don't think enough people know about the conditions that children work in and even if they did would they be willing to stop buying these cloths? I know a few people who would and a lot more who wouldn't give a damn, they just want to look good and be "in style"
Companies:
Nike, Adidas and the rest who knowingly employ children and other workers in foreign countries to work in the factories for about $2 a week then sell it for $90. Companies are largely to blame and share most of the responsibility for child labour. But Nike don't give a damn about children in some countries they have never heard off, all they care about is money. Making a large profit so they can live in luxury while their employees live in horrible, deceased and filthy conditions. It's sickening and i think it just as bad as people who make cigarettes which actually kill people.
Countries:
The Countries where children work are more concerned about their neighbour than anybody else. As Stranger In Paradise has pointed out they have huge armies and large nuclear capabilities but they have terrible human right records and frankly don't really care about the general population. If they step out of line they will just move the army in and straighten them out. The people in these countries have no freedom of speech and yet the rest of the world just turns their back on these people.
The only innocent people are the people who work in these conditions. While they suffer, while they are mistreated and while they die we and the rest of the world just put our hands over our eyes and walk away. It's easier to ignore the problem then solve it. If your not part of the solution your part of the problem.
Darkreaper
>There is not
> a decline in the western manufacturing industry.
>The textile
> industry has seen massive growth in Europe, but as with >any market,
> the over-riding concerns are over-heads and profit >margins.
Yes there is ! Any GCSE Geography student can tell you that the main industrys in the west are tertiary ones i.e ones which provide a service to people.
>These
> 3rd world countries offer attractive land costs, minimal >export
> license fees and agreements for the trade and ,most >importantly of
> all, extremely lax civil liberties and employment >regulations.
That should be "these 3rd world countries governments want the money that comes from the sale of land and other taxes which will gain revenue, they do not attempt to care for the disadvantaged and are not blind to exploitation"
>But are you saying that
> it's ok to work under those conditions, because they'd >not be
> working at all otherwise?
No I'm simply being realistic and not wearing my rose tinted glasses. Say that the UN or whoever moves in and shuts down a factory then leaves again. Whats he end result, absolutely no income whatsoever and another factory will be opened elsewhere. I DON'T support he methods Nike e.t.c use but just sayin "stop now" is the stupid solution. Far more realistic is to campaign for higher wages, better conditions. In the countries mentioned families depend on all the income they can get, to them its essential for food and other vital things. They dont get much but its better than nothing because no one else is doing damn all to help them !
>Despite its progressive image in the
> United States, Nike is a very different company in >Vietnam and in
> other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical >abuse,
> sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a >debilitating quota
> systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, >USA Today,
> Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non->profit and
> non-governmental organizations
And this problem is exclusive to the third world ? Take a look around sometime and open your eyes.
>Nike
> also claims that the workers are paid a lower wage because
> Vietnamese law allows for a training wage less than the >minimum
> wage. Viet Nam's legal code, however, specifies that the >training
> wage can be paid only for a "trial-period" of 6 days,
> (under Article 32 of the Labor Code of June 23 1994 and >Article 5
> (2) of Decree 198-CP of Dec 31, 1994)
If Nike are breaking the law then it is up to the host country to enforce the law. Is Vietnam prosecuting ? Nope I doubt it, that might scare Nike off and mean less $ for the government.
>Nike is not investing in
> the 3rd World through worker training or human resource >investment
> but has continually shifted its operation to the country >with a
> lower wage.
Okay so thats not really fair but a company will only invest where business is easy to conduct and the country is stable. China is relatively stable but now v unfriendly to US interests - which Nike is.
>So yes, I
> blame Nike for using child labour and abuse of himan >rights to make
> shoes for you and me to walk down the street in.
Personally I blame the political systems in the countries with this problem. Why don't we have this child labour problem in the UK ? Hmm maybe we have a government with objectives other than the destruction of a neighbouring country ? Or a government that back in the 50's-70's didn't try out Communism ?
At the end of the day this isn't a perfect world but it's the only world we have. Simply banning all LEGAL child labour would be a disaster in already poverty stricken countries with no welfare system in place to make up the shortfall in families incomes. Half of the problem in the third world is that the West blindly charges on the back of public opinion without assessing the damage it will do. Take Somalia for example - In the early nineties UN and US forces deployed to bring about the end of the civil war, restore democracy, arrest war criminals and restore the economy. What happened ? Nearly the whole country hated them for it. In 1993 during one operation the very civilians they were there to save actively helped kill US troops in Mogadishu. Following that UN/US forces withdrew in later years, the final pull out resembling the fall of Saigon.
