Fairtrade is something that you will now hear or read about on a regular basis while grocery shopping. We can see packages labelled as Fairtrade; we can see stores promote themselves as being fair trade. However, when you ask people what fair trade actually is, some know and others have a skewed idea of what it means. Fairtrade is a certified process where businesses promote fair prices, fair working conditions, and better trading methods. There are many regulations that are placed onto producers so they can acquire the prestigious title of being labelled “fair trade certified”, yet many of these requirements are not met fully, especially when it comes to workers. Workers are not being treated as fairly as they should be on some of the …show more content…
certified farms. Workers are still being exploited in Fairtrade, maybe not in sweatshops, but in general lack of human rights. There are few scholarly articles to reflect this, which could be due to the fact that majority of people want fair trade to succeed, yet there are many guidelines and procedures where the certification standards are just not acceptable. First, in Ecuador there are many flower growers and certification occurs for some of the farmers. Laura Raynolds tells us of a certifier, Fairtrade Labelling Organization (FLO) and how they have improved labour standards in Ecuador. She states that there are “57 social regulations” (511) that range from sexual harassment policies to the maximum hours that workers are allowed to complete. FLO highly regulates these policies, therefore, workers are treated fairly. However, workers are also not allowed to make their own choices in the amount of overtime they work. One of the managers that Raynolds interviewed (name unknown) states, “FLO says workers cannot do more than 12 hours a week extra and must get a day off every 7 days. We can petition FLO for exceptions but this is complicated” (511). In a certification process where employees should be empowered they are not being allowed to make these decisions. They have to go through a difficult process; that most likely by the time they go through the process will no longer be needed. Workers should be granted special privileges in the certification guidelines that let them make these decisions when needed or when they see fit. Secondly, plantations are included in fair trade. TransFair USA regulates some tea plantations in Dhokebari, Bangladesh. Transfair USA has a great basis of certification guidelines, but they are just not up to par. The guidelines are loosely worded (open to interpretation) and TransFair USA are accepting of what they are told. Investigations of these plantations does not occur as frequently as it should either. Sara Besky visited a particular tea plantation for three months and developed many supporting factors for my argument. The main guideline that is in need of revision is “Fair Price: Democratically organized farmer groups receive a guaranteed minimum floor price and an additional premium for certified organic products” (Besky 5). Where does this state that workers will receive a minimum pay? It doesn’t! It simply states that the “democratically organized farmer groups” will receive a minimum price. On this particular plantation, workers made $12-$15, on average, a day. A dollar amount that had yet to change since the plantation had switched to a fair trade certified farm (5). Not many people living in the USA or Canada would work for that low of a daily wage. It would be highly unlikely that anyone currently living in Canada would be able to support themselves on that dollar figure, especially in times where a coffee can cost upwards of $5. Workers should receive a living wage that is suitable to where the fair trade certifier’s office is based out of: in this case the USA. Next, all workers should be allotted education in labour laws and full support in legal issues of being improperly treated. In Besky’s time on the plantation she seen unions being ended; unions that helped support and educate employees of their rights. This particular owner was actually boasting about how he was proud of ridding his plantation of the union (6). Instead Besky tells us, “the Plantations Labour Act’s requirement of the freedom to unionize is diluted to a checkbox for ‘democratically organized bodies,’ which serve to divvy up fair trade revenue” (4). By getting rid of unions opportunities are lost for workers. Not only do the employees have no protection of their jobs; workers lose out on education about labour laws and eventually “labour laws deteriorates” (4) according to Besky. TransFair USA also has no regulations about who can be on this “joint body”. In an area where male domination is apparent there needs to be a balance. These democratically organized bodies on this plantation consisted of “male managers and supervisors and the female office staff” (6). Managers will always supersede office staff and therefore, the female office staff may feel like they need to give into the opinions of their supervisors or males in general (culturally more acceptable). Men or woman should feel as they have someone, especially the same sex, who they can speak to about issues, like a union rep. These joint bodies should require a fair ratio of males to females and should include all ranks of employees. Furthermore, fair hours and wages are something that should be mandatory, not dreamt of.
