Comments on: Not everyone agrees with SCALE http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/ Thoughts, opinions and fascinating discoveries by Elliot, a student at USC Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:15:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Charlie Carnow http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-247163 Charlie Carnow Thu, 26 Apr 2007 07:19:25 +0000 http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-247163 Elliot, I think you're reading how anti-sweatshop policies like the DSP Work wrong. By adopting a antisweatshop policy, USC is using its power as a consumer to make a choice on what clothing factories to source from based on living conditions. When you buy a shirt, you aren't really buying a shirt, your buying a particular brand. I buy USC apparel, because I want to show school spirit. The actual cost of $15 shirt is 3 or $4. Of that, given that each worker produces multiple shirts per hour, is according to a columbia study which you can find here (<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/committees/external/wrc1105.pdf" rel="nofollow">labor costs sweatshops doubling wages</a>), 1-3% of the cost of a shirt sewn here, and as little as 0.5% of the cost of a shirt sewn abroad. With a $15 dollar shirt (most of which are sewn abroad) even if use the 3% number, to double wages, would require either a 45 cent cut in the amount of profit per shirt, or the increase of a price of a shirt by 45 cents. Essentially what anti-sweatshop policies do is tell factories that in order to get orders they will have to increase wages and we are going to put in monitors to ensure your factory is giving people an opportunity. The organization then works with the factory (doesn't pull out orders that's wrong) to correct abuses. Other wise what happens is that companies like Nike have an incentive to slowly pull out orders from 'good' factories until they clothes leading to poorer labor conditions in the garment industry as a whole. An anti-sweatshop policy doesn't cause unemployment because either the licensee eats part of the profit, or some cost is passed on to the consumer. If we compare the cost of our clothes to those at inferior schools like UC Berkeley, our clothes are actually slightly more expensive despite the fact they have a better anti-sweatshop policy. The impact of this, instead of the unemployment forcasted is better wages for the workers and a higher standard of living for USC connected workers which will allow these folks to improve their health, pay for education and make other investments that will better their economies and less degradation in the garment industry (as if USC asks to source from specific factories we know are good, and we are constantly expanding that list) as we know that the brands that make are clothes will not be able to pull orders from good factories. I'll also show you some passages in scripture that have also undergirded my committment to social justice. I feel the goal of helping the poor is mandated by a lot of the texts we both respect. Elliot, I think you’re reading how anti-sweatshop policies like the DSP Work wrong. By adopting a antisweatshop policy, USC is using its power as a consumer to make a choice on what clothing factories to source from based on living conditions. When you buy a shirt, you aren’t really buying a shirt, your buying a particular brand. I buy USC apparel, because I want to show school spirit. The actual cost of $15 shirt is 3 or $4. Of that, given that each worker produces multiple shirts per hour, is according to a columbia study which you can find here (labor costs sweatshops doubling wages), 1-3% of the cost of a shirt sewn here, and as little as 0.5% of the cost of a shirt sewn abroad. With a $15 dollar shirt (most of which are sewn abroad) even if use the 3% number, to double wages, would require either a 45 cent cut in the amount of profit per shirt, or the increase of a price of a shirt by 45 cents. Essentially what anti-sweatshop policies do is tell factories that in order to get orders they will have to increase wages and we are going to put in monitors to ensure your factory is giving people an opportunity. The organization then works with the factory (doesn’t pull out orders that’s wrong) to correct abuses. Other wise what happens is that companies like Nike have an incentive to slowly pull out orders from ‘good’ factories until they clothes leading to poorer labor conditions in the garment industry as a whole. An anti-sweatshop policy doesn’t cause unemployment because either the licensee eats part of the profit, or some cost is passed on to the consumer. If we compare the cost of our clothes to those at inferior schools like UC Berkeley, our clothes are actually slightly more expensive despite the fact they have a better anti-sweatshop policy. The impact of this, instead of the unemployment forcasted is better wages for the workers and a higher standard of living for USC connected workers which will allow these folks to improve their health, pay for education and make other investments that will better their economies and less degradation in the garment industry (as if USC asks to source from specific factories we know are good, and we are constantly expanding that list) as we know that the brands that make are clothes will not be able to pull orders from good factories. I’ll also show you some passages in scripture that have also undergirded my committment to social justice. I feel the goal of helping the poor is mandated by a lot of the texts we both respect.

]]> By: Michael http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-243942 Michael Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:36:40 +0000 http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-243942 You have a well thought out case. Too often, addressing the surface issue is simplistic and causes more harm than good. The livelihood of those working in the sweatshops are at risk. How are the workers to feed themselves if we take away the market for their products? Providing a vibrant free market environment would allow more opportunities for the people to flourish. I agree USC is not the place for this. When they disrupt the campus and the education of the students, the University should be able to use their resources to stop them and ensure peaceful operation of their mission. This is their proper role. You have a well thought out case. Too often, addressing the surface issue is simplistic and causes more harm than good. The livelihood of those working in the sweatshops are at risk. How are the workers to feed themselves if we take away the market for their products? Providing a vibrant free market environment would allow more opportunities for the people to flourish.

I agree USC is not the place for this. When they disrupt the campus and the education of the students, the University should be able to use their resources to stop them and ensure peaceful operation of their mission. This is their proper role.

]]> By: Tom http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-243895 Tom Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:34:32 +0000 http://www.intelliot.com/blog/archives/2007/04/18/not-everyone-agrees-with-scale/#comment-243895 I tend to agree with most of what you said. Disrupting people's daily activities is more likely going to piss them off than convince them to agree with you. Of course, SCALE is getting exactly what they want out of this whole thing, publicity. More publicity == more people knowing that USC supports sweatshop labor (for better or worse) == more ignorant people supporting SCALE. I tend to agree with most of what you said.

Disrupting people’s daily activities is more likely going to piss them off than convince them to agree with you.

Of course, SCALE is getting exactly what they want out of this whole thing, publicity. More publicity == more people knowing that USC supports sweatshop labor (for better or worse) == more ignorant people supporting SCALE.

]]>