> a decline in the western manufacturing industry.
>The textile
> industry has seen massive growth in Europe, but as with >any market,
> the over-riding concerns are over-heads and profit >margins.
Yes there is ! Any GCSE Geography student can tell you that the main industrys in the west are tertiary ones i.e ones which provide a service to people.
>These
> 3rd world countries offer attractive land costs, minimal >export
> license fees and agreements for the trade and ,most >importantly of
> all, extremely lax civil liberties and employment >regulations.
That should be "these 3rd world countries governments want the money that comes from the sale of land and other taxes which will gain revenue, they do not attempt to care for the disadvantaged and are not blind to exploitation"
>But are you saying that
> it's ok to work under those conditions, because they'd >not be
> working at all otherwise?
No I'm simply being realistic and not wearing my rose tinted glasses. Say that the UN or whoever moves in and shuts down a factory then leaves again. Whats he end result, absolutely no income whatsoever and another factory will be opened elsewhere. I DON'T support he methods Nike e.t.c use but just sayin "stop now" is the stupid solution. Far more realistic is to campaign for higher wages, better conditions. In the countries mentioned families depend on all the income they can get, to them its essential for food and other vital things. They dont get much but its better than nothing because no one else is doing damn all to help them !
>Despite its progressive image in the
> United States, Nike is a very different company in >Vietnam and in
> other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical >abuse,
> sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a >debilitating quota
> systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, >USA Today,
> Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non->profit and
> non-governmental organizations
And this problem is exclusive to the third world ? Take a look around sometime and open your eyes.
>Nike
> also claims that the workers are paid a lower wage because
> Vietnamese law allows for a training wage less than the >minimum
> wage. Viet Nam's legal code, however, specifies that the >training
> wage can be paid only for a "trial-period" of 6 days,
> (under Article 32 of the Labor Code of June 23 1994 and >Article 5
> (2) of Decree 198-CP of Dec 31, 1994)
If Nike are breaking the law then it is up to the host country to enforce the law. Is Vietnam prosecuting ? Nope I doubt it, that might scare Nike off and mean less $ for the government.
>Nike is not investing in
> the 3rd World through worker training or human resource >investment
> but has continually shifted its operation to the country >with a
> lower wage.
Okay so thats not really fair but a company will only invest where business is easy to conduct and the country is stable. China is relatively stable but now v unfriendly to US interests - which Nike is.
>So yes, I
> blame Nike for using child labour and abuse of himan >rights to make
> shoes for you and me to walk down the street in.
Personally I blame the political systems in the countries with this problem. Why don't we have this child labour problem in the UK ? Hmm maybe we have a government with objectives other than the destruction of a neighbouring country ? Or a government that back in the 50's-70's didn't try out Communism ?
At the end of the day this isn't a perfect world but it's the only world we have. Simply banning all LEGAL child labour would be a disaster in already poverty stricken countries with no welfare system in place to make up the shortfall in families incomes. Half of the problem in the third world is that the West blindly charges on the back of public opinion without assessing the damage it will do. Take Somalia for example - In the early nineties UN and US forces deployed to bring about the end of the civil war, restore democracy, arrest war criminals and restore the economy. What happened ? Nearly the whole country hated them for it. In 1993 during one operation the very civilians they were there to save actively helped kill US troops in Mogadishu. Following that UN/US forces withdrew in later years, the final pull out resembling the fall of Saigon.
I agree, I haven't bought anything with a Nike/Addidas/Reebok label on it for a couple of years now. Me and all my friends just grew out of the 'sporty' clothes and call all the people dressed in e.g 'glow in the dark plastic tracksuit bottoms' and label flashing jumpered people townies or we tell them that the world has grown out of them if they say anything about us, (which isn't really fair considering the popularity of brand clothes, and i'm not elitist or anything like that).
My mum comes from the Phillipines and my family live in a province quite close to another one where big brand companies, I was told quite bad things about the poor living conditions and the quality of peoples health. We didn't go to the province in my time there.
Seriously though I really don't see the point in some of the types of clothes, some of them just don't seem practical and look outragously horrible.
My mum comes from the Phillipines and my family live in a province quite close to another one where big brand companies, I was told quite bad things about the poor living conditions and the quality of peoples health. We didn't go to the province in my time there.
Seriously though I really don't see the point in some of the types of clothes, some of them just don't seem practical and look outragously horrible.