Tom Levitt’s article, “How Fairtrade Bananas are Failing Migrant Workers”, involves first hand interviews from migrant works. In this article Levitt summarizes a conversation with a migrant worker and himself and states “he and other migrants had signed a contract for eight hours a day but actually worked six am to five pm without rest or overtime and for wages no more than the average 250 pesos reported by non-Fairtrade workers” (paragraph 14). Eleven hours a day with no rest period, no chance to sit down for lunch, and no overtime is not fair, it is slave labour. It is also something that is not facilitated by the Fairtrade Foundation, yet these banana plantations are allowing these. Where are the certifiers? “The Fairtrade Foundation says calls for using the Fairtrade premium to subsidise migrant workers’ wages may undermine the responsibility of farm owners and employers to tackle the ‘living wage’ issue”. Maybe, if plantations and farms were visited more frequently workers wouldn’t be doing overtime for free and the issue of a living wage wouldn’t be an issue. Workers would be paid for overtime (at the workers discretion) and would be able to afford to live a comfortable life with the basics of food and
shelter. Lastly, child labour is something that should not occur, ever. In Canada we have very strict laws regarding what age a child should be allowed to work. This should be something that should be regulated worldwide: not just by country and their individual laws. In the article, “Fair Trade Not Helping Workers Who Pick Crops”, CBC’s Kent Gilbert interviewed Christopher Cramer regarding his study, “Fairtrade, Employment and Poverty Reduction in Ethiopia and Uganda”. What he found was much more than any of us could have expected. He first hand witnessed child labour, although it was dependant on the location. Cramer also states, “What we found was that the wages on average in the area dominated by a fair trade organization weren’t just the same, they were worse, they were lower than the other sites.” (Gilbert paragraph 1-3) Not only are these “fair trade” sites using children; they are also not practicing good practice of fair wages. These practices are allowed to happen due to certifiers not visiting these farms on a regular basis and how follow-up is conducted. After reading about different countries and different types of farms all gaining Fairtrade status and still being able to exploit workers, there is a huge concern for the future of Fairtrade. Even though these particular farms didn’t implement a sweatshop technique, they still devoid workers of rights and exploited them. They used people to their benefit and received premium pay for doing so. On some Fairtrade farms and plantations these standards are held to a high regard. While we can’t visit every place to verify that what we are buying is truly Fairtrade; we can research each product and do our best and helping ensure we are supporting a fully compliant business. To change Fairtrade and help it succeed we first need to look at who is certifying these farms and how they are certifying them. Are guidelines clear and unnegotiable? Are farms visited regularly to prevent owners taking advantage of the loopholes? Are workers, as well as, owners covered by the minimum price and the premium of the product? These are all questions that companies such as FLO, TransFair USA, Fairtrade International, and others need to start asking themselves. We, as consumers, need to ask ourselves if we are contributing to the exploitation of workers. Workers cannot be continued to be exploited throughout the world and still be able to have their employers receiving a premium for their mistreatment
The mere idea of sweatshops, let alone their existence, seems cruel and unusual to people like us, especially in today's day and age. After all, in sweatshops "workers are subject to extreme exploitation. This includes... (not) enabling workers to cover ...
He inquires, “Isn’t it a little presumptuous of us to think that we can end sweatshop abuses by just changing our individual buying habits?” (“Sweat, Fire, and Ethics). As Jeffcott provides the reader with the entirety of the background information on the Fairtrade-certification, he enables the reader to realize what really needs to be done in order to end the use of sweatshops. Another ineffective strategy that Jeffcott mentions is when society attempts to exert the guilt towards large brand name companies, as these companies only address these issues to the extent which it will not affect their productivity. Jeffcott explains that, “Conflicting pressures make suppliers hide abuses or subcontract to sewing workshops...The name of the game remains the same: more work for less pay” (“Sweat, Fire, and Ethics”). By clarifying how ineffective people’s current efforts are in influencing the abuse in sweatshops, Jeffcott challenges the reader to assess if their own efforts are sufficient for the cause. Jeffcott then concludes his argument by proposing to the reader to exceed traditional means of resistance to sweatshops by urging the government to intervene on these reprehensible practices, and perhaps then a solution may be achieved. Contrarily, Jeffrey D. Sachs argues in his excerpt “Bangladesh: On the Ladder of Development,” that despite the injustice that
The phenomena of Migrant Workers would not be possible if the migrants were able to get jobs elsewhere, but as many come from Third-World Countries with little economic possibilities, this is not possible. What has resulted is an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor to the United States. This willingness on the part of the workers to work for wages otherwise unacceptable in the United States is problematic. Employers in this position are not under any pressure to reveal truthful, or even any information about wage rates, and many workers do not ask how much they will be paid. As a result, workers often do not know how much they will paid until they are thousands of miles away from their homes, and frequently not until they are paid at the end of a week. This is the story for the Mexican blueberry pickers in Maine, and the growing number of apple pickers who are Jamaican.
What are sweatshops? The Miriam-Webster dictionary defines sweatshops as: A shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions. These factories are mainly located in Third-World countries, although there are still a few in the United States. Many popular, name brand companies like Nike, use sweatshops around the world. Today there is much controversy about sweatshops and whether they should be banned and closed. In reality, the conditions of these factories are terrible. The employees are paid very little, even after working long, hard hours. The supervisors of these shops are often cruel, malicious, and brutal. Sadly, these factories are often the only source of income for Third-World workers. As bad as these sweatshops might be, they have pulled many countries and individuals out of poverty. So, are sweatshops beneficial?
Fair trade should give protection to governments from exploitation. For example, small farmers can be protected by giving government food sovereignty. An article from the Chicago Democratic Socialist Organization proposed, “The agreement must return to governments the ability to safeguard food sovereignty by protecting family and small-scale subsistence farmers” (Chicago Democratic Socialist). Rewriting the agreement can protect the small farms and retain jobs for farm workers. The article further addressed an issue discussed previously, “Large-scale importation of basic grains into Mexico is a major cause of the economic collapse of rural communities, which forces millions of undocumented migrants to seek work in the USA” (Chicago Democratic Socialist). Therefore, it would solve problems both in the US and Mexico. It will take efforts of the many to renegotiate NAFTA, and many other terms needs to be added. The general direction should focus on protecting the interest of the general public by restricting corporate powers. Fair trade will reduce the problems caused by
Smaller chocolate companies have taken steps to remove, and improve its chain supplies. “…West African cocoa farms is a longstanding and difficult problem for the entire chocolate industry. But while Hersey’s primary competitors have least taken steps to reduce or eliminate slavery and other forms of abusive labor under cruel conditions…” (Robbins 1) Hersey’s should also do its best to eliminate all issues towards abusive labor practices, human trafficking, and its forced labor. Doing so will make hersey’s appear much professional and caring towards its cocoa supply. As Robbin argues if other competitors have purchased cocoa from certified farm fields that are free from forced labors then Hersey’s can also take the same steps to eliminate such
Empowered figures in this great land speak of equality. Of fairness under the laws, or of liberty and justice for all, or that all men, as far as governmental jurisdiction is concerned, are created equal. But I say to you – This is far from the truth, though perhaps it is an untruth many would presume necessary for the good of society. Good people sharing my race are condemned to nigh infinite torment that departs only in death. Why must my children live in a society that dictates one’s fate on the basis of appearance over heart? Why, after having become forty years of age, is this a piece of the very fabric we have constructed our society upon? This must not be, for it goes against the very ideas of equality that
I. Introduction A sweatshop is a workplace where individuals work with no benefits, inadequate living wages, and poor working conditions (Dictionary.com). Sweatshops can be found all around the world, especially in developing nations where local laws are easily corrupted: Central America, South America, Asia, and in certain places in Europe (Background on Sweatshops). China, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Bangladesh are the main places where most sweatshop products are made (McAllister). Often, sweatshop workers are individuals who have immigrated and are working in other countries.
Some people abuse kids, some people abuse drugs, but the worst kind of people abuse welfare. The definition of welfare is the statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well being of people in need. Meaning the government gives this money to people in need for their daily basic necessities. The idea of welfare started during the great depression, then Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the social security act, which established a number of programs designed to provide aid to various segments of the population (“Welfare Information”). Welfare was made to help people in a poor, physical, and/or mental state because they cannot work. Although the economy and country improved, people got used to being unemployed.
The Benefits of Sweatshop Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way out of poverty especially in developing countries. This argument may feel far fetched, but when examined in the context of those working at sweatshops and the locations sweatshops are most often constructed in, the reason why this is true is apparent. The benefits of sweatshops can be found by examining how they increase living conditions, examining the locations where sweatshops are constructed, and looking at how government regulations on factories don’t help anyone. Sweatshops increase the standards of living for the workers and their communities.
For instance, Cargill’s labor standards for its workers in the developing nations of West Africa have been questioned. In recent months, Cargill has taken steps to ensure that it’s harvesting and production of cocoa does not fuel the need for child labor and/or promote deforestation. According to a recent article published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper, “As a supply chain leader, Cargill is often scrutinized for its role in either helping or hurting environmental and social concerns associated with the harvesting of cocoa beans” (Painter 2017). These beans are mainly gathered by small, family-operated farms and are eventually purchased by Cargill from cooperatives made up of the supply of many
I read your article on “Is Cheap Fashion Driving Cheap Labour?” and I agree with some of your arguments. This is why I am writing this latter to you, to give you my view on the subject. In the last paragraph I was touched when Mark Donne sums it up by saying “cheap style for one woman should not mean degraded life for another.”
Salutations to the BuzzFeed member reading this! I’m Gelaine (“Gee-lane” because everyone pronounces it incorrectly) from a city near San Francisco. My friend, Khanh, and I are huge fans of BuzzFeed. We watch every video from each channel and read almost all of the articles. I am not ashamed one bit to admit that Buzzfeed is the topic of most of our conversations. “Have you read that article about...?” “Did you see that video where...?” “Oh, my gosh! Remember in that scene when...?” These questions are usually the first things that come out of our mouths whenever we see each other. I could go on for an eternity describing our passion for the company’s creations, but I don’t want to waste your time with my rambling. Getting to the point, I contacted you today because Khanh’s birthday is approaching and this may be, depending on which high schools we choose to attend, the last birthday spent together.
I should receive a passing grade in this class because I can write now. Not just an exaggeration, but after another semester of English I finally feel confident that can write. Three of the reasons behind my confidence is I learned, I experienced and best of all I repeated. These three values helped prepare me for what is in store in English 1302 and here is why.
Many people think the definition of Freedom of Speech is “free speech” even though they