• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bangladesh to allow unions for garment workers

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bangladesh to allow unions for garment workers

DHAKA, Bangladesh (AP) — Bangladesh's government agreed Monday to allow the country's garment workers to form trade unions without prior permission from factory owners, the latest response to a building collapse that killed more than 1,100 people and focused global attention on the industry's hazardous conditions.

The Cabinet decision came a day after the government announced a plan to raise the minimum wage for garment workers, who are paid some of the lowest wages in the world to sew clothing bound for global retailers. Both moves are seen as a direct response to the April 24 collapse of an eight-story building housing five garment factories, the worst disaster in the history of the global garment industry.

It's sad that it took such a sad event for unions to be allowed but oh wait...

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. It was also the second deadliest disaster in New York City – after the burning of the General Slocum on June 15, 1904 – until the destruction of the World Trade Center 90 years later. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers, who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths. Most of the victims were recent Jewish and Italian immigrant women aged sixteen to twenty-three;[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] of the victims whose ages are known, the oldest victim was Providenza Panno at 43, and the youngest were 14-year-olds Kate Leone and "Sara" Rosaria Maltese.[4]
[SUP]
[/SUP]

Because the managers had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits – a common practice at the time to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks[SUP][5][/SUP] – many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.

Those evil, eviiiiilll unions I tells ya.
 
Bangladesh to allow unions for garment workers



It's sad that it took such a sad event for unions to be allowed but oh wait...

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those evil, eviiiiilll unions I tells ya.

It will be interesting to see Bangladesh's interpretation of "unions." Yet this disaster had nothing to do with unions. This was a direct result of crappy building codes or nonenforcement of building codes. I mean, when a freaking building FALLS DOWN, unions aren't going to be holding it up, for God's sake.

Nevertheless, this is Bangladesh's answer to the most embarrassing and horrific industrial accident (that wasn't an accident at all) in modern history. They're trying to appease you and me. If other buildings are built with the no- doubt corruption that this factory was built upon? It won't do any good at all to have unions. What they need are building codes and the balls to enforce them.
 
It will be interesting to see Bangladesh's interpretation of "unions." Yet this disaster had nothing to do with unions. This was a direct result of crappy building codes or nonenforcement of building codes. I mean, when a freaking building FALLS DOWN, unions aren't going to be holding it up, for God's sake.

Nevertheless, this is Bangladesh's answer to the most embarrassing and horrific industrial accident (that wasn't an accident at all) in modern history. They're trying to appease you and me. If other buildings are built with the no- doubt corruption that this factory was built upon? It won't do any good at all to have unions. What they need are building codes and the balls to enforce them.

Unions were pretty much responsible for the creation and enforcement of safety guidelines. 100 years ago, workers have nearly no labor rights and are dying right and left due to ****ty bosses not caring enough to provide safety standards. Fast forward 100 years and in most places you can't even get a job unless you've got a little paper that says you can at least be around the machinery. Big business in 3rd world countries get away with this kind of stuff all the time because governments come down hard on workers trying to create unions. Unions and safety standards come hand in hand.
 
...and in other news Bangladesh's unemployment rate is about to rise. Pakistanis work cheap too.
 
...and in other news Bangladesh's unemployment rate is about to rise. Pakistanis work cheap too.

I know right! If they stop letting workers die in industrial accidents there will never be enough jobs to go around!
 
Those evil, eviiiiilll unions I tells ya.

My gripe with Unions are those in Europe and the US who argue for high wages in the US (and Europe) thus making these markets uncompetitive compared to Vietnam, Bangladesh, China and so on. I've always held the position that European and US unions should actually focus their efforts in those countries to raise the wages and working conditions in those countries first and foremost. Every wage increase and working condition improvement they get, the less of a comparative advantage they have so less and less will look to ship jobs overseas.

But for these kinds of comments, I am a "anti-union".
 
It will be interesting to see Bangladesh's interpretation of "unions." Yet this disaster had nothing to do with unions. This was a direct result of crappy building codes or nonenforcement of building codes. I mean, when a freaking building FALLS DOWN, unions aren't going to be holding it up, for God's sake.

Nevertheless, this is Bangladesh's answer to the most embarrassing and horrific industrial accident (that wasn't an accident at all) in modern history. They're trying to appease you and me. If other buildings are built with the no- doubt corruption that this factory was built upon? It won't do any good at all to have unions. What they need are building codes and the balls to enforce them.

Why involve the government? Shouldn't the free market be allowed to resolve the so-called "unsafe" working conditions?
 
I know right! If they stop letting workers die in industrial accidents there will never be enough jobs to go around!

building codes will not be changed by unions and people looking for cheap labor will find it. I'd be willing to bet most of the crap we both own was made by 3rd world workers. reality is what it is.
 
Why involve the government? Shouldn't the free market be allowed to resolve the so-called "unsafe" working conditions?

No, the free market can't resolve "so-called unsafe working conditions." In our country, our factories don't fall down. That's not the result of the brilliance and generosity of the free-market. That's the result of building codes. Safety conditions inside our factories are the result of OSHA regulations. Some of them may have well been the result of union suggestion; but we're already seeing free market at work in Bangladesh. Buildings collapse.
 
building codes will not be changed by unions and people looking for cheap labor will find it.

Why not? Unions played a big role in improving workplace safety in America's history. Today, I think labor unions are just as focused on greed as they employers, they exist to simply try to get the biggest piece of the pie they can. But that has not always been true and there absolutely was a period in our history when unions were necessary.

I'd be willing to bet most of the crap we both own was made by 3rd world workers.

So? I don't have any problem with cheap overseas labor and I don't consider it exploitative (in general).

reality is what it is.

How profound. You must be an NBA player.
 
No, the free market can't resolve "so-called unsafe working conditions." In our country, our factories don't fall down. That's not the result of the brilliance and generosity of the free-market. That's the result of building codes. Safety conditions inside our factories are the result of OSHA regulations. Some of them may have well been the result of union suggestion; but we're already seeing free market at work in Bangladesh. Buildings collapse.

I was being sarcastic. I agree the free market won't do it.
 
My gripe with Unions are those in Europe and the US who argue for high wages in the US (and Europe) thus making these markets uncompetitive compared to Vietnam, Bangladesh, China and so on. I've always held the position that European and US unions should actually focus their efforts in those countries to raise the wages and working conditions in those countries first and foremost. Every wage increase and working condition improvement they get, the less of a comparative advantage they have so less and less will look to ship jobs overseas.

But for these kinds of comments, I am a "anti-union".

The problem is that cost of living in those countries isn't what it is in the US. As pretty much an ex-pat, I now fully understand how companies can get away with paying 10 bucks a day if that. In Mexico, you can buy a weeks groceries for a family of 4 for about $100USD. That means vegetables, milk, grains etc and still have a bit left over. You can't justify paying people much more than that if it doesn't cost more than that to live. So in countries in South-East Asia, there is really nothing to even point to the fact that you should probably pay your workers more. What do they need? iPads? No. They have a different social context than we do. So it's okay to pay them less.
 
It will be interesting to see Bangladesh's
interpretation of "unions." Yet this disaster had nothing to do with unions. This was a direct result of crappy building codes or nonenforcement of building codes. I mean, when a freaking building FALLS DOWN, unions aren't going to be holding it up, for God's sake.

Nevertheless, this is Bangladesh's answer to the most embarrassing and horrific industrial accident (that wasn't an accident at all) in modern history. They're trying to appease you and me. If other buildings are built with the no- doubt corruption that this factory was built upon? It won't do any good at all to have unions. What they need are building codes and the balls to enforce them.

The New York shirtwaist fire helped further union rights in America. The women's union was fighting for months and complained about workplace safety prior to the fire, and they held multiple strikes. Hundreds of women died in the fire, some were burned beyond recognition.

The shirtwaist factory was by todays standards a sweatshop.


It was a huge tragedy but it ultimately lead to addressing building codes in America, union rights, and women's rights.

China, Mexico, and other countries with little to no workers rights, sweatshops, and child labor need to more towards unions and worker rights.
 
Why not? Unions played a big role in improving workplace safety in America's history. Today, I think labor unions are just as focused on greed as they employers, they exist to simply try to get the biggest piece of the pie they can. But that has not always been true and there absolutely was a period in our history when unions were necessary.