It is fairly disgusting that this sort of thing happens but as always we tend to forget. We are here in our nice little country with rolling hills, freedom to do what we want and money to spend on luxuries. These kids don't have any of this and yet who even spares them a thought when buying a pair of Nike trainers. No-one.
Stranger In Paradise wrote:
Lastly, ask yourselves why Nike, Reebok e.t.c are not having
> factories in western countries anymore ? Well lets see ; a decline
> in manufacturing industry, planning/building takes ages, nobody
> wants a factory in their back garden e.t.c Its easy to say Nike is
> like the big evil corporation but are they any worse than
> governments who turn a blind eye or nation who put war before peace
> ?
There is not a decline in the western manufacturing industry.
The textile industry has seen massive growth in Europe, but as with any market, the over-riding concerns are over-heads and profit margins.
These 3rd world countries offer attractive land costs, minimal export license fees and agreements for the trade and ,most importantly of all, extremely lax civil liberties and employment regulations.
Of course if companies like Nike abandonned these places the workers would not be re-employed by the government.
But are you saying that it's ok to work under those conditions, because they'd not be working at all otherwise?
Despite its progressive image in the United States, Nike is a very different company in Vietnam and in other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a debilitating quota systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non-profit and non-governmental organizations
CBS News 48 Hours reports the following:
Nike workers in Viet Nam earned an average of 20 cents per hour
15 women workers were hit on the head by their supervisor
45 women were made to kneel on the ground for 25 minutes with their hands in the air
and a Korean supervisor fled the country after accusations that he sexually molested female workers.
Nike also claims that the workers are paid a lower wage because Vietnamese law allows for a training wage less than the minimum wage. Viet Nam's legal code, however, specifies that the training wage can be paid only for a "trial-period" of 6 days, (under Article 32 of the Labor Code of June 23 1994 and Article 5 (2) of Decree 198-CP of Dec 31, 1994)
Nike is not investing in the 3rd World through worker training or human resource investment but has continually shifted its operation to the country with a lower wage. In the 1980s, Nike produced 90% of its shoes in Taiwan and Korea. Nike has left these countries due to increases in the local minimum wage. Nike now makes most its shoes and apparel products in China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Pakistan
So yes, I blame Nike for using child labour and abuse of himan rights to make shoes for you and me to walk down the street in.
Lastly, ask yourselves why Nike, Reebok e.t.c are not having
> factories in western countries anymore ? Well lets see ; a decline
> in manufacturing industry, planning/building takes ages, nobody
> wants a factory in their back garden e.t.c Its easy to say Nike is
> like the big evil corporation but are they any worse than
> governments who turn a blind eye or nation who put war before peace
> ?
There is not a decline in the western manufacturing industry.
The textile industry has seen massive growth in Europe, but as with any market, the over-riding concerns are over-heads and profit margins.
These 3rd world countries offer attractive land costs, minimal export license fees and agreements for the trade and ,most importantly of all, extremely lax civil liberties and employment regulations.
Of course if companies like Nike abandonned these places the workers would not be re-employed by the government.
But are you saying that it's ok to work under those conditions, because they'd not be working at all otherwise?
Despite its progressive image in the United States, Nike is a very different company in Vietnam and in other Asian manufacturing operations. Reports of physical abuse, sexual abuse, salary below minimum wage and a debilitating quota systems are confirmed by CBS News, the New York Times, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, AP, Reuters as well as other non-profit and non-governmental organizations
CBS News 48 Hours reports the following:
Nike workers in Viet Nam earned an average of 20 cents per hour
15 women workers were hit on the head by their supervisor
45 women were made to kneel on the ground for 25 minutes with their hands in the air
and a Korean supervisor fled the country after accusations that he sexually molested female workers.
Nike also claims that the workers are paid a lower wage because Vietnamese law allows for a training wage less than the minimum wage. Viet Nam's legal code, however, specifies that the training wage can be paid only for a "trial-period" of 6 days, (under Article 32 of the Labor Code of June 23 1994 and Article 5 (2) of Decree 198-CP of Dec 31, 1994)
Nike is not investing in the 3rd World through worker training or human resource investment but has continually shifted its operation to the country with a lower wage. In the 1980s, Nike produced 90% of its shoes in Taiwan and Korea. Nike has left these countries due to increases in the local minimum wage. Nike now makes most its shoes and apparel products in China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Pakistan
So yes, I blame Nike for using child labour and abuse of himan rights to make shoes for you and me to walk down the street in.
Yes I hold Nike accountable, as they frequently move the base of operations and factories depending on how succesfull civil prosecutions are.
