| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Maxwell Smart |
Child LabourI am sure most of you are aware of the Primark debate which I've been following with some interest.My question is whether Child Labour is really such a bad thing... but wait and hear me out before you jump on me... I would add to that given controlled working conditions. If we abolish Child Labour completely then what happens to those children who were once working? For the most part its not like they will just go home and play or go to school. Many will starve, become dependent on handouts or find "other less desirable ways" of earning an income. It is all fine for us sitting in the Western world to say "I wouldn't want my child to be sitting in that factory..." but we are spoiled and many of these families do need the extra income. To put my thoughts into context; my father worked as a child instead of attending school, plying his wares on the streets of a third world country. He is not any worse off for it and indeed if he hadn't of done it then his family would of starved. It wasn't mean parents pushing him to work as every family member did their share. It has also given him a work ethic which has allowed him relative success in life. And while I myself never put up with the hardships which he had, I still earned an income as a child whether from delivering papers or doing odd jobs around the neighbourhood. Of course I had the privilege of going to school... I think the issues are mainly around the working conditions of those children. But if they could be given safe and constructive working environments - perhaps with the afternoons off to go to school - then is it really that bad? I would venture to say it would even be better than not having them work... OK now you can pounce.... |
||||||
| Stacey |
Interesting post Maxwell. However, I think that I'd rather see children getting educated. Perhaps the companies who rely on child labour should build a school for each factory and make sure the children spend a minimum amount of time being educated alongside working? | ||||||
| Chez |
Not going to pounce. Agree with you, pretty much.
And I would add, I think that many children in this country who haven't worked for the first eighteen or nineteen years of their lives lack any kind of work ethic or sense of connection between work, income and expenditure. |
||||||
| cinders |
I find kids today don't want to work my OH said he had to worked as a child picking flowers and veg to help the family | ||||||
| Shane |
It is fairly common place for Western companies to build schools and hospitals in areas where they set up operations. Whether this is out of genuine concern for the locals, or genuine concern for their international reputation is probably debatable, but the end result is the same.
I guess the problem here is that clothes tend to be sourced via a lengthy supply chain, so the retail company at the top of the chain has no direct control over the other end of the chain. And going back to the original post: I guess the only reason that we don't have child labour here is that education is compulsory. Back in our tribal past, children would have learnt their parents' "occupations" (e.g. food gathering, tool making and home making). I guess the real crux of the debate is: at which point does it become unacceptable for a child to miss out on compulsory schooling in order to work? |
||||||
| Rob R |
It's a chicken & egg situation really. Some people have more children so they can have more labour to feed the family... and so it goes on. Child labour was abolished in this country and much the same was said about it then- in that case should we return to it now?
I'm all for child labour, where appropriate & safe. Farms can & should be safe places for children to grow up & work, but it's a question of what job are the children doing? And how does that impede them getting an education that will help them in many ways in later life? (such as getting better jobs so their children don't have to work to survive). A bit of balance is good. |
||||||
| Chez |
Yes, I think that's it, exactly. And why *shouldn't* children contribute financially to the family's upkeep? I don't mean by working 18 hour days in a sweat-shop. But properly supervised and regulated, and fitted around education, I really don't see why it's a problem. Slightly different from the 'Primark' debate, I know. |
||||||
| Shane |
Leading on from what Rob R said, we took both our kids to the local PYO this weekend to pick strawberries (and asparagus and broad beans. Oh - and cherries  ). Then we made strawberry jam together.
