This thread is intended to discuss what's meant by ethical purchasing/consuming, *as related to wargames, miniatures, etc.*, and (hopefully) talk about what companies and/or products are relatively safe to buy from, in ethical terms.
Inevitably this may end up slightly political, but let's *TRY* to keep it on-topic for dakka. I don't really want it to degenerate into a general discussion about whether unions and worker rights are inherently good/bad, as that is *NOT* related to wargaming or minis, other than tangentially; if you want to claim that the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace will make everything OK, and that we should be buying from sweatshops so as to be good capitalists and consumers, please take that discussion elsewhere, to the off-topic forum. This thread is for people who don't want to buy sweatshop-produced goods, to share info on how to continue our lovely hobby without compromising our even more lovely ethics.
For anyone who does already want to avoid sweatshops -- what can we safely buy? I know that most of the little miniatures companies tend to be small, one- or two-person operations, with design and manufacturing and everything else taking place in countries where we can reasonably assume that minimal ethical standards and employment conditions are being maintained. So, I am assuming that the likes of Heresy, Chapterhouse, Maxmini, Kromlech, Hasslefree, etc., are all fine to buy from.
What about GW? Anyone know much about their ethics, if any? Anyone up for writing to them and asking them? I don't really have time right now, but will give it a shot in a week or two if no-one else does.
Privateer Press? FFG? I do know that a lot of the tabletop RPG industry has tended to switch to Chinese printing over the last decade or so, but that might mean asking individual companies what their policies are...
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about resin dust. Are people snorting lines of the stuff off their cutting mats or something? It's really quite easy to deal with, no more difficult than sawdust and quite less in amount.
Is the idea that people are sanding it down while a fan is running and they are breathing it in? There are more than 1 way to get rid of mold lines, not all of which involve sanding or a file. Often times a clean cut with a razor knife works just fine and will be much easier on resin than on metal.
As for GW business practice, I think their policy on labor is of little concern to the average gamer. It'd be different if they charged so little that one could imagine sweatshop labor being needed to justify low prices. However GW charge a premium, and I'm sure their chinese laborers make out just fine.
You're probably right that labour issues aren't a concern for the average gamer. This thread is mostly for gamers who do concern ourselves with such things.
Unfortunately it's a fallacy to assume that just because a product is sold at a high price, the workers who make it must be paid well. Those $100 Nike sneakers are made by workers who only earn 40 cents an hour:
GW aren't exactly renowned for treating their redshirts well, and their redshirts have direct contact with GW customers, as well as access to Western media and lawyers if things go badly wrong. It'd be lovely if whichever factories GW work with in Shanghai treated their workers well -- but it's certainly not a given, or even particularly likely. I'll wait for an official statement from GW on the matter before judging.
Nike's arent the only major shoe company around, and thus they have to work harder for our money.
GW does little to nothing and are still the biggest game company around.
I do agree that profit =/= high wages for labor.
I would also put it out there that injection molding requires little manpower as it's mostly automated. Spin casting however requires a bit more attention, but I'm not sure if they are currently or planning to do that end of labor in china.
Thing is, though, despite all my best efforts to be a good little psychopath, and have no empathy at all for foreigners, or indeed humans in general, I end up being some kind of bleeding heart anyway.
Anyway -- back on topic -- Aerethan, you may be right. I just don't know. I do know that my spidey-senses tingle when I hear that GW produces stuff in Shanghai, because that has an "export processing zone" -- those are where foreign businesses tend to operate. If you look at how horrible conditions are for Chinese workers in general, and then bear in mind that export processing zones tend to be about relaxing the (few) pesky labour laws so as to make the place more economically attractive to foreign investors, it doesn't sound good:
I don't get it, was that serious or was that supposed to be read in a mocking tone, because sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet.
I assume by the rather tasteless link (tasteless in that you believe that my concerns are trivial because they don't include one of your concerns) that you were attempting to mock me, but i'm not completely sure.
Avatar 720, that's a very sad comment to make. I'm not going to say any more about it since you've obviously got some big problems, and probably don't need any more wood being thrown on the fire.
A friend of mine owns an engineering company and has made several trips to China over the past decade or so to organise getting bits made. He says that while the working conditions in their industry are still poor compared to our own standards (most of the time! ), they are getting better - dirt floors being replaced by concrete, improved facilities (ventilation, safety etc.) in the factories and the like. The Chinese have got a penchant for organisation and efficiency, and basically the country is following the path set previously in asia by the likes of Japan and Korea, of a massive industrial revolution within the country which will ultimately lead to a higher standard of living and then the things we take for granted, worker rights, safety and accountability within the workplace.
Avatar, if you have net access, the NHS, UK citizenship, and a bit of spare cash for toy soldiers, you are by definition several zillion times better off than a sweatshop worker (not atypical living conditions for the latter: company bunk room, shared with 3-5 other people, with only 2 beds; 60-80 hour work week minimum, more on busy weeks; one week's unpaid holiday a year if you're lucky; routine sexual harassment/abuse if you're female; sacking if you ever complain; pay rate of 30p/hour). (I'm not saying you don't have worries; I'm sure we all do; yours may be worse than most; but it's still incredibly callous to just not care at all about your fellow people.)
Pacific, yeah, I do hear good things about some factories in China improving, and even that there is so much demand for Chinese goods in the West that in some areas of China at least, people just leave jobs in the particularly bad factories, and go work in the slightly better ones... but again, I'd want to know for sure that GW are working with the slightly better ones, if they're doing business there at all (stupid me, I didn't look closely at the labels last time I bought from them). I don't actually buy GW paint (prefer Vallejo), and I already buy a lot of my miniis second-hand, but I do want to know if I should be moving to buying all of my minis second-hand, or moving away from GW minis entirely (it's not like the few tourneys I go to require GW minis anyway).
Avatar, if you have net access, the NHS, UK citizenship, and a bit of spare cash for toy soldiers, you are by definition several zillion times better off than a sweatshop worker
I don't. Absent anyone else knowing, and saying so, I'm gonna drop them a line, but I'd like to gather more info first -- people on the other thread said GW paints and codexes are both manufactured in China, which I wasn't aware of. Anything else?
I give GW (well, my FLGS actually, but indirectly it finds its way into GW's hands) money. In exchange, they give me a product that I feel is worth more than the money I have exchanged for the product.
This is a very ethical relationship and I'm happy to participate.
I give GW (well, my FLGS actually, but indirectly it finds its way into GW's hands) money. In exchange, they give me a product that I feel is worth more than the money I have exchanged for the product.
This is a very ethical relationship and I'm happy to participate.
The best extrapolation you can bring for how products are made for Western markets is by understanding that most Western or International companies enter a contract with the best bidders in making their product. Most executives or employees of that company (if any) actually step foot inside a factory of the company they hire to make their products.
Now sometimes it's a lot less competition for making a product, as the company seeking to make products will shop around for potential suitors. If more than one arise, they either pick who they think is the best/cheapest or try and haggle prices by seeing who will provide their services for cheap.
To understand what you find in other nations, simply Google using the right search terms to get hits on the conditions of factories everywhere.
For instance, typing in "conditions chinese factory" nets me this article:
For special terms that are harder to spot, a bit of education into the matter works wonders.
For instance, I learned about Maquiladoras in Women's Studies and have found a wealth of information concerning the plight of women in factories outside the U.S.:
Ian Sturrock wrote:Avatar, if you have net access, the NHS, UK citizenship, and a bit of spare cash for toy soldiers, you are by definition several zillion times better off than a sweatshop worker (not atypical living conditions for the latter: company bunk room, shared with 3-5 other people, with only 2 beds; 60-80 hour work week minimum, more on busy weeks; one week's unpaid holiday a year if you're lucky; routine sexual harassment/abuse if you're female; sacking if you ever complain; pay rate of 30p/hour). (I'm not saying you don't have worries; I'm sure we all do; yours may be worse than most; but it's still incredibly callous to just not care at all about your fellow people.)
If presented with the ability to feed a child in Darfur, or buy miniatures, which one would receive your funds?
You don't have to answer, I already know as you're posting on a forum for miniature war games.
Don't get on a high horse when you devote a portion of your income to luxury items, you're not Gandhi.
Warone, those were some interesting posts. The conditions of working now in China are pretty much exactly what the Japanese went through in the 60's, and the Koreans in the 70's. Those are both two of the richest countries in the world now, is this process necessary to bring the country up to a 'developed' status of economy, industry and society? I guess that's something for sociologists and economists to debate over, although when viewed historically hopefully this will just be a transitional stage for them. The current generation will suffer in order to allow their children to buy a new car every few years and live in modern and comfortable accomodation.
dogma wrote:
You don't have to answer, I already know as you're posting on a forum for miniature war games.
Don't get on a high horse when you devote a portion of your income to luxury items, you're not Gandhi.
No, but what is kind of sad is the number of people rushing to defend the guy who says "I don't give a fig about other people's wellbeing", it's a sad inditement of the modern world that we feel it is acceptable to just shrug our shoulders at the suffering of other human beings. People whose situation we might share were it not for an accident of birth.
I was born in a rich western country, I am fortunate in the same way that those born in poorer countries and now working in those sweatshops are relatively unfortunate. However, that doesn't mean I have to be blind to the realities of the international marketplace and wilfully ignore the ethics behind the purchases I make. I choose not to buy McDonalds, not on the basis of it's harm to my own health (although that is an issue), but after having read about the working practices in asia where people die from inhaling poisonous chemicals making toys for happy meals, because the factory will not pay for a ventilation system. I don't buy nike sports gear for the same reason. And if GW were to take a similar path to McDonalds, then I'm sad to say I would make no further purchases from the company.I give a small amount (for me) of money to UNICEF each month, and in short I know I'm not alone in taking this attitude, and I'm sure many more people on this board (and across the developed world generally) share similar sentiments.
Although sadly, it's not doing anything to change the conditions, or the system which leads to the like of sweatshops, or challenge the decidedly amoral actions of people who do not have the ability for compassion. 99% of will never be a Gandhi, and are sated by our modern lives, but I think there is always the element of grey in between the Gandhis, and those who just shrug their shoulders and turn the other way, and each one of us can make a small difference even if it only absolves their own actions and the accident of the conditions/fortune of their existence.
Pacific wrote:
No, but what is kind of sad is the number of people rushing to defend the guy who says "I don't give a fig about other people's wellbeing", it's a sad inditement of the modern world that we feel it is acceptable to just shrug our shoulders at the suffering of other human beings. People whose situation we might share were it not for an accident of birth.
Two things:
1) That's far from a modern phenomenon. In fact, I'd argue that extensive good will is closer to being an idiosyncrasy of modernity than antisocial tendencies are.
2) Who you are has as much to do with where you are born as it does your genetic code. You could not have been born anywhere else, if "you" were "you" would be a different person making the idea of "you" meaningless from a comparative standpoint.
Pacific wrote:
I was born in a rich western country, I am fortunate in the same way that those born in poorer countries and now working in those sweatshops are relatively unfortunate. However, that doesn't mean I have to be blind to the realities of the international marketplace and wilfully ignore the ethics behind the purchases I make.
What ethics would those be? Your ethics? Anselm's ethics? Socrates'? Mill's? Kant's?
Pacific wrote:
Although sadly, it's not doing anything to change the conditions, or the system which leads to the like of sweatshops, or challenge the decidedly amoral actions of people who do not have the ability for compassion.
You're overreaching. Not having compassion for random person X does not indicate that there is an absence of the capacity to feel compassion.
Pacific wrote:
99% of will never be a Gandhi, and are sated by our modern lives, but I think there is always the element of grey in between the Gandhis, and those who just shrug their shoulders and turn the other way, and each one of us can make a small difference even if it only absolves their own actions and the accident of the conditions/fortune of their existence.
The funny thing is that Gandhi was a prick who disowned his son because he wanted to get married, something which Gandhi did not believe in. No one is perfect, and we all have mud on our hands, hence my comment about high horses.
Interesting to see a diverse set of opinions represented here. Frankly, I find some of the aforementioned opinions utterly disgusting. I would like to know what impact my plastic model dollars are having on real people, for good or ill. In the case of the latter, GW is hardly the only game in town. My thoughts on social responsibility in this case have less to do with feeding children in sub-Saharan Africa VS. buying a new land raider than with buying a new land raider VS. switching to a company that produces non-sweatshop models.
Yeah, there is a huge difference between the decision to give up all luxury and devote one's life to saving the planet -- which would be laudable, for sure, but which I doubt any of us here are ever going to do -- and making an ethical decision about which companies one is going to do business with, based on how they do business with others. Personally, I can't in all conscience give my money to a company that I *know* will use some of the profits to exploit others to a degree that would quite rightly be illegal in any civilized country.
I don't really buy the argument that China just has to go through the sweatshop stage and out the other end. You have two major factors working against that, that the other countries mentioned in this thread (including the West, back in the day) never had. The first is that the multinationals are *so* much more powerful than they used to be -- some researchers have argued that the multinationals are now significantly more powerful than governments, in some places (probably not China -- but we'll get to that), leading to the natural conclusion that since our only way to "vote" for or against a particular corporation is to buy from it or not, we do need to think about who we give our cash to. The second factor is the sheer size, power, and repressiveness of the Chinese government. Almost any expression of dissatisfaction with employers is seen as a threat to state security, and quashed with immediate, ruthless efficiency.
You don't *have* to shop ethically (although again, unless we start talking about wargames-specific stuff soon, this thread is going to go wildly off-topic, so if you have some kind of weird political view that says you pretty much have to ignore unethical treatment of other people, especially foreigners, please do start a different thread about that, in the off-topic forum). If you do choose to shop ethically, though, and make your position known to any wargames and minis makers who are unethical, that *is* likely to make a difference, in the long term. Most other industries, though they might not yet have succeeded in cleaning up their acts in terms of sweatshop labour, are at least aware that customers don't want to buy sweatshop-made goods, and are communicating that to factory owners, auditing factories for ethical standards, etc. It's still only a start, but it is happening, thanks to consumers standing up for their principles. Personally, I'd like it to happen with wargames, too, but we're way too niche a business right now for the companies to ever make it onto ethicalconsumer.com's ranking system, so if we're interested, we need to ask our own questions of the companies, directly.
A lot of the smaller companies are run directly by the owners, too, and (in my experience of asking this kind of question in other niche industries) are often glad to have the questions raised, because it spurs them on to think about how they can do business more ethically, which is often an intent from the start with small businesses anyway.
Honestly, Mr. Ian Sturrock, you strike me as exactly what turns me off from caring about issues like these.
I don't know if you mean to or not, but you come across as smug, condescending, and just overall extremely haughty. The way you present yourself demonstrates a belief of superiority over those who do not demonstrate the same care towards the plight of others, and it is, quite frankly, disgusting.
I can honestly guarantee you that the average sweatshop worker in Indonesia or China isn't going to care twopence about your feelings towards sweatshop labor. In fact, he probably wishes you felt differently so that his shop would get more business. You say unfairly exploited, I say given a job and an opportunity to feed one's family in an increasingly modernizing world.
Your entire altruistic worldview is simply self-serving, in the end. It is a moral philosophy that I will never subscribe to, no matter how many disaster porn images you link to showing poor working conditions. In the end, I simply must leave you with a quote which I hope you will reflect on.
Good day to you, sir.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good...
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."
shealyr wrote:I can honestly guarantee you that the average sweatshop worker in Indonesia or China isn't going to care twopence about your feelings towards sweatshop labor. In fact, he probably wishes you felt differently so that his shop would get more business. You say unfairly exploited, I say given a job and an opportunity to feed one's family in an increasingly modernizing world.
You don't appear to have a clue about this. :(
Your noble image of this stoic worker feeding his family and wanting more work is pure fantasy.
The reality of the sweatshop worker is more likely to be a 14-year-old girl, working 70+ hours a week, not earning enough to feed herself, sleeping on the floor in an overcrowded dormitory room, having to beg her family for money or get into debt, not able to go back to her family because they have no room or work for her either, sexually harassed by foremen and management, with no prospects other than suicide, an early death from overwork, or getting sacked because she gets pregnant or complains about her conditions.
I hate to be condescending about this. But if you're just going to have these bizarre, willfull fantasies about how capitalism will make everything OK -- keep them to yourself, eh? You don't have to care about the ethics of the people you do business with. That is your prerogative. I am not going to judge your morals if you choose to still buy from dodgy companies. I am not going to listen to your idyllic fantasies about the inherent nobility of hard work, though, when they are so utterly removed from the real world.
@ Shealyr--Interesting thoughts, dude. I'd like to comment on your post because I think we could have a good discussion/argument but alas, that would drag this thread even further from what the OP created it to discuss.
We are not talking about the philosophy of altruism, but rather the practices of miniatures manufacturing companies and their policies as related to ethical production of goods. He has made a repeated effort (in both his first post and his last) to clarify that he wants to talk about the wargaming industry specifically. Please show him the courtesy of discussing the topic within the parameters he has pointed out.
Ian Sturrock wrote:Yeah, there is a huge difference between the decision to give up all luxury and devote one's life to saving the planet -- which would be laudable, for sure, but which I doubt any of us here are ever going to do -- and making an ethical decision about which companies one is going to do business with, based on how they do business with others. Personally, I can't in all conscience give my money to a company that I *know* will use some of the profits to exploit others to a degree that would quite rightly be illegal in any civilized country.
The argument is that you aren't really trying to serve people living in other nations, but merely your own ego, which might be considered morally equivalent to simply not caring at all. I mean, you basically say as much above when you refer only to your conscience.
Ian Sturrock wrote:
I don't really buy the argument that China just has to go through the sweatshop stage and out the other end. You have two major factors working against that, that the other countries mentioned in this thread (including the West, back in the day) never had. The first is that the multinationals are *so* much more powerful than they used to be -- some researchers have argued that the multinationals are now significantly more powerful than governments, in some places (probably not China -- but we'll get to that), leading to the natural conclusion that since our only way to "vote" for or against a particular corporation is to buy from it or not, we do need to think about who we give our cash to.
No, that conclusion isn't natural. You're moving from "corporations are powerful" to "we need to think about their power" without explaining why the two are connected in any way.
Ian Sturrock wrote:
The second factor is the sheer size, power, and repressiveness of the Chinese government. Almost any expression of dissatisfaction with employers is seen as a threat to state security, and quashed with immediate, ruthless efficiency.
With legitimate reason, though not necessarily reasons we like.
Ian Sturrock wrote:
You don't *have* to shop ethically (although again, unless we start talking about wargames-specific stuff soon, this thread is going to go wildly off-topic, so if you have some kind of weird political view that says you pretty much have to ignore unethical treatment of other people, especially foreigners, please do start a different thread about that, in the off-topic forum). If you do choose to shop ethically, though, and make your position known to any wargames and minis makers who are unethical, that *is* likely to make a difference, in the long term.
Why? What makes that likely? If it were likely wouldn't one expect Nike to make its shoes in fully bonded and certified factories? Or Coca-Cola to buy its sugar from growers that don't practice near slave labor?
Ian Sturrock wrote:
Most other industries, though they might not yet have succeeded in cleaning up their acts in terms of sweatshop labour, are at least aware that customers don't want to buy sweatshop-made goods, and are communicating that to factory owners, auditing factories for ethical standards, etc.
I think you're lending your position a false degree of legitimacy here.
aerethan wrote:Nike's arent the only major shoe company around, and thus they have to work harder for our money.
GW does little to nothing and are still the biggest game company around.
I do agree that profit =/= high wages for labor.
Pfff, I can attest to that. I used to work for a jeweler and what we got paid (which was only a few dollars above minimum wage) compared to what the items were sold for was quite a leap, and then an even bigger leap to what the shops sold the stuff for, such as 300% mark-up.
Ian Sturrock wrote:
I hate to be condescending about this. But if you're just going to have these bizarre, willfull fantasies about how capitalism will make everything OK -- keep them to yourself, eh? You don't have to care about the ethics of the people you do business with. That is your prerogative. I am not going to judge your morals if you choose to still buy from dodgy companies. I am not going to listen to your idyllic fantasies about the inherent nobility of hard work, though, when they are so utterly removed from the real world.
dogma, I suspect you just enjoy a good argument. Please start a thread in the off-topic forum entitled "Casuistry, Sophistry, Ethics, Rhetoric, And Other Fun Party Games, By dogma". Go play there.
Ian Sturrock wrote:dogma, I suspect you just enjoy a good argument. Please start a thread in the off-topic forum entitled "Casuistry, Sophistry, Ethics, Rhetoric, And Other Fun Party Games, By dogma". Go play there.
You asked for a discussion, and I'm trying to discuss this with you. Though I think its now clear that weren't interested in discussion at all, but rather in feeding an ego that is tightly connected to your own sense of moral superiority; as nicely illustrated by you little slight above.
Avatar 720 wrote:It's the same with battery farming; do I care if chickens are kept that way? No. Would I like it if I was kept that way? Irrelevant since I am not.
I care about thing not only because it's cruel but it affects the quality of the food. Chickens kept in cramped conditions like that need a greater array of antibiotics and are given various hormone injections that free range animals simply don't need. If you don't care about welfare at least care about the quality of the product.
shealyr wrote:I can honestly guarantee you that the average sweatshop worker in Indonesia or China isn't going to care twopence about your feelings towards sweatshop labor. In fact, he probably wishes you felt differently so that his shop would get more business. You say unfairly exploited, I say given a job and an opportunity to feed one's family in an increasingly modernizing world.
I'm sure they are desperate for the money and will work for anything regardless of the feelings of some people, but that doesn't excuse exploitation, that is the very nature of exploitation. They will work for tuppence an hour, of course, and they'll do it to feed their families. They have very little choice, they can't afford to care or take note about the debate over sweatshop conditions, they typically have to accept what they are given. Just because people take these wages to survive doesn't mean we're morally in the clear to pay them tuppence.
I get that people have different reactions to sweatshops, it's quite hard to live a normal life and buy stuff casually without buying stuff made in sweatshops so a pragmatic approach would be understandable but the relish with which some people dismiss exploitation and suffering so they can support their lifestyle is pretty disgusting. Boasting how little you give a damn about animal welfare or the abuse and exploitation of people, including children, isn't cool at all. Maybe some people think it looks tough or adult or something on the interwebs, it just comes across as extremely lacking in empathy and borderline sociopathic.
I asked for a discussion about which wargames and minis manufacturers avoid sweatshop labour and/or otherwise have some kind of a definite ethical stance. Discussions about the wider politics of global capitalism aren't directly relevant to that, and nor are attempts to pop psychologize me. Again, though, if you want to start an "Ian Sturrock's ego, analyzed in a neo-Freudian manner, by dogma" discussion, in the off-topic forum, I shan't mind.
(That was addressed to dogma, of course, not to Mr Treesong.)
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I care about thing not only because it's cruel but it affects the quality of the food. Chickens kept in cramped conditions like that need a greater array of antibiotics and are given various hormone injections that free range animals simply don't need. If you don't care about welfare at least care about the quality of the product.
For many people its a question of "good enough" and not "best". I used to shop at Whole Foods et al almost exclusively (love me my Pop Tarts), but now monetary concerns prevent me from doing so, and I expect that's true for lots of people.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm sure they are desperate for the money and will work for anything regardless of the feelings of some people, but that doesn't excuse exploitation, that is the very nature of exploitation.
But when does it become exploitation? Most everyone wants to eat, and our economic system is such that people, generally, need to work in order to earn money for food. Is it exploitation when corporations take advantage of that incentive to employ people? If so, is the economy itself exploitative?
Put another way, assessing the worth of wage X in country Y isn't as simple as directly comparing it to wage Z in country A.
I've heard GW print their books in china but a lot of printing is done in china because they are much cheaper than the UK and probably better quality too. But I'm not sure that printers are typically sweat shops, the sweatshop industries tend to be those requiring a lot of manual labour such as clothes manufacture and some electrical goods.
I'd prefer GW keep miniature production in the UK. I don't really like the idea of them moving production abroad just to increase their profit margin. People saying "I don't care about sweatshops", well if GW moved all their miniature production to some sweatshop in China it wouldn't reduce model prices, they wouldn't pass any saving along. So you'd be paying the same here and instead of giving reasonably waged jobs to British and American workers you'd be supporting another industry screwing people who can barely afford to feed themselves.
GW could go jump. If there's one decent thing I can say about GW it's that for all it's vastly expensive prices it's remained true to maintaining jobs and production within the UK, at least it did for a long time.
Ian Sturrock wrote:I asked for a discussion about which wargames and minis manufacturers avoid sweatshop labour and/or otherwise have some kind of a definite ethical stance.
Nah, that's not what you asked for.
Ian Sturrock wrote:This thread is intended to discuss what's meant by ethical purchasing/consuming, *as related to wargames, miniatures, etc.*, and (hopefully) talk about what companies and/or products are relatively safe to buy from, in ethical terms.
Just wanting to clarify, again -- sorry if I've been abrasive or unclear (sore back, this last few days, which makes me grumpy, as does not being able to work out due to my sore back...) -- I don't care, personally, what moral stance other people take, or don't take, when they purchase goods.
None of us is perfect. It's pretty much impossible, these days, to totally avoid unethical purchases. It's up to us, as individuals, what to buy and what not to; I'm not going to tell anyone they're a bad human being for making certain choices or not making certain choices.
Incidentally, I googled for ethical wargaming, and found a couple of other discussions that at least touch on the issue, though mostly from an environmental perspective:
Nothing very comprehensive though... I may have to start an ethical wargaming blog, or something, if no-one else beats me to it (please, someone else, beat me to it, I don't have time for this!).
dogma wrote:But when does it become exploitation? Most everyone wants to eat, and our economic system is such that people, generally, need to work in order to earn money for food. Is it exploitation when corporations take advantage of that incentive to employ people? If so, is the economy itself exploitative?
They pay the barest minimum they can, basically people have to take anything they can to survive. The wages children get are barely enough to buy a few cups of rice for their family. Of course it's exploitation. Some people will take anything to avoid starvation, so when someone knowingly employs them on the absolute minimum they can to take advantage of this, yes it certainly is exploitation. Exploitation of the desperate. Making them work for a pittance, ridiculously long hours and no regard to health and safety. In our countries we have a minimum wage enforced because we know that without this employers would happily pay workers nearly nothing. The minimum wage is there to ensure that while employers can be competitive and successful, they don't do so at the expense of their employees well being, that's why there are laws to protect the health of workers and limit their working hours or give them sick leave or maternity periods. Companies moving production abroad clearly do this to circumvent all of these putting the concern of the well being of their workers below their profit margin. Regardless of the country or the absolute value of the wages, people shouldn't have the desperation of work used as a tool against them by unscrupulous companies to pay them a wage that barely keeps them out of starvation and requires that they work excessive hours and in hazardous conditions.
shealyr wrote:Honestly, Mr. Ian Sturrock, you strike me as exactly what turns me off from caring about issues like these.
I don't know if you mean to or not, but you come across as smug, condescending, and just overall extremely haughty. The way you present yourself demonstrates a belief of superiority over those who do not demonstrate the same care towards the plight of others, and it is, quite frankly, disgusting.
Your entire altruistic worldview is simply self-serving, in the end. It is a moral philosophy that I will never subscribe to, no matter how many disaster porn images you link to showing poor working conditions. In the end, I simply must leave you with a quote which I hope you will reflect on.
Good day to you, sir.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good...
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."
Mr Sturrock has asked a question.
He has not been prosletysing. He has raised the question in good conscience without ramming his own beliefs aggressively down anyone's throat.
You could do worse than learn from his manner and good bearing even if you disagree with caring about the well being of others.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
They pay the barest minimum they can, basically people have to take anything they can to survive. The wages children get are barely enough to buy a few cups of rice for their family. Of course it's exploitation.
Ok, but what demarcates that from any other job? In high school I took what I got because I could, but now the social structure of the United States actually encourages me to be unemployed in certain situations. I'm not really given any more or less choice, my choices are just generally seen as preferable to those of Chinese worker X.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Companies moving production abroad clearly do this to circumvent all of these putting the concern of the well being of their workers below their profit margin. Regardless of the country or the absolute value of the wages, people shouldn't have the desperation of work used as a tool against them by unscrupulous companies to pay them a wage that barely keeps them out of starvation and requires that they work excessive hours and in hazardous conditions.
Ok I'm up for asking Games Workshop about there Processing and Factory conditions in the case of over seas production lines.
As an engineer by trade and after a length discussion with an ex union rep for British rail (British laws haven't changed that much since then), we have EVERY right as Games Workshop Customers to enquire into there Production Processors and Working Conditions, admittedly some of the information goes beyond the scale of "public" viewing such as special projects such as experimental models, but down to the case of human rights, we as the consumer have every right to make sure Fair Trade is achieved especially with growing concerns and high chances of the factory being a sweatshops.
I don't particularly care if other people send a letter to Games Workshop but thanks to
Ian Sturrock
i have every intention of sending my own letter (yes letter, not e-mail) to Games Workshop, but a forewarning! They can refuse to reply or answer but if we had more people sending them in it will force a greater impact (like a grot straddling a Baneblade shot).
I will be writing my letter sometime this week, most likely tomorrow night after i get back from my... date... x)
:edit:
My personal reason for doing this is more along the lines of not "greed" but more general compassion, i hate knowing people suffer as a whole and now its going to play on my mind until i get an answer, as a whole im not after trade secrets with the letter, just to find out if the working practices are satisfactory, while i already know and understand such overseas country's (such as china) can live on a lower wage and rougher Conditions, there is still a minimum standard Games Workshop should be employing for the Workers safety and well being, but as the customer we can demand to know about such things.
Avatar 720 wrote:Couldn't care less about sweatshops etc.
Call me heartless, but there is just no way to represent how little of a damn I give.
It's the same with battery farming; do I care if chickens are kept that way? No. Would I like it if I was kept that way? Irrelevant since I am not.
There's just a lot more important stuff on my mind at the moment, and concerns such as these don't make the shortlist.
maybe this will help.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There have been several posts on this forum violating Dakka Rule #1. Thatr is not appropriate. Get off the personal slants. NOW.
I give GW (well, my FLGS actually, but indirectly it finds its way into GW's hands) money. In exchange, they give me a product that I feel is worth more than the money I have exchanged for the product.
This is a very ethical relationship and I'm happy to participate.
The best extrapolation you can bring for how products are made for Western markets is by understanding that most Western or International companies enter a contract with the best bidders in making their product. Most executives or employees of that company (if any) actually step foot inside a factory of the company they hire to make their products.
Now sometimes it's a lot less competition for making a product, as the company seeking to make products will shop around for potential suitors. If more than one arise, they either pick who they think is the best/cheapest or try and haggle prices by seeing who will provide their services for cheap.
To understand what you find in other nations, simply Google using the right search terms to get hits on the conditions of factories everywhere.
For instance, typing in "conditions chinese factory" nets me this article:
For special terms that are harder to spot, a bit of education into the matter works wonders.
For instance, I learned about Maquiladoras in Women's Studies and have found a wealth of information concerning the plight of women in factories outside the U.S.:
While this obviously response presents a lot of information, what relevance does it have to my post? I think that it is ethical to exchange goods for money without regard to either's providence. Do you disagree? If so, what makes that position unethical?
To the "ethical" proponents, suppose Games Workshop created 2 model lines. 1 line is produced in China using sweatshop labor and prices are reduced by 10% (of current prices). A second line is produced in the United States using fully unionized labor, providing health care, pensions, and a living wage. The price of this line is increased 10% (of current prices). There is no difference in quality or models.
You can either buy a $56 "sweatshop" Land Raider or a $68 "ethical" Land Raider. When you're browsing the FLGS, are you willing to pay a premium on the goods you're purchasing, just to be 'ethical'?
filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.
You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.
filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.
You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.
I'm not so sure. The trouble is (to go on a slight tangent here) that organic foods in the UK aren't really regulated much. There is nothing to stop a producer slapping an organic sticker on a cabbage providing certain restrictions are met. And indeed there has been a number of cases where producers have been brought to task on claiming food as organically grown when certain organic pesticides have still been used (just not the ones that are considered 'wrong' for want of a better term).
Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.
As was mentioned in the first post, there are lots of possibilities to buy from small companies that have good labor practices. Unfortunately, most big companies such as Privateer Press, Battlefront Miniatures, and GW have production in Asia. The bright side is that the production of unpainted miniatures is not as bad as that of toys or mass produced prepainted miniatures.
I'd prefer that my Plastic Soldiers are made in the country I live in. That way, at least some of my GW money stays close to home.
But, that died off decades ago, and countries industrially slower than mine are taking the work, and my money ends up there.
If I stopped buying GW stuff, would that country end up poorer? Would they get nothing, and the workers starve, or just get other international contracts to get along?
Boycotting is not the answer, but getting the middle-men, GW and their suppliers, to spend more on the contracts they send out.
I'd pay a % or two more, if GW got a stamp of approval from ethical monitoring organisation. At least I'd know that that % is going to the bottom of the supply chain.
filbert wrote:Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.
ITA. The producers/marketers of "organic" food have created a (perceived) secondary attribute of their product: that it is healthier than a similar non-organic product. There probably are a few people who buy organic knowing that it's the same as non-organic X, but do so because it's good for the environment. But I suspect these are few and far between. Most likely purchase organic because they think it's healthier.
In the case of a sweatship/ethical Land Raider, you're not getting any benefit. The ethical model doesn't fit together better, it won't come fully painted, it's the exact same product.
biccat wrote: When you're browsing the FLGS, are you willing to pay a premium on the goods you're purchasing, just to be 'ethical'?
Yes, if I know the majority stays with the FLGS. Unless it's too far to go for one item, they don't have stock, or the online alternative is fairly local, too.
I'm curious about this. I think it is well worth inquiring about the production process and working conditions of model companies. Whatever views folks have n the issue, I think the OP is interested in finding out what conditions are like in the first place.
Clumpski, if companies can ignore such requests and fail to answer inquiries, is there any language, jargon, or types of questions that are more likely to get a response? Generally speaking, I think pointed questions are more difficult to deflect. Has anyone given thought to which questions or requests would be most pointed on this subject?
filbert wrote:People do that all the time Biccat. Over here we see a similar line of reasoning with so called 'organic' foods which are sold at a premium.
You might have a point. But I'd contend that people think they're getting something more when they buy 'organic' foods. There's a measurable (or at least, perceived) difference between "organic" and "regular" food. If there really is no difference (neither real nor perceived) between the goods, I don't think people would buy the pricier product.
I'm not so sure. The trouble is (to go on a slight tangent here) that organic foods in the UK aren't really regulated much. There is nothing to stop a producer slapping an organic sticker on a cabbage providing certain restrictions are met. And indeed there has been a number of cases where producers have been brought to task on claiming food as organically grown when certain organic pesticides have still been used (just not the ones that are considered 'wrong' for want of a better term).
Yet there is still a prevailing opinion that organic is somehow 'better' or 'healthier' than non-organic, largely due to effective demonisation of pesticides and propaganda from the pro-organic lobby. such decisions are rarely based on empirical evidence and more on the gut feeling of the consumer. If people really stopped to consider and weigh up the facts then I don't think there would be a clear favourite in consumer preference.
The 'organic' industry is a debate worthy of a thread in itself and has a lot to do with politics rather than ethical decisions. A lot of the public who buy organic vegetables do so because of the perception of it is healthier rather than thinking it is more ethical. People wanting to make ethical decision about vegetable purchases are more likely to buy Fairtrade. Also organic vegetables and organic animals are rather different things, an organic cabbage is simply organic because of the treatments it receives when being grown, an organic chicken or pig not only has avoided various chemical treatments but importantly is far more likely to have had a better standard of life. The industrially farming of chickens and pigs is a pretty horrendous business that most people would prefer not to think about when buying cheap sausages.
That's why I buy free range meat and eggs, but vegetables don't really matter either way if they come from big industry or are organic (though they are coy about it the organic industry is pretty big and wealthy itself). There is the carbon footprint though, and that's another consideration that customers can make, both on meat and vegetables.
People do buy fairtrade products, and there's no indication it is healthier at all, it's purely because it's supposed to give the workers at the bottom of the production process a 'fair wage'. Though how well this works in practice is again a bit debatable, but generally it is an improvement on normal produce and people do elect to pay the little extra for that alone.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
People do buy fairtrade products, and there's no indication it is healthier at all, it's purely because it's supposed to give the workers at the bottom of the production process a 'fair wage'.
Short paper on the differences between Fair and Free Trade for comparison:
Thank you, Ian Sturrock. You keep the misanthropy at bay.
@ Biccat-- I don't like the way you trivialize socially responsible consumerism. I also object to the idea that a consumer has only two choices: to buy a "sweatshop" landraider or to buy an "ethical" landraider at a premium. How about the option of exercising some social responsibility and not buying the landraider at all, thus keeping your money out of the hands of an enterprise which has a line of sweatshop goods?
The idea that anyone would knowingly contribute to the exploitation of their fellow man to save 10% on toy soldiers grosses me the feth out.
No, but what is kind of sad is the number of people rushing to defend the guy who says "I don't give a fig about other people's wellbeing", it's a sad inditement of the modern world that we feel it is acceptable to just shrug our shoulders at the suffering of other human beings. People whose situation we might share were it not for an accident of birth.
I really wasn't going to post in this thread because it is going to end up being a train wreck but you really annoyed me. First off that is not what he said at all so don't throw quotes around your own words and attribute them to someone else. That is certainly unethical. Why don't you quote what he actually said?
Well you didn't quote what he actually said because it isn't nearly as horrible as your made up quote suggests. So before you start lecturing people about ethics perhaps you should take some lessons in what lying is.
Most people don't worry about that kind of stuff in their everyday lives because they have a lot of other more immediate concerns that they have to take care of. I don't know if it is right or wrong and certainly the world would be a nicer place if we didn't have sweat shops but personally I prefer to keep my politics out of my hobby.
The one concession I make is that I do try and not support companies that do either all of their manufacturing or a majority of it in China. This is one of the reasons I decided not to purchase from Wargames Factory.
AesSedai wrote:@ Biccat-- I don't like the way you trivialize socially responsible consumerism.
I don't believe I trivialized socially responsible consumerism. I just don't think there's such a thing as being a socially responsible consumer.
AesSedai wrote:I also object to the idea that a consumer has only two choices: to buy a "sweatshop" landraider or to buy an "ethical" landraider at a premium. How about the option of exercising some social responsibility and not buying the landraider at all, thus keeping your money out of the hands of an enterprise which has a line of sweatshop goods?
My example was to pose a question: would you be willing to pay a premium for a model if the non-premium priced model were available? This is important, because it illustrates the difference between consumer choice and taxation. If consumers would choose "ethical" models over "sweatshop" models, then the cheaper model would lose out and that factory would go out of business. But most consumers would rather have the cheaper model, because they are getting the most value for their money.
Therefore, the only way to force 'ethical' production would be the imposition of an artificial 'tax' (or price premium) tacked on top of GW's product. GW would therefore be forced to charge a higher price than what is economically feasable, and would open the door to competitors who aren't as ethical, and willing to sell products at a cheaper price.
AesSedai wrote:The idea that anyone would knowingly contribute to the exploitation of their fellow man to save 10% on toy soldiers grosses me the feth out.
And yet you pay money to purchase these luxury items, knowing full well that people are starving in other countries, and that your money could help them live another day.
AesSedai wrote:It seems that GW recognizes that the primary role of it's business and corporate social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive.
"Corporate social responsibility" Oh my. The corporation only has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit and preserve the shareholders' interests.
It seems that GW recognizes that the primary role of it's business and corporate social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive.
Nice find, dude -- thank you very much for tracking that down.
OK, I am actually reasonably reassured by that. Yes, it does contain a few tricky issues, still; one might argue that GW's buyer's "subjective" opinion as to whether workers are being exploited is going to be more dependent on GW's economic needs than on actual exploitation. However, on balance, I am reasonably happy personally with the idea of a person being sent to look around the factory, with a specific part of their job description being "check out working terms and conditions, look out for forced labour, find out what kind of hours people work, find out whether the wage is fair". Sure, it's possible for an unscrupulous factory owner to send the more outspoken workers home on the days the foreign client is due -- but usually, the people sent to do that kind of work are fairly experienced at doing business in the country concerned, and end up gauging things pretty well anyway. The anti-child labour provision is an excellent one, too.
There is still the huge issue that any business done in China is inherently somewhat dubious because the nation as a whole doesn't really allow for the kind of collective bargaining that our ancestors used to get us luxuries like weekends, or paid holidays, or legal minimum wages, or limits to working hours. I actually agree somewhat with the sentiment of a few posters here that the actual conditions of foreign workers are not our business -- somewhat. That is, I think that the conditions of foreign workers are more *their* business than ours, which is why I think that right to collective bargaining for better conditions is actually *more* important than any specific better conditions! I hope that makes sense; it can sometimes seem a bit busybodying for us in the rich West to assume we know best about how many hours people should work in China, say, whereas I would hope that we can all agree that government victimization of anyone who even asks for fewer hours is probably a bad thing.
So -- I still think it's worth writing to GW, and using that Ethics statement as a starting point. It's quite reasonable for us to ask which 3rd world countries they are in, and who inspects their factories there, and whether they've ever rejected any on ethical grounds, and so on.
As to biccat's point about whether we'd pay a premium for an "ethical" line from a business that is predominantly unethical -- I wouldn't, personally. I don't buy from cafepress, because most of their stuff is sweatshop-made even though they have "ethical" lines, but I will buy from skreened.com, who exclusively use American Apparel (who are widely regarded as having good labour practices).
Crumbs mate, calm down a little bit will you? I find it funny that someone can become so obviously enraged by a comment that wasn't aimed at a particular person (deliberately - I'm not making accusations towards anyone's character or anything like that), but at the essence of the few posts that had followed this comment:
Couldn't care less about sweatshops etc.
Call me heartless, but there is just no way to represent how little of a damn I give.
I think 'couldn't give a fig' is a fair summation of 'couldn't care less', no? I'm not adding any extra meaning, or 'lying' :(
Dogma then pointed out that social altruism is more of a modern phenomenon, which upon reflection I suppose I would be inclined to agree with. It's far easier to look at the problems of others when you are in a situation of comfort yourself.
I don't believe I trivialized socially responsible consumerism. I just don't think there's such a thing as being a socially responsible consumer.
You don't? I'm quite certain you are mistaken. There is an old adage: where there is a will there is a way. There are so many agencies and organizations, legislation, regulators, consumer groups, etc. providing avenues to inform yourself about the goods you consume. Perhaps if you feel that being a socially responsible consumer is impossible, then the deficiency is with your will rather than with the lack of a way.
But most consumers would rather have the cheaper model, because they are getting the most value for their money.
By what authority do you make this claim? It seems to me that there are a significant number of consumers who calculate value in a manner quite different than you suggest.
And yet you pay money to purchase these luxury items, knowing full well that people are starving in other countries, and that your money could help them live another day.
To think of the world in such stark black and white terms, lol...are you serious? To harm a single blade of grass is a violent act and that is why I putter to and fro on a cloud of my own moral superiority, didn't you know?
"Corporate social responsibility" Oh my. The corporation only has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit and preserve the shareholders' interests.
This may startle you but the corporation in question has professed other interests "as the market leader in our sector, that we have a major role to play in promoting ethical values in business". It's not 1810. Perhaps shareholders would object to greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants---you never know...
For all the nay saying against ethical standards, many corporations pay lip service if not take positive action and promote themselves as being ethical.
Could be cynical and say that it is driven more by self promotion than altruism. But it indicates that they need to do so because they perceive that is what consumers are wanting.
I don't believe I trivialized socially responsible consumerism. I just don't think there's such a thing as being a socially responsible consumer.
You don't? I'm quite certain you are mistaken. There is an old adage: where there is a will there is a way. There are so many agencies and organizations, legislation, regulators, consumer groups, etc. providing avenues to inform yourself about the goods you consume. Perhaps if you feel that being a socially responsible consumer is impossible, then the deficiency is with your will rather than with the lack of a way.
A consumer is someone who exchanges money for goods. The consumer values the goods received as worth more than the currency he exchanged for those goods.
The idea of "social responsibility" is that you have an obligation to benefit society at large, and that your choices as a consumer can materially affect that society. However, this is no different than standard consumerism, you're only changing the criteria that you use to value the good you're purchasing.
The "socially responsible" consumer is making the same value judgment I am, he is exchanging money for a good that he believes is worth more than what he is paying for it. He just attributes his willingness to pay a higher price to his concept of altruism.
AesSedai wrote:
But most consumers would rather have the cheaper model, because they are getting the most value for their money.
By what authority do you make this claim? It seems to me that there are a significant number of consumers who calculate value in a manner quite different than you suggest.
By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.
AesSedai wrote:
And yet you pay money to purchase these luxury items, knowing full well that people are starving in other countries, and that your money could help them live another day.
To think of the world in such stark black and white terms, lol...are you serious? To harm a single blade of grass is a violent act and that is why I putter to and fro on a cloud of my own moral superiority, didn't you know?
How is there any practical, real world difference between permitting suffering to continue by purchasing a product made by sweat labor and permitting suffering to continue by purchasing an ethically produced good instead of donating the money?
If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.
AesSedai wrote:
"Corporate social responsibility" Oh my. The corporation only has a duty to its shareholders to maximize profit and preserve the shareholders' interests.
This may startle you but the corporation in question has professed other interests "as the market leader in our sector, that we have a major role to play in promoting ethical values in business". It's not 1810. Perhaps shareholders would object to greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants---you never know...
I will repeat, the only duties that a corporation has is to:
1) maximize profit
2) preserve shareholder interests.
If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.
A consumer is someone who exchanges money for goods. The consumer values the goods received as worth more than the currency he exchanged for those goods.
Really?
That is a tad mechanistic old bean. When I go shopping it ain't as some automaton.
Although people going to Meadowhell Shopping Mall looking like the zombies in Dawn of the Dead makes one wonder.
shealyr wrote:Honestly, Mr. Ian Sturrock, you strike me as exactly what turns me off from caring about issues like these.
I don't know if you mean to or not, but you come across as smug, condescending, and just overall extremely haughty. The way you present yourself demonstrates a belief of superiority over those who do not demonstrate the same care towards the plight of others, and it is, quite frankly, disgusting.
I can honestly guarantee you that the average sweatshop worker in Indonesia or China isn't going to care twopence about your feelings towards sweatshop labor. In fact, he probably wishes you felt differently so that his shop would get more business. You say unfairly exploited, I say given a job and an opportunity to feed one's family in an increasingly modernizing world.
Your entire altruistic worldview is simply self-serving, in the end. It is a moral philosophy that I will never subscribe to, no matter how many disaster porn images you link to showing poor working conditions. In the end, I simply must leave you with a quote which I hope you will reflect on.
Good day to you, sir.
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute is self-sacrifice–which means self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction–which means the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good...
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. This is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: No. Altruism says: Yes."
Just for the record, the above quote is from Ayn Rand. Of course a Randroid would hate any sort of ethical framework that asks people to do more than look out for their own self interest at all costs. No, there is no way to have an honest conversation with one of her followers. Not that the poster is necessarily one, but it's rare to see someone quote her without buying into the whole ball of crazy.
Ian wanted to discuss this in a fair way. Due to epic sophistry of rather disgusting people the thread has collapsed and is now about how his attempt to be ethical in a horrific world is a selfish act and the exploitation of children in slave labor conditions is a moral imperative.
If anyone has any question as to what is wrong with Western culture this is it. We live in a society where calling someone out for lying or being amoral and evil is worse than the very lies and evil ideas they put forward (as I'm sure we'll see here with my comments).
This is par for the course with nerdom of all stripes, though. Racism, misogyny, and promotion of the exploitation of those they view as less than them are virtues in communities dedicated to a quirky hobby.
So, you do make a distinction between consumers who are conscious of their purchases affecting society and people who consume without thought. But because both types of consumers are exchanging money for an equal or greater value in goods, you consider the distinction insignificant? I'm confused by this. I care about the ethics of the companies I support with my purchases to the extent that I am unwilling to give my money to a company whose practices I find distasteful. Some people don't give a rat's ass. Big difference, isn't it?
By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.
If your going to use people whining on dakka threads about price increases as evidence that GW consumers would buy unethically produced miniatures because they are cheap...well...I think the opinions presented in this thread give more insight as they address the topic far more directly.
If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.
I never professed to being a saint, merely a consumer who cares about the rights and treatment of the people who make my toys.
If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.
I agree. Surely, the days when a company could openly focus on profit and shareholder interests to the exclusion of all else are waning. At the very least, as CBB said, they have to pay lip service to corporate social responsibilty--else why not simply have a giant ETHICS BE DAMNED at the top of their investor relations page?
Frazzled, is there any way to split the thread, rather than move it entirely? I don't much want to carry on participating in a thread that is now going to veer even more into general politics than it already has, but I'd love to hear about any responses people get from GW (which was kind of the point of the thread).
AesSedai wrote:So, you do make a distinction between consumers who are conscious of their purchases affecting society and people who consume without thought. But because both types of consumers are exchanging money for an equal or greater value in goods, you consider the distinction insignificant? I'm confused by this. I care about the ethics of the companies I support with my purchases to the extent that I am unwilling to give my money to a company whose practices I find distasteful. Some people don't give a rat's ass. Big difference, isn't it?
Not really. The value you get out of your plastic toy soldiers is insignificant to the value I get out of my plastic toy soldiers. The only difference is in what we're willing to pay. Anyone who is willing to pay a premium for a sticker that says "we're ethical!" is only willing to pay more than I am. I'm willing to pay less for models without a sticker with "we're ethical!", and somehow that makes me less thoughtful or ethical?
AesSedai wrote:
By the authority of a bazillion threads a week whining about GW's prices. And when that price increase was due to 'social responsibility' (VAT increase), there was even more whining.
If your going to use people whining on dakka threads about price increases as evidence that GW consumers would buy unethically produced miniatures because they are cheap...well...I think the opinions presented in this thread give more insight as they address the topic far more directly.
Talk is cheap, what matters is purchasing power. Every customer of GW can say "I support higher wages for GW workers" until they actually have to pay for it.
AesSedai wrote:
If they accomplish either or both of these goals by "promoting ethical values in business," then that's great. Good for them. But there are many shades of gray between "greasing the wheels of industry with the blood of peasants" and the progressive view of corporate responsibility.
I agree. Surely, the days when a company could openly focus on profit and shareholder interests to the exclusion of all else are waning. At the very least, as CBB said, they have to pay lip service to corporate social responsibilty--else why not simply have a giant ETHICS BE DAMNED at the top of their investor relations page?
"Corporate responsibility" is a catch phrase used to improve your company's perceived value in the eyes of the customer in order to gain market share. While the effect may be beneficial, the underlying purpose is to attract business.
If a company isn't making money, then their shareholders won't be happy and they'll elect a new board of directors. Or, the shareholders will sell their shares to someone who is willing to pay for them and that person will elect a new board of directors. Only so long as "corporate responsibility" is improving the bottom line can a company continue to practice it.
I will say this once for the OP and bleeding hearts:
Ethics is not equal to moral standards.
Ethics is how you justify to yourself and other stakeholders the actions and intentions behind them.
Crying about where and how something is produced, then making a purchase decision wih consideration to this is just another decision most buyers make.
I attempt to buy Australian Made goods.
However, what you must also realise is that if everyone stopped purchasing goods that wereproduced offshore, your economies would eventually break down, as those same goods could not be manufactured/produced to the same quality domestically, at the same price.
Those in the USA and UK should know this, yet some of the arguements here are blind or ignorant of this fact.
I dont care about ethics, all my tax money gets sent to doleys or spent on feeding peoples kids who I dont like or given to Africa or spent on the NHS for boob jobs or spent on immigrants or spent on fething MPs porno videos.
feth em. I dont want fair trade, I want slave trade.
I actually got in an argument on the train because the woman told me "its fair trade that!" so i said "put it back give me a mars bar"
If it gets me my minis for 10p cheaper, I dont care if they make them with slave boys for 3p a week.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:For all the nay saying against ethical standards, many corporations pay lip service if not take positive action and promote themselves as being ethical.
Could be cynical and say that it is driven more by self promotion than altruism. But it indicates that they need to do so because they perceive that is what consumers are wanting.
So what companies use sweatshop production? Can anyone tell me this? Just because you produce something in Asia (or China to be more specific) does not mean that you are using sweat shop production. And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.
Did I say that because production was switched to Asia it would be using sweatshops?
I said that even though a company has moved production and professes to have ethical standards, it is still possible for the manufacturer to use child labour for instance.
Forgive my poor memory, but this was the subject of a TV documentary a few years back regarding textiles produced for a British retailer. Despite the ethical stance and iirc unknown to the retailer, child labour was used.
No one has said that any gaming company has knowingly or even unwittingly used a manufacturer that employs poor standards of welfare.
The OP asked a legitimate question to see if this may be the case.
brettz123 wrote:And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.
I love this argument, like people who work in sweatshops should be grateful we even give them a job worth tuppence. What a wonderfully victorian way of looking at employment, this is how wealthy industrialists looked at the working classes over 100 years ago.
Just because we give them enough money not to starve doesn't make much headway in defending the work or pay conditions at all. Okay so they aren't dying of starvation, but there's clear room for improvement simply on the basis of what would seem fair and humane as opposed to clear exploitation. They'll always be paid less then us because our economies and costs of living are higher, but in some places they work well beyond what we would consider fair hours and still barely get enough to put food on the table.
I'm quite surprised how aggressive some of the responses are in legitimising the nature of sweatshops, my guess is that people who feel they don't give a damn and dismiss the conditions by making a point of going on the offensive calling people "bleeding hearts" and saying "it's better than nothing" realise on some level how ugly and selfish that attitude actually is and they don't like it being exposed, to themselves or anyone else.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:No one has said that any gaming company has knowingly or even unwittingly used a manufacturer that employs poor standards of welfare.
Correct, so why do people keep asking for examples of *gaming* companies that do this? Bit of a strawman, in the case of gaming companies it's a hypothetical concern for the future, we hope, but for other industries it's widely known to occur.
See, I don't have this problem as I am entirely separate from the whole manufacturer/consumer network. I live in a cave and only breath twice a day. I eat only animals which ask to be eaten and I made this computer out of dead grass and moose feces. Ethical, organic, and morally responsible describe my life to a tee.
brettz123 wrote:And lastly would these workers be better off with no job? If so can you provide facts to show that you are correct? I want someone in this thread going on and on about ethical wargaming purchases to show me that a company is indeed using sweat shop labor and that the people working in this sweat shop would be better off with no income at all.
I love this argument, like people who work in sweatshops should be grateful we even give them a job worth tuppence. What a wonderfully victorian way of looking at employment, this is how wealthy industrialists looked at the working classes over 100 years ago.
So the answer I am getting is that no one knows if this is indeed going and not one of you can actually point to any piece of evidence that it is. I would take the question much more seriously if any of you actually had a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.
And the question of whether or not they would be better off or not is of prime importance in this discussion. If you are going to make someones life worse by your actions then I would consider that unethical. What I did not say Treesong is that the initial conditions were good. Please don't purposefully or illogically interpret what I said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Correct, so why do people keep asking for examples of *gaming* companies that do this? Bit of a strawman, in the case of gaming companies it's a hypothetical concern for the future, we hope, but for other industries it's widely known to occur.
No this is not a strawman argument at all. The question was specifically about the ethical purchasing of wargaming related items. If there are no ethical violations being perpetrated by wargaming companies the entire question is pointless. It gets to the heart of the issue rather clearly.
Stop buying products and produce EVERYTHING you want. That will be the only guarantee of ethics in production. Don't use a cell phone, buy clothes, use a computer or even a coffee maker. All of these were invariably produced or have components made in 3rd world countries.
This is all feel good idealism, just realize that the world is not a nice place, people do get screwed and bad situations get taken advantage of by enterprising people. All of this is neither new or unique to Asia.
Aknowledging this and realizing that you can do nothing about and going to work the next day is a much better way to look at this. You'll develop an ulcer worrying about Worker #6785 on production line 13 at the massive factory in Beijing who doesn't even know who you are, what Dakka is or why he shold feel bad about his situation. Not everyone can earn a ridiculous hourly wage. Someone's gotta sweep the floors (or make the GW products).
I'm sure you'll gladly adopt a child from a 3rd world country to help break the sweat shop cycle.
If you wish to live without understanding or caring that is your business. If people like the OP wish to try and live a life according to a set of values they feel comfortable with, then that is their business.
So who should we listen to? maybe the likes of Buddha? Lao Tzu? Jesus Christ? Krishna?
or the likes of Stormrider, Brettz et al?
Behave like an ork if you wish, but even though I be flawed please don't decry my paltry efforts to be better than I am.
I love how there are people here who don't seem to believe sweatshops exist at all (head in the sand, much?!?), and others whose defence mechanisms against the idea of social progress of any kind are so strong that they believe we should just accept the world is gak rather than ever attempting to do anything about it.
Just as a counterpoint to the "you should live in a tree and make everything you own yourself, so as to ensure nothing is exploited" wags -- I hope you "traditionalist" guys still doff your caps to your feudal overlords, work seven days a week for your bosses at work (weekends are a gorram commie invention!), accept that politicians, bosses, police, judges etc. are corrupt and that's just the way things should be, burn old ladies who own cats and know about herbs, instruct your wives how they should vote (and don't allow them to work, or wear trousers), and occasionally go on trips to foreign places to gather slaves at gunpoint or stab people for being infidels.
Obviously society never changes, or progresses, and campaigns, mass movements, and bleeding heart liberals have never acheived ANYTHING over the past thousand years or so, because all of the above abuses of power still go on as a matter of course -- right? There's no point in us trying to change anything that's wrong in society, and any attempt any of us do make to change anything is gonna be met with derision, because more freedom, more tolerance, and more social justice than we have already achieved is clearly going to be dangerous to the very moral fabric of American society.
mattyrm wrote:I dont care about ethics, all my tax money gets sent to doleys or spent on feeding peoples kids who I dont like or given to Africa or spent on the NHS for boob jobs or spent on immigrants or spent on fething MPs porno videos.
feth em. I dont want fair trade, I want slave trade.
I actually got in an argument on the train because the woman told me "its fair trade that!" so i said "put it back give me a mars bar"
If it gets me my minis for 10p cheaper, I dont care if they make them with slave boys for 3p a week.
I'm fairly certain your taxes went to that train more then they went to africa. Then again, I don't live in the UK. Maybe your subways are private.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Stop buying products and produce EVERYTHING you want. That will be the only guarantee of ethics in production. Don't use a cell phone, buy clothes, use a computer or even a coffee maker. All of these were invariably produced or have components made in 3rd world countries.
This is all feel good idealism, just realize that the world is not a nice place, people do get screwed and bad situations get taken advantage of by enterprising people. All of this is neither new or unique to Asia.
Aknowledging this and realizing that you can do nothing about and going to work the next day is a much better way to look at this. You'll develop an ulcer worrying about Worker #6785 on production line 13 at the massive factory in Beijing who doesn't even know who you are, what Dakka is or why he shold feel bad about his situation. Not everyone can earn a ridiculous hourly wage. Someone's gotta sweep the floors (or make the GW products).
I'm sure you'll gladly adopt a child from a 3rd world country to help break the sweat shop cycle.
Theres really no more reason someone "has" to live that way or work in those conditions then there is that they don't. It's a false assumption based on current trends. Things could be much better or worse off for that same worker under different social, political, or economic systems. Activism doesn't have to be hopeless, nor does apathy have to be bad. People in this thread are taking things to silly extremes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ian Sturrock wrote:I love how there are people here who don't seem to believe sweatshops exist at all (head in the sand, much?!?), and others whose defence mechanisms against the idea of social progress of any kind are so strong that they believe we should just accept the world is gak rather than ever attempting to do anything about it.
Just as a counterpoint to the "you should live in a tree and make everything you own yourself, so as to ensure nothing is exploited" wags -- I hope you "traditionalist" guys still doff your caps to your feudal overlords, work seven days a week for your bosses at work (weekends are a gorram commie invention!), accept that politicians, bosses, police, judges etc. are corrupt and that's just the way things should be, burn old ladies who own cats and know about herbs, instruct your wives how they should vote (and don't allow them to work, or wear trousers), and occasionally go on trips to foreign places to gather slaves at gunpoint or stab people for being infidels.
Obviously society never changes, or progresses, and campaigns, mass movements, and bleeding heart liberals have never acheived ANYTHING over the past thousand years or so, because all of the above abuses of power still go on as a matter of course -- right? There's no point in us trying to change anything that's wrong in society, and any attempt any of us do make to change anything is gonna be met with derision, because more freedom, more tolerance, and more social justice than we have already achieved is clearly going to be dangerous to the very moral fabric of American society.
You lose credibility rapidly when you make assertions like "People here don't believe sweatshops exist".
biccat wrote:How is there any practical, real world difference between permitting suffering to continue by purchasing a product made by sweat labor and permitting suffering to continue by purchasing an ethically produced good instead of donating the money?
If the evil is in permitting the act to continue, you are just as morally suspect as the purchaser of the unethical good.
That's an incredibly silly claim. Really, just... stunningly absurd.
You've actually just said that person who doesn't actively act to prevent a problem is the same a a person who facilitates it. It's like claiming that a person who isn't spending his spare time trying to break internet paedophilia rings is morally exactly the same as a person who is buying child pornography.
I mean, I'm all for international trade and think the best thing for everyone is for the product to be produced in country best suited to producing it, that is to say "buy local" is a crock, so I'm kind of on you side, but your argument above is just bonkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AvatarForm wrote:I will say this once for the OP and bleeding hearts:
Ethics is not equal to moral standards.
Ethics is how you justify to yourself and other stakeholders the actions and intentions behind them.
Crying about where and how something is produced, then making a purchase decision wih consideration to this is just another decision most buyers make.
I attempt to buy Australian Made goods.
However, what you must also realise is that if everyone stopped purchasing goods that wereproduced offshore, your economies would eventually break down, as those same goods could not be manufactured/produced to the same quality domestically, at the same price.
Those in the USA and UK should know this, yet some of the arguements here are blind or ignorant of this fact.
Your argument makes no sense. Why do you buy locally? What makes it a more ethical decision to support a local job, than to support a job in Vietnam or somewhere else? If anything, the Vietnamese guy probably needs the income a whole lot more than the Australian guy.
Second up, since when was it the responsbility of any consumer to ensure market stability? The point of the market is that it stabilises itself, based around meeting what consumers want. If consumers genuinely wanted to pay more for local products, the markets would adjust and we'd get more expensive but locally produced goods.
Basically, you've got those two points around the wrong way. It really isn't better to buy locally, but if that's what people wanted the markets would adjust.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:"Corporate responsibility" is a catch phrase used to improve your company's perceived value in the eyes of the customer in order to gain market share. While the effect may be beneficial, the underlying purpose is to attract business.
If a company isn't making money, then their shareholders won't be happy and they'll elect a new board of directors. Or, the shareholders will sell their shares to someone who is willing to pay for them and that person will elect a new board of directors. Only so long as "corporate responsibility" is improving the bottom line can a company continue to practice it.
Have you done any reading on this subject, or are you just assuming that must be what's true because it's what your ideology dictates?
Because the interplay of corporate responsibility and profitability is far more complicated than your little ditty above. To put it really briefly, while the development of corporate responsbility has been a slow and stuttering affair, none of the delay has come from any kind of shareholder blowback against the board, in fact companies with ethical operating practices have proven more stable.
Nor does there exist this mob of purely mercenary shareholders, that will not tolerate one cent less in dividends for the sake of corporate responsibility. In fact shareholders, like people in general, are diverse and desiring of many different things, and while we've been content historically to narrow it all down to dividends and share growth, actual studies of shareholder behaviour demonstrate an incredible level of diversity among their desires.
Yeah as nice a bloke as Ian is, I've just got no time for these debates,
If you want to be a bastion of moral light, then crack on. Don't come on here with all your fake outrage cos you think it makes you look or feel good.
It's the same with Eco warriors "make sure you turn the tap off when you brush your teeth" but they have 4 kids and produce 400 times the carbon I do.
Its a drop in the ocean. I'm a relatively moral person, I don't rob rape or steal, I don't sponge off the state and I pay my taxes. Let that be enough, and gimme my GW minis, cos I like them. If you want to convince yourself I'm a nonce because it makes you feel better, that's your right too, but don't come on here and try to pretend your a better person because you claim to care where your plastic comes from, cos its boring.
biccat wrote:Why do you buy locally? What makes it a more ethical decision to support a local job, than to support a job in Vietnam or somewhere else? If anything, the Vietnamese guy probably needs the income a whole lot more than the Australian guy.
Just to grab that point, what is really stopping that Vietnamese guy from doing the same as the Australian guy?
Sure, his country's employment structure isn't the same, and industry there isn't necessarily as advanced, but why is that?
If money gets pumped into the country, why does their standard of living not change much, or their prices go up?
It's happened with services outsourcing.
For instance, India was once a very cheap place to run a callcentre. With the training the people there gained, and the resources put in place to facilitate that callcentre, wages rise, costs go up, and India moves up in the world-wide rankings. This also means standards are raised, and we hear less of Indian swaetshops than we once did.
Why does this not happen in China, or Vietnam, or wherever?
Or, maybe it's just me, and people who know better can correct me.
brettz123 wrote:So the answer I am getting is that no one knows if this is indeed going and not one of you can actually point to any piece of evidence that it is. I would take the question much more seriously if any of you actually had a shred of evidence to support your hypothesis.
...
No this is not a strawman argument at all. The question was specifically about the ethical purchasing of wargaming related items. If there are no ethical violations being perpetrated by wargaming companies the entire question is pointless. It gets to the heart of the issue rather clearly.
Well it's not my hypothesis, I don't think it's been claimed by anyone that any wargames companies do operate sweatshops, the OP was enquiring about conditions of such workers.
But the topic has widened a bit since the OP, a fair few comments on this thread are about sweatshops in generalised terms. Whether or not wargames companies do operate sweatshops doesn't change my comments which are directed towards those people who dismiss or don't care about sweatshops in general.
Skinnereal, it doesn't happen in those places because "Export Processing Zones" or similar areas are in place (see _No Logo_ for more info). They ensure that though money passes through the relevant 3rd world countries, it doesn't really stay there, because companies doing business there pay no taxes.
Matty, likewise, you seemed a very pleasant chap at the Dakka tourney last year. But please note, I'm explicitly *not* telling other people what to buy and what not to buy, in this thread! You and others say you don't want to have this debate at all... so stop doing it! This thread was intended for those of us who *do* care what we buy, to share info.
Ahtman.
You completely misunderstood my post.
Idon't have the energy to waste explaining so too bad.
I included a list of sages that are a few of my exemplars to highlight the difference in ways of thinking about and trying to engage with.
You may substitute your own list.
Matty
Moral grandstanding
immoral and macho posturing.
We make choices on how to try and live our lives.
If people wish to be unkind you think it were better of me to say nothing? Not going to happen.
No it doesn't make me feel good to come on Dakka and see heartless comments that are often down right nasty.
No doubt someone will espouse the platitudes of how tough life is. You can try and justify the spite as much as you wish. I was bought up to respect not despise others.
Add my parents and teachers to the list of sages Ahtamn
Ian
I am sorry your worthwhile thread turned out this way.
I will now withdraw as it is starting to get personal.
Skinnereal wrote:For instance, India was once a very cheap place to run a callcentre. With the training the people there gained, and the resources put in place to facilitate that callcentre, wages rise, costs go up, and India moves up in the world-wide rankings. This also means standards are raised, and we hear less of Indian swaetshops than we once did.
Why does this not happen in China, or Vietnam, or wherever?
Well, there are two answers. Please choose whichever you think is more appropriate:
1) Evil capitalists need cheap sweatshop labor somewhere in the world to exploit and earn their blood money, and with wages rising everywhere, they've chosen to lock China and Vietnam into a cycle of poverty.
2) China has a huge population and lots of people who want to move out of the extreme poverty of subsistence farming and get a job so they can improve their lot in life. They are willing to accept lower paying jobs, and there isn't enough industry in China to employ all of them, so wages remain low. Couple this with the fact that China is keeping a fairly tight control on their currency (for a variety of reasons), and you have support to maintain those sweatshops.
It must be said, considering that the government sends a large packet of money out each year in aid to various states around the world, I consider my charity donations to be my taxes that contribute to that. Hence why I don't sign up to half a dozen '£5 a month' schemes.
Having said that, I'll put a pound in a tin if someone rattles it at me outside M&S, not out of concern for the charity involved, but out of respect for the person who's been standing out there all day for free for a cause that doesn't pay them a penny.
Adverts from third world countries showing me starving orphans, children with psoriasis and flies all over them, polio, etc just irritate me. Mainly because I've lived in Africa and seen it firsthand more than most of the people who subscribe to these charities do, and I've come to accept that there's little I can do about it. So shoving it down my throat just irritates me.
I buy Organic milk because I know they pump cows full of chemicals for increased yields, and those chemicals stick around in the milk. I don't know if they'll be harmful or not, but I'm conscious enough of the risk to not want to find out ten years down the line it gives me 50% higher risk of cancer or something. People used to say tobacco was harmless after all.
I buy free range chicken, because the ones that are factory reared are pumped full of water, shrivel in the oven, and taste like bad quorn. I'm also not too fond of the factory rearing system, but I do accept that cheap meat is necessary to feed the vast consumer society of today.
When it comes to my models, just about everything I own is produced in less than salubrious conditions. Computer chips in my phone, PC, and so on, ink in my books, the material that my clothes are processed from is probably processed somewhere cheap and abroad. At some point in the production line, some part of it probably went through China or India. And I accept that. Sure China may not have the best working conditions. Sure, the people there are being exploited. But ultimately, I don't regard it as my responsibility. They have a government that spends all its money on new upgraded stealth fighters to compete with the US. The Indian government has nukes. Why is it my responsibility and not their governments to protect their interests?
So yes. Ultimately, I'm not too fussed in my GW models are made in sweatshops because...well, just about everything is in modern society. Sure, I'd rather the kids were getting an education, but child labour isn't that far gone from my own country. And education for all is a luxury earned by a society when it has progressed far enough and developed a system of social responsibility for itself. Like the NHS, a fair judiciary, union rights, and so on. These are the benchmarks by which you judge civilisation.
But ultimately, these places aren't ruled by Britain. They're outside of our jurisdiction. We don't have the right to push our own societies ethics upon them. The day China grants full sovereignty to England over their country, is the day I'm all for instituting changes to make them like our great nation. Until that day, we have neither the right, nor the power to make any change of significance.
Ketara wrote:I buy Organic milk because I know they pump cows full of chemicals for increased yields, and those chemicals stick around in the milk. I don't know if they'll be harmful or not, but I'm conscious enough of the risk to not want to find out ten years down the line it gives me 50% higher risk of cancer or something. People used to say tobacco was harmless after all.
Actually the biggest problem isn't with adults, but with children. All of those chemicals end up in the milk that children are made to drink so that they can grow strong bones. And in that early developmental stage of their lives, even a residual amount of hormones used to bulk up the cattle can cause, say, a girl to hit puberty at the age of eight instead of the age of eleven.
Ahtman wrote:I only buy miniatures forged from lead and hardened with tears of poor children. Obliviously most of my mini's are from Reaper...
lol.
Seriously though, If you found out GW got orphans to make their minis for 5p a month, would you stop buying your beloved GW?!
Cos i friggin wouldnt!
Actually, if this turned out to be the case (or rather sweatshops, rather than your OTT example!), I would stop buying GW. I'm sure a lot of people would actually, especially if it became widely known. Hopefully enough would stop that it might make such a move pointless, then the company would finally go down following a parent suing on account of either: a ) their child inhaling resin dust. b ) a GW worker gets accused of being a paedophile, made possible due to the 1-staff policy.
My post is only half serious, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the above came to pass.
You lost the conversation by putting GW in with Ethical gaming.
50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue.
A playboard the cost of over 200 bones.
canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...
Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.
This reminds me of that Venture Brothers episode when Venture made the device out of dead orphens...
" Adverts from third world countries showing me starving orphans, children with psoriasis and flies all over them, polio, etc just irritate me. Mainly because I've lived in Africa and seen it firsthand more than most of the people who subscribe to these charities do, and I've come to accept that there's little I can do about it. So shoving it down my throat just irritates me."
This is quoted for truth. Those so called "Sweatshops" are paying bills. You can either do something about it, then pay higher rates as you end up paying some union thug money, or you can tell your local buisness to do something about it, such as cut a few funds devided into the cost of production that could end up PAYING thier own competition more. Bottom line, that land raider is going to get made, you can either pay short or pay long, but you as a consumer are going to end up paying in the end, either way.
Want to talk about OSHA standards? They don't exisit in some countries, but in the states, companies take it in the hind quarters for even the slightest offense. You wonder why they move out and pay some mutt 15 cents on the dollar? because its business.
And to addin a little to the order of the bleeding heart, I've seen enough sweatshops in the world, they are doing business, and you won't stop them. You shut down one, the workers are going to get rounded up and shuttled to the next one down the block. If she don't work in a sweatshop, she's going to get shuttled off to the middle east, asia, or the states in a sex trade ring. You can sit there high and mighty, or go to your local sweatshop, chicken plucking plant, jeans factory, toy maker, etc... and go see how far your indignation lasts when the thug pops a few rounds at you for cutting into thier production quota's and drawing attention to the unspoken of evil that ecveryone already knows about.
Harsh and cruel? Yes it is, but it's how they do it in the real world.
Want a real shock, let me show you some pictures of what happens when little Xe shows a little backbone and steps up to that ogling pervert.
What are you going to do for a local economy thats collective profits runs around 1 mil on the long end? What happens when some chemical company, computer maker, plastics maker rolls into town, starts spewing chemical waste everywhere, yet puts some money into an illiterate, unmotivated work base with an endless supply of labor?
Nothing. Your going to sit there, point a few fingers, but at the end of the day, your buying that land raider, no matter who made it.
Want to talk about sweatshops? GW's stores count as sweatshops in this conversation. they run their employees through a ringer of a training program, push them to the limit in sales targets, and then fire thier asses if they don't meet them. period. full stop. They do nothing to lower costs, profits are the bottom line. You can be indignant about it, or see it for what it is.
Business as usual. Because at the end of the day, no one really cares where the jeans/ jacket/ land raider comes from. As long as they have one, it's the newest one on the block, and they better have access to three more to play Planetstrike.
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
The countries that these "Sweatshops" are in don't have a serious incentive to shut them down, seeing as the company owners pretty much paid the entery fee, operation cost of the local governments, hush money, gratuity fee, operating costs, and... wages. These extensive incentives of thier own that far outwiegh anything you as the indignant protester are going to fork over.
If you really knew the backstory behind the issue, you'd honestly be suprised.
50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue. A playboard the cost of over 200 bones. canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...
Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.
Pricing of luxury items in western countries has nothing to do with corporate ethics. Thats a giant strawman.
Want to talk about OSHA standards? They don't exisit in some countries, but in the states, companies take it in the hind quarters for even the slightest offense. You wonder why they move out and pay some mutt 15 cents on the dollar? because its business.
This is also blatently illogical as that supposes that they would export factory work so that they can utilize sweatshop conditions. This directly implies that there is no advantage to producing in labor protected countries as by definition they want someone they can treat badly. Stating that the US screws people for wanting that puts the court before the horse.
And to addin a little to the order of the bleeding heart, I've seen enough sweatshops in the world, they are doing business, and you won't stop them. You shut down one, the workers are going to get rounded up and shuttled to the next one down the block. If she don't work in a sweatshop, she's going to get shuttled off to the middle east, asia, or the states in a sex trade ring. You can sit there high and mighty, or go to your local sweatshop, chicken plucking plant, jeans factory, toy maker, etc... and go see how far your indignation lasts when the thug pops a few rounds at you for cutting into thier production quota's and drawing attention to the unspoken of evil that ecveryone already knows about.
This entire post (and thread in general) speaks to a powerful ignorance concerning sweatshop functionality, placement, and function in developing countries.
Want to talk about sweatshops? GW's stores count as sweatshops in this conversation. they run their employees through a ringer of a training program, push them to the limit in sales targets, and then fire thier asses if they don't meet them. period. full stop. They do nothing to lower costs, profits are the bottom line. You can be indignant about it, or see it for what it is.
Thats ludicrously hyperbolic and relegates the term "sweatshop" to mean "Any low paying unskilled job".
Business as usual. Because at the end of the day, no one really cares where the jeans/ jacket/ land raider comes from. As long as they have one, it's the newest one on the block, and they better have access to three more to play Planetstrike.
If no one cared this thread wouldn't exist.
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
Wouldn't participation be the most basic form of involvement with life? Did you read this post before you posted it?
If you really knew the backstory behind the issue, you'd honestly be suprised.
50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue.
A playboard the cost of over 200 bones.
canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...
Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.
I have nothing to contribute, I just want to look like a ponce. Let me continue by cutting and pasting while I contribute nothing.
That was only one of the examples of profit. We talk about the ethics later, because bottom line, production costs are what we are talking about here. Production costs in leu of profits. If I can get a kid to spin that web for a nickle, I'll get it, no matter if its for a nickle, or a doller, your still going to pay what I tell you to pay.
And it's got gak to do with ethics.
You spouting off about western countries is the Strawman.
Those profits of "Luxury Items" are in direct relation to how much the item then costs to produce. I see no strawman in that example.
Then I'm left only to assume that you don't know what the word "ethics" means at all.
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I would if I could but I ain't Madonna
good grief Charlie Brown.
If you wish to live without understanding or caring that is your business. If people like the OP wish to try and live a life according to a set of values they feel comfortable with, then that is their business.
So who should we listen to?
maybe the likes of
Buddha?
Lao Tzu?
Jesus Christ?
Krishna?
or the likes of Stormrider, Brettz et al?
Behave like an ork if you wish, but even though I be flawed please don't decry my paltry efforts to be better than I am.
Obviously you haven't read what I have posted. Geez..... let me reiterate. I am asking if there is any evidence of the type of behavior that is being discussed. That is all. That is not condoning bad behavior simply asking if there is any. Now if you can't understand that fine but don't slander me just because you aren't intelligent enough to understand what I am saying. But don't go about insulting people by juxtaposing them with people like Budha or Jesus Christ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
But the topic has widened a bit since the OP, a fair few comments on this thread are about sweatshops in generalised terms. Whether or not wargames companies do operate sweatshops doesn't change my comments which are directed towards those people who dismiss or don't care about sweatshops in general.
I do not dismiss or think sweatshops are in any way "good". What I have been attempting to do is get some facts down about the real circumstances that wargames companies produce miniatures under. This is a dedicated forum for the discussion of wargaming and this thread in particular has had several people accuse GW of running these kinds of operations in China.
So I am simply asking if this is true and if someone thinks it is true (of GW or any other company) then I would like someone to show some proof. Because of this some people seem to think it is ok to attack me as well as some other people who have different opinions.
It must be said, I haven't had a proper discussion/debate on here for a while. I'm starting to wonder if everyone just agrees with me or if I'm being plain ignored.....
Everybody in this thread needs to stop assuming every factory in the third world is a sweatshop. There are considerable differences in safety and working conditions.
Skinnereal wrote:Just to grab that point, what is really stopping that Vietnamese guy from doing the same as the Australian guy? Sure, his country's employment structure isn't the same, and industry there isn't necessarily as advanced, but why is that? If money gets pumped into the country, why does their standard of living not change much, or their prices go up?
The standard of living has gone up. Wages in Vietnam and South East Asia as a whole have shown considerable wages growth.
It's happened with services outsourcing. For instance, India was once a very cheap place to run a callcentre. With the training the people there gained, and the resources put in place to facilitate that callcentre, wages rise, costs go up, and India moves up in the world-wide rankings. This also means standards are raised, and we hear less of Indian swaetshops than we once did. Why does this not happen in China, or Vietnam, or wherever?
Or, maybe it's just me, and people who know better can correct me.
It has happened. The increase in wages in China have actually led to many low skill, low value add industries, namely textiles, moving out of China and into other countries in south east asia. Meanwhile China is using that base to move into more sophisticated and higher paying industries.
The complexity of the issue is that yes, working conditions are bad and there's a lot we should do to make sure employees aren't exploited, but foreign companies coming there and using labour is the best way to grow the economy and drive up the standard of living. So the point is not "no foreign factories", but "no foreign factories that exploit labour with dangerous conditions". Which admittedly takes more reading than most people are willing to do.
Oh, and wages in China are around double what they are in India, by the way, and India is only 3 or 4% ahead of Vietnam.
Grot 6 wrote:You lost the conversation by putting GW in with Ethical gaming.
50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue. A playboard the cost of over 200 bones. canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...
Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.
Ethics is the use of power. It is concerned with power relationships where one party is in a much weaker position than the other, such as an employer and employee, and so the more powerful party is under some obligation not to exploit their position and enforce too poor a deal on the weaker party.
The seller and consumer of plastic miniatures are not in a power relationship, because the consumer is free to walk away at any time. As such, there is no unethical price, there is just the price the market is willing to pay.
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
So here you are willing to shrug and get philosophical about economic exploitation in the third world, but ten seconds earlier you were bemoaning how much you had to pay for a terminator. Yeah. Classy.
"Oh, so there's eight year olds forced into dangerous labour conditions but that's just life and they all to toughen up, but won't someone do something about how much I have to pay for a plastic toy?"
Ketara wrote:No cut and paste taking apart my statement Shuma?
It must be said, I haven't had a proper discussion/debate on here for a while. I'm starting to wonder if everyone just agrees with me or if I'm being plain ignored.....
I don't have the time to tear apart every post in this thread. To be honest I haven't even been following the topic. I just skim now and then and sometimes posts like Grot6's jump out at me. I don't have the mental capitol to invest in this thread in any fashion short of a galbraithian screamfest.
Intelligent post Sebster, agree with everything you say there.
I think really it needs some sort of confirmation of which area/factory complex GW is utilising in China, it then will be possible to ascertain whether or not it's a sweatshop. Although as pointed out, conditions in China have been improving for the most part. I would be much more suspicious if they were being produced in South Asia (vietnam/Indonesia etc.) or India.
Ketara wrote:It must be said, considering that the government sends a large packet of money out each year in aid to various states around the world, I consider my charity donations to be my taxes that contribute to that. Hence why I don't sign up to half a dozen '£5 a month' schemes.
In the UK the government spends about £5 billion a year on foreign economic aid, out of a total budget of £460 billion. An average single guy earning an average £30,000 wage is going to pay around £7,300 in taxes, including national insurance.
This means he's paying, through his government taxes, about £80 a year in foreign economic aid. If you think that's enough, then fair enough.
When it comes to my models, just about everything I own is produced in less than salubrious conditions. Computer chips in my phone, PC, and so on, ink in my books, the material that my clothes are processed from is probably processed somewhere cheap and abroad. At some point in the production line, some part of it probably went through China or India. And I accept that. Sure China may not have the best working conditions. Sure, the people there are being exploited. But ultimately, I don't regard it as my responsibility. They have a government that spends all its money on new upgraded stealth fighters to compete with the US. The Indian government has nukes. Why is it my responsibility and not their governments to protect their interests?
You're confusing exploitative conditions with non-exploitatitve conditions. Not every factory in China is horrific. While the wages are much lower, that corresponds to the skill level of the workers, and it is a stage of production the economy must pass through before taking on higher paid work.
This doesn't mean we can't do something about the horrific factories.
So yes. Ultimately, I'm not too fussed in my GW models are made in sweatshops because...well, just about everything is in modern society. Sure, I'd rather the kids were getting an education, but child labour isn't that far gone from my own country. And education for all is a luxury earned by a society when it has progressed far enough and developed a system of social responsibility for itself. Like the NHS, a fair judiciary, union rights, and so on. These are the benchmarks by which you judge civilisation.
Pretty much. I'd question the use of the word "earned" but that's a quibble, really.
But ultimately, these places aren't ruled by Britain. They're outside of our jurisdiction. We don't have the right to push our own societies ethics upon them. The day China grants full sovereignty to England over their country, is the day I'm all for instituting changes to make them like our great nation. Until that day, we have neither the right, nor the power to make any change of significance.
Who's to say the kids don't want to risk losing their fingers in machinery?
Seriously, it's okay to say something is fethed up even when it isn't in your country. The working conditions in some overseas factories are fethed up.
It is objectively good when these conditions are improved.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote:Intelligent post Sebster, agree with everything you say there.
I think really it needs some sort of confirmation of which area/factory complex GW is utilising in China, it then will be possible to ascertain whether or not it's a sweatshop. Although as pointed out, conditions in China have been improving for the most part. I would be much more suspicious if they were being produced in South Asia (vietnam/Indonesia etc.) or India.
Exactly. Simply hearing that it was produced overseas and therefore it's bad is getting half the story and leaping to conclusions.
In the UK the government spends about £5 billion a year on foreign economic aid, out of a total budget of £460 billion. An average single guy earning an average £30,000 wage is going to pay around £7,300 in taxes, including national insurance.
This means he's paying, through his government taxes, about £80 a year in foreign economic aid. If you think that's enough, then fair enough.
Dayum. That's more than I thought it was. That's plenty as far as I'm concerned. Not so much I'm outraged, but not a small amount either. I'd say its about right.
You're confusing exploitative conditions with non-exploitatitve conditions. Not every factory in China is horrific. While the wages are much lower, that corresponds to the skill level of the workers, and it is a stage of production the economy must pass through before taking on higher paid work.
This doesn't mean we can't do something about the horrific factories.
I'm not necessarily claiming that ALL workplaces in China are bad and exploitative. But I think that majority of the ones involving factories and production lines no doubt are. At least, by Western standards.
And to be frank, you say it doesn't mean we can't do something. I disagree. I think that considering it is a foreign country, under a foreign government that cares little for individual rights means that the amount of influence we can bring to bear in that regard is actually quite limited. Certainly, the power to unionise the workers, set basic pay rates and work conditions, and minumum hours is beyond us. It's not our country.
Who's to say the kids don't want to risk losing their fingers in machinery?
Seriously, it's okay to say something is fethed up even when it isn't in your country. The working conditions in some overseas factories are fethed up.
It is objectively good when these conditions are improved.
Stating something is objectively good? Hooboy. I'm not even going to open that can of worms. For shame sebster! Stating something as slippery as 'good' as objective.
I don't know much about any of this stuff but the OP did ask for working conditions in the factory at Privateer Press. Since I used to work for them I can tell you that they are about as standard as it gets here in America. They pay slightly above minimum wage for the state and the working conditions for producing miniatures are rather hot as they use spin casting. But they throw the BEST christmas party I've ever been too. They networked together a bunch of Xbox 360's to a bunch of big screen tv's and let you play various games. They have prizes at the door when you walk in. I got a free I pod just for showing up. While the wages aren't really much to brag about in America, they arent at the bottom either, though they are close.
Ketara wrote:Wahoo! Someone to have a discussion with!
You've made me a happy man sebster.
Wait 'til this turns nasty
In all seriousness, I saw your post and thought maybe I could respond, but then saw Grot's post and that was easier and more fun to respond to. I saw your next comment and it was only then I thought I really should put in the effort to respond to the more serious posts.
Dayum. That's more than I thought it was. That's plenty as far as I'm concerned. Not so much I'm outraged, but not a small amount either. I'd say its about right.
Fair enough.
I'm not necessarily claiming that ALL workplaces in China are bad and exploitative. But I think that majority of the ones involving factories and production lines no doubt are. At least, by Western standards.
Well the thing is that requiring them to keep up to Western standards isn't possible. The factories just aren't generating the kind of wealth that could do that. Instead, we need to expect them to keep up to the best standard they possibly can, that is, to meet the best practice currently seen in the country.
And to be frank, you say it doesn't mean we can't do something. I disagree. I think that considering it is a foreign country, under a foreign government that cares little for individual rights means that the amount of influence we can bring to bear in that regard is actually quite limited. Certainly, the power to unionise the workers, set basic pay rates and work conditions, and minumum hours is beyond us. It's not our country.
But we can, and we have. Due to activism, the minimum wage in Indonesia doubled in real terms over the 1990s, although there was a related increase in unemployment as factories moved offshore. However, direct activism against Nike led to them driving reform among the factories producing their shoes, increasing wages and drastically improving working conditions. Studies have shown campaigns produce on average a 50% increase in real wages, with no related loss in employment.
There is a record of these campaigns making a difference.
Stating something is objectively good? Hooboy. I'm not even going to open that can of worms. For shame sebster! Stating something as slippery as 'good' as objective.
Yeah, philosophy is fun and all but there's a point where you just have to say 'it is objectively good that a person has a reduced chance of losing their life in an industrial accident'.
OP...Ill give you credit for being concerned with the welfare of all humanity. However, I believe I speak for quite a few when I say...
...I just dont have the time or energy to worry about the work conditions of someone thousands of miles away who I dont know and never will.
I wish my life was so good that I could concern myself with such things, but its not. I have myself, my wife, and our kids to worry about. I have my own job and work conditions to worry about. Anyone who has kids will tell you they are nearly a full time job to keep up with and watch out for all on their own. The there is maintaining a house, property and 2 cars. Then there are what changes are coming to local, state, and federal laws that may effect me I need to know about. The list is staggering. Once all that is sorted out I get to eek out some time to build, paint, and play with my toys soldiers...unless Im watching TV, or playing with the kids, or going to the shooting range...
Do you see the general point?...sure none of us want sweat shops exploiting people, but its so far from effecting us it rarely enters the mind.
If you have the time, money and energy to be an activist against sweatshops then go get em...but realize that 99.99% of the world doesnt have the time, energy or money to join your cause.
Ketara wrote:No cut and paste taking apart my statement Shuma?
All fear the Akatsuki
But seriously, everyone in this thread needs to go to sleep.
It's divided clearly:
People who don't really care.
People who do care, but don't believe there is a way for things to change in their current situation.
People who do care, and demand immediate action.
This isn't an argument over RAW or something, it's a topic covering everything from people's individual beliefs and morals to their knowledge of the world as a whole (or their willingness to care).
You might as well have a discussion titled "Which religion is best and which ones are the dumbest?" As you'll probably run into a majority of the same issues.
People will argue feverishly over almost anything. Even simple things such as the rules of a tabletop game can become heated, endless discussion and debate with no agreements other than to disagree; and that's about little plastic men and rules that people have read anywhere from 5-10 minutes before posting. Yet, even with such short experience, people become quickly dedicated to their position. Bring in something like morals and ethics, and you're arguing with people about something at the core of their life since their ability to think.
Go to sleep, or go talk about whatever the newest codex is being broken (1 more month till we all get to bitch about Tomb Kings! )
Mad4Minis wrote:OP...Ill give you credit for being concerned with the welfare of all humanity. However, I believe I speak for quite a few when I say...
...I just dont have the time or energy to worry about the work conditions of someone thousands of miles away who I dont know and never will.
Which is entirely fair enough. There's no obligation for you to make this your issue. It isn't, by the way, my issue either, because it's sufficiently complicated that I believe I'd need to dedicate a lot of time to figuring out which factories actually need to be campaigned against, and even then there's a decent chance I'd get it wrong and end up doing more harm than good. There's plenty of other issues where I'm much more certain that I'm doing good that I'd rather focus on them.
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.
I was just trying to point out that the cynicism in this thread wasn't very true, there really is a good fight out there, and the lives of many people working in these factories has been improved dramatically.
sebster, thanks for the update on conditions. I work alongside teams of high-tech support in India, so I know a little on that side, but not the others. Hence the inaccuracy.
But, one comment I heard some time ago:
"for every high-tech job created in places like India, that creates 2 more jobs to support that one".
Offshoring work spreads around quite well, if the people actually get to see the money spent there. If the bosses keep everything but the barest minimum, no-one but them gets any benefit from it. And if that's the case, that boss is not the kind of person to care when pressure is put on to improve conditions.
sebster wrote:Well the thing is that requiring them to keep up to Western standards isn't possible. The factories just aren't generating the kind of wealth that could do that. Instead, we need to expect them to keep up to the best standard they possibly can, that is, to meet the best practice currently seen in the country.
Hey, I never said that I had an issue with them being sub-par by western standards, or even that I had any interest in changing the status quo in that department. If you read back, my initial comment said simply that most of what I own is produced in some way in 'less than salubrious condition's.' And that I'd accepted that. I'm not quite sure what you're debating with here....
But we can, and we have. Due to activism, the minimum wage in Indonesia doubled in real terms over the 1990s, although there was a related increase in unemployment as factories moved offshore. However, direct activism against Nike led to them driving reform among the factories producing their shoes, increasing wages and drastically improving working conditions. Studies have shown campaigns produce on average a 50% increase in real wages, with no related loss in employment.
There is a record of these campaigns making a difference.
Interesting. How precisely did this 'activism' work? Did enough people stop buying Nike their sales showed a direct decline in correlation with the activism? Were Nike officials kidnapped and held hostage until wages were increased? Did a couple of people happen to be outside a Nike store with placards at the same time Panorama did an embarassing documentary?
Just saying campaigns and activism are effective is well and good, but I would be genuinely interested in seeing what evidence there is to back that up.
I would also point out that culture and government vary from place to place, and just because 'activism' worked in one country is no guarantee of it being successful in another.
Yeah, philosophy is fun and all but there's a point where you just have to say 'it is objectively good that a person has a reduced chance of losing their life in an industrial accident'.
Not in the OT zone there isn't!
I actually made a post a year or so back (in one of those recasting threads), where I argued that insubstantial things like morals could not possibly be objective. However there was a larger system of morals enforced by society, and whilst morals could be subjective to the society as a rule, ultimately they could not be entirely subjective to the person due to them springing from that society, and not being able to change their mental conditioning and upbringing. Morals were ultimately subjective, but a person could only go so far in deviating from the standards they were raised with, and as a result of that, morals are not entirely subjective for the individual, even if they are for society as a whole.
It was a lot more detailed, and complex than that, but those were the basic points. I was actually quite chuffed with it since it was something I'd come up with on my own.
sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.
Dont forget the unwashed and unshaved women screaming at you anytime you want a burger.
sebster wrote:Everybody in this thread needs to stop assuming every factory in the third world is a sweatshop. There are considerable differences in safety and working conditions.
Skinnereal wrote:Just to grab that point, what is really stopping that Vietnamese guy from doing the same as the Australian guy?
Sure, his country's employment structure isn't the same, and industry there isn't necessarily as advanced, but why is that?
If money gets pumped into the country, why does their standard of living not change much, or their prices go up?
The standard of living has gone up. Wages in Vietnam and South East Asia as a whole have shown considerable wages growth.
It's happened with services outsourcing.
For instance, India was once a very cheap place to run a callcentre. With the training the people there gained, and the resources put in place to facilitate that callcentre, wages rise, costs go up, and India moves up in the world-wide rankings. This also means standards are raised, and we hear less of Indian swaetshops than we once did.
Why does this not happen in China, or Vietnam, or wherever?
Or, maybe it's just me, and people who know better can correct me.
It has happened. The increase in wages in China have actually led to many low skill, low value add industries, namely textiles, moving out of China and into other countries in south east asia. Meanwhile China is using that base to move into more sophisticated and higher paying industries.
The complexity of the issue is that yes, working conditions are bad and there's a lot we should do to make sure employees aren't exploited, but foreign companies coming there and using labour is the best way to grow the economy and drive up the standard of living. So the point is not "no foreign factories", but "no foreign factories that exploit labour with dangerous conditions". Which admittedly takes more reading than most people are willing to do.
Oh, and wages in China are around double what they are in India, by the way, and India is only 3 or 4% ahead of Vietnam.
Grot 6 wrote:You lost the conversation by putting GW in with Ethical gaming.
50.00 set of 5 terminators, even though there is the same amount of plastic as any other sprue.
A playboard the cost of over 200 bones.
canvas carrying cases in the same scheme as a 20 dollar book bag- over 100.00...
Profit rules, full stop. GW gives fig about ethics, sweatshops, or fair.
Ethics is the use of power. It is concerned with power relationships where one party is in a much weaker position than the other, such as an employer and employee, and so the more powerful party is under some obligation not to exploit their position and enforce too poor a deal on the weaker party.
The seller and consumer of plastic miniatures are not in a power relationship, because the consumer is free to walk away at any time. As such, there is no unethical price, there is just the price the market is willing to pay.
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
So here you are willing to shrug and get philosophical about economic exploitation in the third world, but ten seconds earlier you were bemoaning how much you had to pay for a terminator. Yeah. Classy.
"Oh, so there's eight year olds forced into dangerous labour conditions but that's just life and they all to toughen up, but won't someone do something about how much I have to pay for a plastic toy?"
And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point. But, HEY thats how it goes to make a ... kinda good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy to make yourself like you have a real point... WHOOOHOOO!!!
YOU just said what i did, yet...
Heres my full quote, but the way. seeing as your flying off half cocked without a clue of what I said.
"Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
The countries that these "Sweatshops" are in don't have a serious incentive to shut them down, seeing as the company owners pretty much paid the entery fee, operation cost of the local governments, hush money, gratuity fee, operating costs, and... wages. These extensive incentives of thier own that far outwiegh anything you as the indignant protester are going to fork over.
If you really knew the backstory behind the issue, you'd honestly be suprised.
Money Talks, BS walks. "
Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done. They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.
These business's are $$$ hand over fist. We don't like it, but thats just a part of living in the world of modern society.
Me belaying the costs, yeah, I do. Especially when the product in question costs a fraction of that cost to make, yet YOU/ME are being charged top price on your land raider, pair of jeans, or makeup, or whatever is being produced at the time. ( Adidas, if I remember correctly from the one I saw. They weren't particular, though. There was a jacket shop just down the street.)
"Ethics is the use of power. It is concerned with power relationships where one party is in a much weaker position than the other, such as an employer and employee, and so the more powerful party is under some obligation not to exploit their position and enforce too poor a deal on the weaker party."- You.
Power relationships are the basis on which this form of production revolves around, and These sorts of companies are under no such obligation.
Most of these companies are under no illusion either, they just keep thier hands at arms length to keep plausable deniability, when the meddeling kids roll in to start stomping in rightious indegnation. Latest one I know of is Tysens chicken, which is right down the street. ( In America, by the way.)
There was another one when they had it on TV with the little twenty somethings crying about where they found out where and how thier jeans were being made, then another one with the reality show that followed the dresses off out of the fashion world to where they came from. I don't remember the names.
of course, thats not just in Third world countries...
Why should you care? It has to do with global economics, who's losing jobs, where they go to next. Labor issues, minimum wage, etc.etc.etc.
Long story short, Your Regular Joe type 9 to 5er from Joetown America or other European indistrialized country isn't in the ballpark to compete with a couple of minions who will do the same thing for .25-75 Cents. The company doesn't give a crap about OSHA, minimum wage, OR worker rights. You get a right to work, You don't want it, My other minions go get two more guys to replace you, plus we will make a note so you never work again.
And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!
Your point was poorly stated, contradictory, and illogical. YOU misrepresented it if sebster just said what you did.
And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!
Why do I have to keep poking in and copping attitude, when I haven't even discussed the Grotsters first post? I don't even have to wait till he's finished posting!!!! Wheee!!!
And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point, but, HEY thats how it goes to make a good argument... change the discussion point of the other guy toake yourself like you have a point... WHOOOHOOO!!!
Why do I have to keep poking in and copping attitude, when I haven't even discussed the Grotsters first post? I don't even have to wait till he's finished posting!!!! Wheee!!!
I am the first person to respond to your first post. I am the post immediately following your first post. Try harder.
Ketara wrote:Hey, I never said that I had an issue with them being sub-par by western standards, or even that I had any interest in changing the status quo in that department. If you read back, my initial comment said simply that most of what I own is produced in some way in 'less than salubrious condition's.' And that I'd accepted that. I'm not quite sure what you're debating with here....
You made the argument that most of the factories in CHina were bad and exploitative, by Western standards. I responded by agreeing that by our standards they are, but assessing them by Western standards isn't practical. Instead we should assess them by the best practical standards in China right now, and only deal with those factories meeting top standards.
Interesting. How precisely did this 'activism' work? Did enough people stop buying Nike their sales showed a direct decline in correlation with the activism? Were Nike officials kidnapped and held hostage until wages were increased? Did a couple of people happen to be outside a Nike store with placards at the same time Panorama did an embarassing documentary?
I don't know if Nike observed an actual drop in sales, or simply feared that they would, or didn't worry about an immediate impact on sales but rather a decline in their brand having a long term impact on sales, or if the executives just didn't want to stand there defending oppressive working conditions. I don't know, point is the activism, being street protests, awareness campaigns, news stories, documentaries, government lobbying and the rest actually led to Nike building a far more substantial set of standards for it's offshore factories.
I would also point out that culture and government vary from place to place, and just because 'activism' worked in one country is no guarantee of it being successful in another.
Just be a thing isn't certain of working, that means there's no point in trying?
Not in the OT zone there isn't!
Yeah, I've noticed that no statement, no matter how reasonable, can escape at least one person coming along to argue it.
I actually made a post a year or so back (in one of those recasting threads), where I argued that insubstantial things like morals could not possibly be objective. However there was a larger system of morals enforced by society, and whilst morals could be subjective to the society as a rule, ultimately they could not be entirely subjective to the person due to them springing from that society, and not being able to change their mental conditioning and upbringing. Morals were ultimately subjective, but a person could only go so far in deviating from the standards they were raised with, and as a result of that, morals are not entirely subjective for the individual, even if they are for society as a whole.
It was a lot more detailed, and complex than that, but those were the basic points. I was actually quite chuffed with it since it was something I'd come up with on my own.
Sounds like moral relativism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grot 6 wrote:And of course you did the same as that other cat and decided to point and click and totally misrepresent my point.
No, I think I summed up the problem with your argument pretty well.
YOU just said what i did, yet...
No, I didn't. You talked about how the working conditions in sweatshops are absolute, and unavoidable by the conditions of the world. Which is objectively wrong.
Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done.
Your point is obvious, and irrelevant. No-one was pretending that these factories are hidden away, or that activism relies on them being hidden away.
They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.
Yeah, that's how all business operates. It is an important part of improving efficiency, but there is a point where it goes too far and becomes exploitative, which is why we've built protections for workers over time. The same mechanisms can raise working standards in these factories, and the consumer sector can play an important part in making that happen.
Power relationships are the basis on which this form of production revolves around
Power relationships are inherent in every form of productive activity.
These sorts of companies are under no such obligation.
Which is nonsense. The obligation isn't something they or anyone else places on them or takes away, it is present by the basic existance of the power relationship.
Most of these companies are under no illusion either, they just keep thier hands at arms length to keep plausable deniability,
And those sub-contracting arrangements are generally transparent, and successful lobbying has on multiple occasions forced a change in the standards those companies require of their sub-contractors.
Why should you care? It has to do with global economics, who's losing jobs, where they go to next. Labor issues, minimum wage, etc.etc.etc.
Accepting that there is a global economy driven by moving production to the places that most efficiently make products doesn't mean accepting that nothing can be done about exploitative working conditions.
That's just playing at being all tough and cynical, and it's silly.
Long story short, Your Regular Joe type 9 to 5er from Joetown America or other European indistrialized country isn't in the ballpark to compete with a couple of minions who will do the same thing for .25-75 Cents. The company doesn't give a crap about OSHA, minimum wage, OR worker rights. You get a right to work, You don't want it, My other minions go get two more guys to replace you, plus we will make a note so you never work again.
Obviously, that's why the job moved. No-one is talking about whether or not the job should move offshore. I not only think that job will move offshore, I think it should.
The point is that when that job has moved offshore, there's real things that can be done to make sure that conditions and pay in the factory improve.
Oh, you post has convinced me to stop using ellipses so much. I had no idea how annoying those little things are.
_No Logo_ makes a pretty convincing case for Nike getting very, very scared of the protests, particularly once campaigners were able to let some of the poorer teenagers in the US know about Nike's involvment with sweatshops. Huge chunk of Nike's target market shows up at their flagship store and demands justice, Nike's gonna listen.
Grot 6 wrote:
Life is pain. Looking down your nose at it makes you hypocritical at the lowest level, participant at the highest.
That's not what hypocrisy is. You cannot accuse someone of hypocrisy based on a belief that you hold which is unrelated to the beliefs of the other person.
Grot 6 wrote:
Full stop. The point here being that these "Sweatshops" are out in the open. They arn't just in the back ally. WE call them sweatshops, but where they're located, thats how the business practices are being done. They subcontract out the labor to the lowest point they can, then reap in a few more dollars, pounds, yen, euro, etc. in profits.
These business's are $$$ hand over fist. We don't like it, but thats just a part of living in the world of modern society.
The nature of the is-ought problem is such that you cannot determine what ought to be based on what is. You're simply ignoring the issue raised by this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Accepting that there is a global economy driven by moving production to the places that most efficiently make products doesn't mean accepting that nothing can be done about exploitative working conditions.
That's just playing at being all tough and cynical, and it's silly.
I would go further and say that it is foolishly fatalistic (so much so that it forced me to alliterate) given the historical evidence indicating that such a position is absolutely false.
sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.
Hey that sounds exactly like something I would say! In fact, I think ive used the exact same sentence before.. I fething hate people who wear Che tshirts!
What I have found most intersting about this thread is the sweeping statements made by people like Chibi regarding morality. I dont want to sound like some crap philosophy student, but I always thought that most intelligent people accept that morality is extremely subjective dependent on the culture/nation you happen to have been brought up in.
Ahtman hit the nail on the head regarding these sweeping absolutes, but basically, I found it quite bizarre that I pointed out that I have no criminal record, dont steal or rob or rape, pay my taxes and generally get on with my life causing nobody else in society any issue but I am "immoral" because I dont really care where I buy my toy soldiers from!
sebster wrote:
Oh, and to actually achieve anything I'd need to join groups full of self-righteous dicks in ponytails and Che Guevara shirts. And there's no fething way I'm doing that.
Hey that sounds exactly like something I would say! In fact, I think ive used the exact same sentence before.. I fething hate people who wear Che tshirts!
Latest GW financials confirm that GW Shanghai was dropped as part of the restructuring, which would also confirm that FW have been producing resin only in the UK again for some time.
The resin method rumoured to be used by GW in the near future uses the same metal models as previously used therefore the same facilities.
GW paint is made in France (would explain why it has no spine to it - I jest! ).
It doesn't seem as though GW are producing anywhere known to be unethical following the failed Shanghai move.
The only wargames company I know to be produced in China is Wargames Factory. And I am happy to state that I do not buy from them for moral reasons - thinking a their product sucks is moral right?
Now I think of it UKGW staff enjoy better employment and workplace safety rights to US GW staff (certainly from my experience of the US/UK contruction industries). Should we decry this exploitation of these blissfully ignorant serfs or chuckle as once again UK Plc reaps the dividends (i'm semi serious).
Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.
notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.
Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.
Ian Sturrock wrote:Glad to hear GW are out of Shanghai.
notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.
Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.
Yeah, the benefits thing was one thing, but the health and safety standards that workers were used to on US construction sites were really shocking compared to here. Fortunately for them we operated a global standard based up UK standard. They were both suprised and annoyed by the length and breadth of our H&S and the amount of money they had to spend to comply with it!
As for the super rich. I welcome our new (old) super rich overloards.
And if any of them are here, spare a mill for and old ex lepper?
In isolation I really don't give a crap, Even taking a wider view, I want to breathe clean air but I do so need my car.
I want Pedro to go to school and not have to make my clothes, but I need to cover up and look good whilst doing it and at a price I can afford.
I want everyone to have food but, well, there not enough to go round, and I have kids, so, they get first dibs.
Tsobe doesn't have clean drinking water? well, if I don't pay my bills, neither will I.
I think army men made of childrens tears and dreams are the least of my worries.
Well said.
I like many others do care about other humans - but we have to be realistic, and sadly -yes sadly - I agree with the above. This is how the world really works people - and no amount of socialist "in a perfect world" bs will ever change it.
I give to charity and I help where I can, but truthfully, the vast majority of us will always cover our own backs first. Most people call it "common sense" if you like. I'm glad we're all getting past the politically correct stage of our lives, and people can now say this and face up to themselves. I have.
SAD BUT TRUE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ian Sturrock wrote:dogma, I suspect you just enjoy a good argument. Please start a thread in the off-topic forum entitled "Casuistry, Sophistry, Ethics, Rhetoric, And Other Fun Party Games, By dogma". Go play there.
I just love these people who tell those who don't share their P.C. fantasies to "go play elsewhere". IF anything the anti-capitalist sympathisers amongst us seem to err on the side of fascism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Its a drop in the ocean. I'm a relatively moral person, I don't rob rape or steal, I don't sponge off the state and I pay my taxes. Let that be enough, and gimme my GW minis, cos I like them. If you want to convince yourself I'm a nonce because it makes you feel better, that's your right too, but don't come on here and try to pretend your a better person because you claim to care where your plastic comes from, cos its boring.
BRAVO SIR!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ian Sturrock wrote:Glad to hear GW are out of Shanghai.
notprop wrote:Anyone bothered by this sort of comparative exploitation in developed countries. I suspect not, but thought that I would put it out there.
Not so much. The USA is decades behind the EU in terms of workers' rights (my friends in the US are astonished, and envious, when I talk about our minimum 4.8 weeks annual holiday, enforced by law, and standard 35-hour working week, and right not to be unfairly dismissed), but there are always compensations -- the 1% super-rich in the USA are richer than anyone else in the world, and US culture is all about aspiration.
Standard 35 working week? LOL! You think this is real?
My wife works 40 hours a week - by law she is considered "part-time" as her hours are not over 5 or more days....
don't belive me - look it up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ian Sturrock wrote: and US culture is all about aspiration.
So was ours once - and I wish it still was, because it if isn't we end up with no one aspiring to anything. No wonder the UK has problems.....
It's one thing the US have right in my book. Aspire to be bigger, better and bolder.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote:
Should we decry this exploitation of these blissfully ignorant serfs or chuckle as once again UK Plc reaps the dividends (i'm semi serious).
Yeah ok - let's decry it. And then let's watch as 50% of the "ignorant serfs" are made redundant due to the cost of improving the other 50%'s conditions. Or maybe they should keep everyone on and increase the prices.......while we watch them go out of business due to falling sales (thanks in turn to customer alienation due to high pricing) ultimately resulting in the un-employment of all 100% of those workers.
Health & Safety and Improved working conditions? Kiss my arse.
There's a huge body of psychological research, like, dozens of studies, including the ones from people trying to prove that capitalism, aspiration, consumerism and the American dream are natural, and make people happy, that really pretty much proves the reverse -- that all that stuff offers only short-term boosts to happiness, and that a focus on those extrinsic rewards in life only makes people want said extrinsic rewards more and more, without actually making them happy in the long term. Psychologists who study happiness would argue -- from evidence -- that it's not so much that people grow up and accept that the world is all about capitalism and aspiration, but that they get so trapped in their cycle of focusing on extrinsic rewards that they don't realise how wasted and empty their lives are without intrinsic rewards.
Standard 35h working week *is* real. There are exceptions -- deviations from that standard -- which is why I didn't say "universal 35h working week".