They used to have a main factory in Thailand, but after a major fire in which 192 people died and cases brought against them by Unicef, they upped and relocated to Malaysia, where there are no civil legislations in regard to child labour laws.
The consumer is to blame because a simple boycott of the product will force a change eventually.
But people dont make themselves aware of the situation.
There is an email doing the rounds of a guy that went to the Nike site where you can personalise a shoe with your own slogan and requested that "Child Labour" be on his and thanked Nike for the opportunity to allow himself the freedom.
They refused, as did they for his request for "sweatshop".
In the end, he asked for a photo of the 7yr old that made his shoe so can he express his thanks that way.
Nothing.
The governments do nothing to assist groups protecting child labour simply because of the amount of money that Nike pay for "Labour Permits".
A basic fee paid to the government in order to obtain a permit that allows production for export.
It is estimated that Nike paid close to 1.2 Billion in Export license agreements to Malaysia and Thailand.
If you are one of these regimes, then it is simply good business sense to allow this.
They used to have a main factory in Thailand, but after a major fire in which 192 people died and cases brought against them by Unicef, they upped and relocated to Malaysia, where there are no civil legislations in regard to child labour laws.
The consumer is to blame because a simple boycott of the product will force a change eventually.
But people dont make themselves aware of the situation.
There is an email doing the rounds of a guy that went to the Nike site where you can personalise a shoe with your own slogan and requested that "Child Labour" be on his and thanked Nike for the opportunity to allow himself the freedom.
They refused, as did they for his request for "sweatshop".
In the end, he asked for a photo of the 7yr old that made his shoe so can he express his thanks that way.
Nothing.
The governments do nothing to assist groups protecting child labour simply because of the amount of money that Nike pay for "Labour Permits".
A basic fee paid to the government in order to obtain a permit that allows production for export.
It is estimated that Nike paid close to 1.2 Billion in Export license agreements to Malaysia and Thailand.
If you are one of these regimes, then it is simply good business sense to allow this.
Definitely agree with what you're saying but why blame us, the consumers, solely ? I mean it's okay saying we shouldn't wear branded clothing but why ? Thailand, China e.t.c are all countries where, last time I knew, there is a government in power. Surely they share the blame as well for not protecting their citizens ? There is the UN as well...what concern are they showing ?
The trouble is the third world countires are so far behind us in the west technologically that they can never hope to catch up.
The four countries named "Malaysia, China, Thailand and India" are, to me, more to blame for poverty than any corporation you name here. A look at the cia website world fact book reveals these nations are far from blameless for the plight of their children/people.
MALAYSIA; 6.8% of the population is below the poeverty line compared to 17% in the UK.......
CHINA; one of the world's largest standing armies, nuclear capability, constant harassment of Taiwan and US/UK businesses. Worst human rights record on the planet, nearly.
THAILAND; drug smuggling capital of Asia. Human rights are abused and spending is concentrated on the military.
INDIA ; aqquired nuclear cpaability recently, border war with Pakistan and no attempt to control its own over population.
Gee...maybe if they weren'y all tooled up for war then they wouldn't have the problems of cheap labour ?
More has to be done to stop the cause of child labour, stopping buying the clothes is ineffectual and besides what happens if the factories are not needed anymore ? I doubt the respective countries are going to look after the ex workers.
As for McDonalds...well I worked there for 3 days before quitting ! There are plenty of underpaid workers in this country as well as abroad. I'm not saying we should be all inward looking and ignore other countries but some people in this country work really hard for very little. Many supermarkets pay about 3.60, less than that for local independant stores/corner shops. Do you stop using them in protest ? I doubt it ! It's okay to say that they're getting 3.60 an hour when kids in foreign countries are getting less but try living in this country on 3.60 an hour ! Thankfully I get paid a bit more than that but plenty do not.
Lastly, ask yourselves why Nike, Reebok e.t.c are not having factories in western countries anymore ? Well lets see ; a decline in manufacturing industry, planning/building takes ages, nobody wants a factory in their back garden e.t.c Its easy to say Nike is like the big evil corporation but are they any worse than governments who turn a blind eye or nation who put war before peace ?
The trouble is the third world countires are so far behind us in the west technologically that they can never hope to catch up.
The four countries named "Malaysia, China, Thailand and India" are, to me, more to blame for poverty than any corporation you name here. A look at the cia website world fact book reveals these nations are far from blameless for the plight of their children/people.
MALAYSIA; 6.8% of the population is below the poeverty line compared to 17% in the UK.......