Henry Ford did more for American workers than unions ever have in his experiments trying to figure out how to maximize production, not the least of it was the 40 hour work week.


So? I don't have any problem with cheap overseas labor and I don't consider it exploitative (in general).

And others do not consider it exploitative to not have US work conditions in places where people live in shacks made from garbage.



How profound. You must be an NBA player.

Perhaps I am. Doesn't change the reality that supply and demand works in the labor market too. A local textile mill to me that is now closed and shipped overseas used to import foreign cloth, process it into sheets and crap, and slap a Made in the USA label on it because they could not compete with cheap labor in making the cloth themselves and Americans prefer cheaper over all else in the end. If these workers unionize and strike or demand more money, their jobs will go to somewhere else and others will die or work in sweatshops. That is their right, but I would hardly call it a victory when they find out the hard way that people like you don't consider cheap goods exploitative.
 
My gripe with Unions are those in Europe
and the US who argue for high wages in the US (and Europe) thus making these markets uncompetitive compared to Vietnam, Bangladesh, China and so on. I've always held the position that European and US unions should actually focus their efforts in those countries to raise the wages and working conditions in those countries first and foremost. Every wage increase and working condition improvement they get, the less of a comparative advantage they have so less and less will look to ship jobs overseas.

But for these kinds of comments, I am a "anti-union".

Lower paid workers tend to produce lesser quality foods. If a market is overly saturated with cheap, low cost products it's not a truly competitive market.

Furthermore economic participants want to feel the price paid is a fair price, not just cheap. A lot of times I feel the junk at Wal Mart is overpriced, despite it but being very low price. Based in the quality I get, and the quantity per unit, I often feel like I should be paying a little less.
 
Lower paid workers tend to produce lesser quality foods. If a market is overly saturated with cheap, low cost products it's not a truly competitive market.

Furthermore economic participants want to feel the price paid is a fair price, not just cheap. A lot of times I feel the junk at Wal Mart is overpriced, despite it but being very low price. Based in the quality I get, and the quantity per unit, I often feel like I should be paying a little less.

I always wonder what workers in China think of the holiday decorations they make for sale here..............................
 
For a country that calls itself The People's Republic of Bangladesh I'm surprised they don't already have unions.
 
No, the free market can't resolve "so-called
unsafe working conditions." In our country, our factories don't fall down. That's not the result of the brilliance and generosity of the free-market. That's the result of building codes. Safety conditions inside our factories are the result of OSHA regulations. Some of them may have well been the result of union suggestion; but we're already seeing free market at work in Bangladesh. Buildings collapse.

How is a collapsing building part of a free market?

I took a lot of economic classes in college, and I wouldn't say that unions go against a free market in the academic sense. Non free markets are those controlled by the government. Governments may manage the economy by setting production levels, owning factories, or setting price floor and ceilings. A government trying to manipulate trade and imports between countries also goes against free trade.

With that being said, unions are not governments. They are workers, and as free agents in a free market, they should be able to sell their work and skills at a price they agree upon with their bosses.
 
Out. :2wave:

Be well.
 
Henry Ford did more for American workers than unions ever have in his experiments trying to figure out how to maximize production, not the least of it was the 40 hour work week.

Well, ****. Get Bangladesh on the line. Tell them all they need is Henry Ford. :lamo

And others do not consider it exploitative to not have US work conditions in places where people live in shacks made from garbage.

I would love to have US work conditions in place in Bangladesh. But emplacing tariffs that preclude developing nations from access to our markets will not in any way help to accelerate their development out of such poor conditions. You can't tariff the 3rd world out of poverty. :roll: On the contrary, it will hurt their development.


Perhaps I am. Doesn't change the reality that supply and demand works in the labor market too. A local textile mill to me that is now closed and shipped overseas used to import foreign cloth, process it into sheets and crap, and slap a Made in the USA label on it because they could not compete with cheap labor in making the cloth themselves and Americans prefer cheaper over all else in the end. If these workers unionize and strike or demand more money, their jobs will go to somewhere else and others will die or work in sweatshops. That is their right, but I would hardly call it a victory when they find out the hard way that people like you don't consider cheap goods exploitative.

A fair trade as far as I'm concerned. Or would you rather have our textile labor back in the US of A - collpasing buildings included free of charge?
 
It's kind of ironic that cheap Western exports destroyed the native industries in India and China during the 19th century...............
 
The problem is that cost of living in those countries isn't what it is in the US. As pretty much an ex-pat, I now fully understand how companies can get away with paying 10 bucks a day if that. In Mexico, you can buy a weeks groceries for a family of 4 for about $100USD. That means vegetables, milk, grains etc and still have a bit left over. You can't justify paying people much more than that if it doesn't cost more than that to live. So in countries in South-East Asia, there is really nothing to even point to the fact that you should probably pay your workers more. What do they need? iPads? No. They have a different social context than we do. So it's okay to pay them less.

Living wages vs Consuming wages are two different things. I or anybody can live on $0 a year if they wanted too. Just means hunting, growing/farming your own food, thus tonnes of manual labor.

What you fail to understand is the basic foundation of consumerism. Having employees in China or India making Ipads and paying then $10 a day (but actually much less then that) prevents them from becoming consumers so you have just cut your ability to sell to 2 billion people. It's due to this "advantages" in South-East Asia which has allowed the US and Europe to live of the teat of their labor. It allows for massive debt driven consumption in the 1st world. While those in the 3rd world toil for wages which would never seem them increase their living standards. The only way you prevent US or European jobs leaving is creating parity in wages and working conditions, first, then as a country becoming good at something.

China is fantastic at assembly work. US is good in IT development along with Ireland.. French have their wines and the Germans are fantastic at a few things as well.. and since we are now a Global economy.. we have to view the world in those terms. But we can't when we shut out 2 billion of the possible consumer base.
 
Living wages vs Consuming wages are two different things. I or anybody can live on $0 a year if they wanted too. Just means hunting, growing/farming your own food, thus tonnes of manual labor.

What you fail to understand is the basic foundation of consumerism. Having employees in China or India making Ipads and paying then $10 a day (but actually much less then that) prevents them from becoming consumers so you have just cut your ability to sell to 2 billion people. It's due to this "advantages" in South-East Asia which has allowed the US and Europe to live of the teat of their labor. It allows for massive debt driven consumption in the 1st world. While those in the 3rd world toil for wages which would never seem them increase their living standards. The only way you prevent US or European jobs leaving is creating parity in wages and working conditions, first, then as a country becoming good at something.

China is fantastic at assembly work. US is good in IT development along with Ireland.. French have their wines and the Germans are fantastic at a few things as well.. and since we are now a Global economy.. we have to view the world in those terms. But we can't when we shut out 2 billion of the possible consumer base.

Even hunting and farming takes capital, where do you get the means to hunt and plow/harvest? Unless you can return the area you will occupy to a pre-modern era any push people hundreds of miles away, then prohibit their entry you are not going to live on 0 dollars a year.

It has always caused me pause that health care and fuel don't follow the cheapest guy gets the business but kitchen appliances and T-Shirts do. I believe what goes around comes around, that as one nation profits from extremely low wages and cheap goods for export it does grow a consumer base. While the workers don't immediately jump up and Unionize they will eventually. Right now for many rural Chinese the factory barracks and noodle diet is far above what they had out in the sticks where hunting and farming held them at starvation levels. The multinational factory owners can find a new nation who's starving citizens would love the luxury of barracks and noodles but it is slash and burn subsistence. What would be justice of a sort is eventually it is our nation dreaming of those barracks and noodles! :shock:

Now as far as what a nation is good at right now, I wouldn't set that in stone. that too has passed from nation to nation.
 
Why not? Unions played a big role in improving workplace safety in America's history. Today, I think labor unions are just as focused on greed as they employers, they exist to simply try to get the biggest piece of the pie they can. But that has not always been true and there absolutely was a period in our history when unions were necessary.

I would argue that Bangladesh is currently experiencing a similar period. Honestly, this isn't something the govt is equipped to deal with, so unions pushing a worker safety angle seems like the most realistic solution
 
Back
Top Bottom