We do this for fun, and for their benefit, however, in other cultures, the very same activity would be seen as work. I guess the family farm example is a very grey area - encouraging your kids to get involved is, as far as any rational person can see, excellent for their development. Again, the question is: at which point is this considered child labour? Not as straight forward as it first appears. Well done on posting the subject, Maxwell - it's certainly got me thinking! |
||||||
| Rob R |
In our culture you could say that we've gone too far the other way- most children now have no concept of work for the first 16 years of their life & don't develop many important skills because of this. I wouldn't wish our norms on anyone, any more than I would wish the life of a 12 year old sweatshop worker in India. If the two could meet in the middle we'd be about right. | ||||||
| tahir |
I agree with Maxwell, I started work (part time) when I was 10, by the time I was 14 or so I was probably working 60+ hours weekly in school hols and enjoyed it immensely. I don't think children working per se is a bad thing, it's how it's managed/regulated and what responsibilities are placed on employers.
I reckon an employer in (say) India that offered kids employment+board+nutrition+education+health care would be great. Of course within a regulatory framework that imposed minimum standards and ages. |
||||||
| jema |
I agree with Rob, work should not be as alien to kids as it tends to me these days.
We should not lose sight though of the fundermentals here. Employers in India using child labour are not doing it as a social service, they are doing it for cheap labour that is probably doing an adult out of a job or at least helping keep their wages depressed. Stopping child labour might at first look seem like a move that would increase child poverty, but really it is step on the road to better pay and conditions for workers and that will decrease poverty in the longer run. |
||||||
| Stacey |
So no-one thinks it's only ok alongside education? 
|
||||||
| Rob R |
Isn't that the general consensus? ie that work & education should go hand in hand. The a school for every factory idea is a good one, but as far as I am aware the larger factories are not those where conditions are at their worst, as they tend to be more easily regulated. It is more problematic in the back street smaller operations that make most use of children who may not work directly under contract for the big names involved but through a web of wholesalers & subcontractors. |
||||||
| Stacey |
I didn't notice anyone saying that there should be an element of compulsory education but maybe I read it wrong.
I agree that the smaller operations are going to be harder to regulate though. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
I disagree, based on assumptions.
Child labour is used to reduce cost, I assume that if it is outlawed then the companies will require adults to carry out the work, I seriously doubt that there is 100% employment in these countries. There are no stats on workplace accidents for children but I doubt it's a pleasant environment, and that is the crux. This isn't some kind of life affirming, work ethic producing, character building stuff. This is long, monotonous, labourious, soul destroying graft of the type we westerners would struggle to complete or even comprehend as adults. Child labour to me harks back to the economic theory of Winslow Taylor rather than a C21 model incorporating any semblance of morality. Companies who have anything to do with child labour should be fined such a massive amount as to make the directors & shareholders not want to go on living. And we as consumers need more information to help inform our choices. Jeeze, chickens get more PR. |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Well said Jonnyboy. There should be be more to a childhood than education and work. I don't think that expecting UK teenagers to put their weight a bit, should even be discussed in the same context as child labourers in India. |
||||||
| Cathryn |
I agree with Jonnyboy and that initial argument put by Maxwell is used to dilute the basic truth that it is quite often no better than slave labour.
Make the world a better place so that children get the choice. The discussion about work ethic has nothing to do with child labour. |
||||||
| Cathryn |
 snap!
|
||||||
| Erikht |
I think all children should have the right to schooling and play in their childhood, instead of working as indentured slaves for the Big Companies, but then I also want them to be put to bed by the pink faeries every night. Work is better than prostitution, and that is all too often the viable alternative in the third world.
But being who I am, maybe my new signature should read "No to child labour! Yes to cheaper air line tickets to Thailand." |
||||||
| Maxwell Smart |
I think there are quite a few issues going on her.
- None of us agree with "slave labour" although most of the UK or indeed the western population still support slave labour whether indirectly or not through their actions. - I agree that we can't compare Western kids with sweatshop kids on many fronts. - I agree that education should be a right. But having spent time in a lot of these countries, I can tell you it is a rare privelege and that going to school is not an option for countless unfortunate reasons. - Making the world a better place where this is not an issue and children get an education while desirable, is currently a utopian ideal at odds with consumer spending as a whole. As Lucy Siegel points out there is a great disconnect between what people say they care about and where they put their money. So the questions I suppose are 1) if we stop using child labour what happens to those children? - we are talking countries where education is not widely available as it is here in the West. 2) if we stop using child labour, does the adult workforce exist and is it willing to do the labour? 3) if the workforce is replaced by adults, then how can we ensure that the needs of the children are met? One could insist that factories build schools for the families as a starting point, although I did read somewhere that even in the cases where this happened; many of the schools were left vacant due to lack of teachers, books and the fact that the children still went to work even if their parents were working due to lack of decent living wages for adult workers (see my original post) 4) if fair working conditions can be controlled, health and education provided and a quality of life given, then is it such a bad thing for children to work limited hours? if it serves the dual purpose of getting factories to get cheap labour (and appease the majority of the western population) and also gets them to provide quality of life? Ultimately of course we would want to increase worker wages to a point that allows an adult worker to make a realistic living wage (a crucial point) and which allows them the freedom to send their children to school. Though I am not optimistic on the wage front as the majority of the western population wants cheap clothes and the ability to buy a new outfit monthly. I seem to recall (although perhaps wrongly) a conversation with Tahir a few years ago, before this became the issue that it is today, where he was saying at that point most of the big chains would not pay the extra £0.05 that it costs to have an adult produce a garment.... |
||||||
| Cathryn |
Yep, not in fact disagreeing with you at all Maxwell, just wishing we could give solutions. I was however disagreeing with the way the rest of the thread had gone.
So one way to start is to stop buying clothes produced in this way. Make it shameful to do this? Primark, who else? I don't know enough. But I am willing to listen. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Yes it has, that is a logical progression. We once had child labour in this country, until it was outlawed the widespread opinion on it changed greatly to the point where children doing any kind of work become alien to many people (and legislated against in many cases). The way the law & public attitudes to work in this country have changed, so have our values. It has been gradual & linked to education & economic prosperity, but that doesn't mean it isn't linked. We may be 150 years apart but are we really that different from India? |
||||||
| gil |
One point to chuck into the debate is a historical perspective : prior to the Industrial Revolution in this country, child labour (on the land, often within the family group) was usual, unless your family were rich.
As manufacturing processes became more organised, goods were produced in the home/work dwelling, again with family labour (for example woollens / cloth in rural areas). The you get the shift into cities or other industrial areas, with the establishment of factories as we now think of them, with mechanisation (including mines), with child as well as adult labour. Under those, often appalling, conditions, the concept of child labour became increasingly unacceptable, hence campaigns which succeeded in eradicating it in the UK. It was those same Victorians that developed the idea of childhood as we now think of it (time of innocence, education, different from adulthood, signalled by different dress not small versions of adult clothing etc). Shortly thereafter came schooling for all, gradually extended to 16 as compulsory, 18/21/etc voluntary. Is it the industrialised conditions of child workers in India that we object to most - would it raise such an outcry if they were working on the land with their families ? And the element of exploitation because of working for companies rather than as part of the family ? Time to dust off Marx perhaps ? |
||||||
| Rob R |
The historical perspective is always what we should be looking at, IMHO.
Assuming the families were being responsible & providing work appropriate for the child's physical & mental development and not too much of it, then no. Long, arduous physical work that affects their development & possibly puts them in real danger, then yes. Essentially it is the difference between providing children with the skills so they can survive on their own against the errosion of their self-dependability working in a more industrial structure. Work can be an education, but when work is a single (repetitive) job, it becomes something entirely different
Depends, some children are sent to work in such places by families, or even sold to work, in which case the exploitation is as much by families. In many ways I feel that is worse.
Maybe not tonight, eh? 
|
||||||
| IanNW |
If you are using India as an example of child labour then you really should visit the country and try working in India.
I work in India for 6 months of the year on a survey ship as the ships medic. I spend time travelling through the country and have to use the labourous beuracratic system. 85% of the children in India are now attending education. The country has a very poor infrastructure. The country itself is very racist and structured around a caste system. The country has many successful and rich individuals, they have no interest in helping fellow countrymen. The richest person in India makes Bill Gates look poor. Work and money is seen as a status symbol in India. Work ethics are completely different here. Example of working relationships. Ex-pat supervisor bollocks an Indian Diver for not doing an essential routine job. His response is that his normal supervisor does not mind him taking short cuts like this. Turns out the Diver is from a family in a higher class caste and with money whilst the supervisor has worked his way up with hard graft. The Indian diver is using his heritage to a dangerous advantage. Money has ways of making things easier/smoother in India. Different culture, different ways of life. What may be acceptable/unacceptable to you and I are completely different in other countries. Life is also considered to be expendable within certian castes. Construction is carried on without any HSE considerations or PPE. People are lined up outside construction sites for jobs due to the disregard for life within India. It is not big name companies which exploit developing worlds, it is often there own people and governments. Most companies tender contracts out to the lowest bidder and have little or no interest in where the finished article comes from. Hence why it often goes to developing countries. Without these contracts what would the people be doing? The UK was once like this, so why not leave the country to develop. |
||||||
| Shane |
As someone who's also worked in India, I agree with everything you say.
Except this bit:
Admittedly, the caste system (which, interestingly, no longer exists if you ask those of a higher cast) is an internal issue, but we should certainly be encouraging the phasing out of hard physical graft for children. |
||||||
| Stacey |
Especially when it exists to supply us with cheap frocks and knickers |
||||||
| IanNW |
[quote="Shane"]As someone who's also worked in India, I agree with everything you say.
Except this bit: The UK was once like this, so why not leave the country to develop. Surely it's not a bad thing if we use lessons learned from our history to the benefit of developing nations, rather than stand by and watch as they perhaps make some of the same mistakes that we did? That sentence came out harsher than intended and perhaps was taken in the wrong context. Western nations are very judgemental on others way of life, when western nations try to help developing worlds, they often go about it in the wrong kind of way. They try to simulate what is considered good about there own nation and not take a look at the nation they are trying to help. Money is often given to the government of the developing world, where that money is not used where it is most needed.(come to think of it just like the British government really). Educate the population about sanitation, improve basic housing, and basic living conditions. At the end of the day the correct kind of education needs to be delivered first. It is no good handing these things to them on a silver platter, it would just become abused. Educate how to make a sanitation system. Would cut down on health concerns and problems. Show how to make and produce sustainable housing materials. i.e clay bricks etc. Best places to start with education is CHILDREN as they are more susceptable to change, but for that to happen the nation as a whole has to accept that responsibility of change. Uneducated adults = uneducated children, this is a vicious circle. Just be glad you are born or live in the country that is considered developed. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Does that mean if you are using the past as an example you really should go back to the 19th century? 
Because 1) if there weren't people in our past prepared to stand up & say something then the law & attitudes wouldn't have changed the same in this country & 2) we play a huge active part in this trade- the way we can stop chickens being kept in conditions we don't like is to stop buying them & make better choices, the same goes for the workers producing our clothes. |
||||||
| gnome |
its a very poor arguement and you can use arguements like that to justify anything. where do you draw the line? is child prostitution okay? is it okay to send kids into mines?