CHINA; one of the world's largest standing armies, nuclear capability, constant harassment of Taiwan and US/UK businesses. Worst human rights record on the planet, nearly.
THAILAND; drug smuggling capital of Asia. Human rights are abused and spending is concentrated on the military.
INDIA ; aqquired nuclear cpaability recently, border war with Pakistan and no attempt to control its own over population.
Gee...maybe if they weren'y all tooled up for war then they wouldn't have the problems of cheap labour ?
More has to be done to stop the cause of child labour, stopping buying the clothes is ineffectual and besides what happens if the factories are not needed anymore ? I doubt the respective countries are going to look after the ex workers.
As for McDonalds...well I worked there for 3 days before quitting ! There are plenty of underpaid workers in this country as well as abroad. I'm not saying we should be all inward looking and ignore other countries but some people in this country work really hard for very little. Many supermarkets pay about 3.60, less than that for local independant stores/corner shops. Do you stop using them in protest ? I doubt it ! It's okay to say that they're getting 3.60 an hour when kids in foreign countries are getting less but try living in this country on 3.60 an hour ! Thankfully I get paid a bit more than that but plenty do not.
Lastly, ask yourselves why Nike, Reebok e.t.c are not having factories in western countries anymore ? Well lets see ; a decline in manufacturing industry, planning/building takes ages, nobody wants a factory in their back garden e.t.c Its easy to say Nike is like the big evil corporation but are they any worse than governments who turn a blind eye or nation who put war before peace ?
Strong topic heading, but this is a subject I feel most strongly about.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Labels. Designer clothes/cars/furniture/accessories.
I myself find the notion that something can cost twice as much because it has a fashionable label on ludicrous.
A while ago I read a book called "No Logo" by Naomi Klein that discusses the whole notion of a logo, or brand name of a product and just what it means.
Many people seek out the lastest logo item, be it a shoe by Nike or clothes by Gucci.
Why?
What does it matter to you what a product says, as long as it does the job? You can pay £120 for jeans by Armani, I'll buy mine for £10 from Northwield market.
"Yeah, but the material is better and will last longer"
So what? I can buy 12 pairs for your money and I promise that they'll last just as long.
It seems to be a striving for acceptance, to be able to display your watch nonchalantly in the pub and say "Hmm? Oh this? Yah, it's a Tag" and everyone can coo and murmer about how stylish you are.
Are people that insecure that they need to have a label on them to "fit in"?
I don't get it one little bit.
And one of the most ironic "fashion" statements ever made was grunge.
Popular when Nirvana exploded, there were all manner of people explaining how to "dress grunge" and informing people how to dress like clothes weren't important to them.
Hello? You need to be told how to dress like you don't care how to dress?
I think I was the only one to laugh at that notion.
But you can see it everywhere you look, labels are on posters, tv, magazines, tube station walls, stickers on people's cars.
And this worries me.
Nike are constantly being shamed for their use of child slavery to make those lovely shoes you pay £90 for.
Factories in Malaysia, China, Thailand and India operate under sweatshop conditions, with children as young as 4 forced to work 18hr days with no breaks for what amounts to $2 a week.
Nike refuse to comment, despite continually being brought to check by groups like Amnesty International, F.A.I.R and UNICEF.
It comes down to cost.
It's cheaper to produce shoes in these countries and pay little kids, so you can pay £90 for the same shoe and feel really cool when you're out with your mates.
Shame on you.
And do me a favour, the next time you go out shopping, just look at how many people are walking around with logos on their clothes.
Why?
I refuse to wear logo items.
Why?
Because I am not a billboard. I am not a walking advertising space for a company that makes clothes.
If you want me to advertise your company's products, you pay me, not the other way round.
But so many people are content to splash out £100s of pounds to walk about advertising someone else's product.
Absurd notion. You are now a space to rent. And you pay for the privilige.
It's not just Nike that use child labour to produce goods.
Toys R Us, Walmart, Nike, Adidas, Disney.
All of these companies are currently undergoing civil prosecution for the violation and abuse of the Human Civil Rights Charter in their use of child labour.
The pursuit of designer products drives the market, which is why multi-national companies seek to drive down overheads and maximise profit margins through child labour in 3rd world countries where labour laws are non-applicable.
Unions are not allowed there, no worker rights are tolerated.
This is shameful behaviour, and as long as you think "Excellent, the new Nike Airwalk is out", then this will continue.
Please, logo festooned clothes are no way to promote your well-standing in society because you can afford them.
Having principles and an awareness of what goes into a lot of designer gear makes you far cooler.
Page: