No Sweat
Further to my comment on Rachel’s post about consumerism, I thought I’d share this weblink I stumbled across.
NO SWEAT STUFF || 100% SWEATSHOP FREE & UNION-MADE FOOTWEAR & CLOTHING
From the site: “Sweatshop exploitation is modern globalised capitalism stripped bare. Sweatshops mean slave wages, long hours, dangerous conditions, back breaking work and repression of trade unions. The bosses and sports stars take home millions while factory workers get pennies.” No Sweat (UK)
Sweatshops exist from the western suburbs of Melbourne & Sydney to the Free Trade Zones of Asia. The No Sweat label has been launched in Australia & New Zealand to give conscious consumers such as yourself a real alternative to the sweatshop-made footwear and clothing which line the shelves and clothing racks of most stores.
A percentage of each sale, whether you purchase on line or via one our retailers, helps fund social justice campaigns around the world including the Anti-Slavery Association of Australia.
Brilliant.
Brilliant? I’m not so sure.
People working in sweatshops often earn more than local farmers and other local businesses; plus they have a real opportunity to work their way out of poverty.
If you stop buying the product, then what good are you doing them?
I see that the money from this product goes to fund (western) NGOs. And this is a good thing why? Who exactly are these NGOs? Why do they deserve to earn money more than people who work in sweatshops?
People who consider themselves ethical consumers, and who think twice before buying sweatshop produced products should probably think thrice before buying these products.
Okay, I’ve checked the website out. Well, it appears their products are produced in Indonesia and the workers are paid at least %20 minumum wage. So good luck to them.
Only problem is – in the competitive marketplace, can this business survive, or will lower paying but more sustainable businesses such as Nike prove to be more beneficial in the long term for the working poor in Indonesia?
Hi TimT,
The difference between what we are saying is the starting point. You are coming from the position that competetive capitalism is good and working in sweatshops for some money is better than starving with no job at all. I’m coming from the point that competitive capitalism is bad and and that the only way to change things is to not participate in the system. Perhaps working is better than starving, but by accepting that as the two choices we are perpetuating a bad system.
Not that I think it will change anytime soon, but I can’t continue to participate without feeling immoral about it. I don’t really think I’m helping anyone too much by allowing them the great opportunity to spend 12 hours a day in a cruddy factory.
But by buying these higher priced items you’ll be participating in competitive capitalism as well. You don’t seem to offer an alternative. ‘Not participating’ isn’t really a practical solution to world poverty – especially when ‘not participating’ simply seems to deny third-world workers jobs and pay because it makes a couple of first-world folks feel good about themselves.
(And, come to think of it, we’re NOT and we never will be responsible for all the troubles in the world, even if we are rich westerners. I’m sick of all this first-world angst about our ‘privilege’; it’s a way of evading the real moral issues that confront us everyday, in our own neighbourhoods and familys.)
Yeah, I like capitalism. I like the free market. What’s so bad about a system that works via free-trade, and freedom of association, and even let’s people (gasp!) get rich???
BTW Rachel, hope that all didn’t sound too rude!
I like what Lip Mags doing, actually, and I’ve just linked you guys on my blog.