companies hire child labour to do their work because it is cheaper than paying adults to do it. it is exploitation, and it it is simply making money for the rich. i will never condone it, and i will never support businesses that profit from child labour. |
||||||
| Jonnyboy |
Where do you get the information to help you make your decisions? |
||||||
| tahir |
Exactly, and is ALL child labour bad? |
||||||
| Jamanda |
It depends on how you define child, and how you define labour. I would consider it to mean pre-adolescents doing long hours at physically demanding work day in day out. And I would say that the vast majority of it is bad, though I'm sure someone will come up with a positive example. |
||||||
| tahir |
But it needn't be. Do they still have paper boys? Heavy work before school in at times appalling weather.... |
||||||
| Jamanda |
They do, and I see them on my way in pulling their trolleys up the steep hills here, but they are teenagers. And there are laws stating how many hours they allowed to do, and the times between which they are allowed to do it. I would not call that child labour. I'd call that a teenager having a job, and save the pejorative term for things that deserve condemning. By calling reasonable things by the same name as unreasonable you undermine the work being done to stop bad practices. |
||||||
| tahir |
Is that kind of labour allowed by (say) Primark's ethical code? | ||||||
| Jamanda |
I don't understand. |
||||||
| tahir |
I'm saying that as I understand it we're allowing some kinds of child labour in the UK but are precluding it in developing nations where the needs are greater. | ||||||
| tahir |
When I was 10 I used to work hard on a market stall, in sometimes freezing conditions, left home at 07:00, returned at 16:00. Is/was that bad? | ||||||
| Cathryn |
Tahir, you had choice didn't you. I mean real choice not that you had to go or your siblings might go hungry. | ||||||
| tahir |
I'm saying that there should be a regulatory framework that allows child labour to some extent, especially if it brings with it healthcare and educational benefits. I'd support a factory in India that employed kids to some extent as long as they were there of their own volition and gained other benefits too. I know loads of illiterate, uneducated people, my mum's one of them. I know she'd have jumped at a chance (any chance) to get herself some education. Unfortunately her family were poor enough that they couldn't really afford to buy anything, at all, let alone something as frivolous as education. | ||||||
| Rob R |
Am I right in thinking the minimum legal age for Indian child labour is 13? I heard it on the telly, so not 100% sure. | ||||||
| tahir |
No idea, but more importantly what's the minimum age allowed by the ethical policies of western retailers? |
||||||
| Rob R |
Seems different for every country but; Convention on the Rights of the Child | ||||||
| jema |
I think it is 14 in India, and to me it seems pointless to discuss valid exceptions to a no child labour rule whilst clearly there is vast amounts of child labour going on that is to my mind at least totally unacceptable. | ||||||
| Erikht |
Do you see how the West now use the Humanitarian Angle in order to keep other people down (Religion and Race did not work). Now we will not buy the products of countries that use child labour, dirty coal plants and the repression of the locals to get their economy up and running. How did we get ours to were it is today? Right...
I would rather have the little 'uns working in a back braking job, than doing the job on their backs. In quite a few countries, that is the real alternative. |
||||||
| jema |
Sorry but the we sweating the children down mine, to save the little darlings from prostitution argument is about the lamest justification I have ever heard for child labour. | ||||||
| Cathryn |
I would, in that it would be a starting point and a better option than some others. |
||||||
| Rob R |
And in many cases already totally illeagal in the countries concerned, but unenforced. |
||||||
| tahir |
That's all I'm saying, as a step on the path to a place where they don't have to work. |
||||||
| Cathryn |
I know, in true downsizer style a lot of us are agreeing in our rather confusing way. | ||||||
| Erikht |
I guess you are simply more fond of your own principles than other peoples children. |
||||||
| Rob R |
Following your own train of logic then, who is going to do the prostitution if these kids don't do it? |
||||||
| Maxwell Smart |
I think that perhaps we are confusing Child Labour with Slave Labour?
As a child that used to deliver papers at -20°C for peanuts, I don't think that child labour is necessarily the problem. But what is the problem is that most child labour, as related to producing goods for Western consumers, is essentially slave labour. |
||||||
| tahir |
Agree |
||||||
| Jamanda |
Exactly - which is why you shouldn't call them by the same name. I don't think anyone here has an issue with children doing a reasonable amount of work, as long as they are safe and want to do it, and it isn't detrimental to their eduction. I think most people would think that quite the opposite was the case and the responsibility of a job can be educational in itself. Most people do have a problem with enforced child labour. |