Oops. Anti-poverty wristbands produced in sweatshops
Comments: 21
Scotsman.com — Anti-poverty wristbands produced in sweatshops
FASHIONABLE wristbands worn by pop stars, actors, top athletes and celebrities to publicise the Make Poverty History campaign are produced in appalling “slave labour” conditions, damning evidence has revealed.
Chinese factory workers producing the white rubber bracelets are forced to toil in conditions that violate Chinese law and the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) set up to establish international standards for working conditions.
And what might those conditions be?
According to a report on the Tat Shing Rubber Manufacturing Company in Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, dated 12 April 2005, the company uses “forced labour” by accepting “financial deposits” from new workers - against both Chinese law and the ETI.
The report also revealed a category of weaknesses including inadequate health and safety provision, lengthy hours, seven-day weeks, employees cheated of their pay, inadequate insurance, no annual holidays and no right to freedom of association.
•••
Posted to Oh, the Humanity • 2005.05.30 (Mon) • 09:58
Comments
Posted by John 2005.05.30, 12:05
Why don’t these big charities actually set up and manage production in some of the countries they are trying to help. It may just kill two birds with the one stone by providing work and fund-raising trinkets. Just a thought.
Posted by Carl 2005.05.30, 22:41
Why am I not suprised. When Nike started the LiveStrong campaign I avoided purchasing a trinket exactly because I feared they would be made in exactly the same sweatshops they make their trainers and sportswear in. I only wear the Oxfam Make Poverty History bands because they are made sustainably and ethically.
Posted by richard 2005.05.31, 13:18
A couple bucks for a crappy rubber bracelet, and people think that they’re doing something about world poverty. I’m sure homeless and poor people everywhere really respect those bracelets when they can’t find someplace to sleep or something to eat; Wow! That famous person eating a $300 entree really CARES…
Posted by Carl 2005.05.31, 21:13
I think thats an incredibly cynical stance to take. The important thing is that people are doing something. The Make Poverty History bands cost £1, of which 70p is used effectively in the MPH campaign. I buy one of these a week, because they get dirty very quickly. I’m not the only one who does this. What counts is that these schemes raise awareness of the problems they advertise, and also encourage people to do something, even if it is only a start. If you think the solution is to do nothing because any donation you make would be insignificant, then you merely are abdicating responnsibility for a problem that we all help cause.
Posted by Questionable 2005.05.31, 22:59
Carl, you buy a new bracelet each week?!? What happens to the dirty ones, just thrown in the bin or do you give them to poor people? Come on, you’re admitting to wasting 30p per week on a piece of trash!
It’s crap like these bracelets and these magnetic “Support the Troops” ribbons here in ‘Merka that really stick in my craw. “Look at how much money I’m willing to spend to advertise the fact that I care.” Because it wouldn’t be worthwhile if everyone around didn’t know that I’m a true philanthropist. I’m not saying that the proceeds from these bracelets aren’t going for a good cause, but why not make a lump sum £50 donation and be done with it? Why do people feel that they need to wear their charity on their sleeve?
Posted by Carl 2005.06.01, 08:02
I buy one a week rather than make a lump sum donation because £1 isn’t a large sum to me whereas £50 is-I’m a student so I can’t afford £50 in one go. The idea is that losing ?1 a week isn’t a real sacrifice to make in order to make a difference. The fact is I don’t spend a lot of money to show that I care, yet by wearing such a bracelet, people will ask me what it is (especially at work in the bars, restaurants and nightclubs where I occasionally temp), so it helps to raise awareness.
Posted by ryan 2005.06.01, 09:41
And a mass of people obviously supporting one cause is harder for governement to ignore than annonymous donations. To make a real difference to “world” poverty governments need to be involved.
I was surprised to find out that despite the millions and millions provided in aid, we take back more in debt repayments. What’s the bloody point of that?
By providing a united front we can a) help raise awareness and 2. show government that a significant portion of the populace give a shit and want a change in the way this issue is handled on a world scale.
Posted by Rob 2005.06.01, 16:53
Buying goods to support charity is a waste of money. By the time the cost of the item, overheads and commissions are taken into place very little of the money actually makes it to the charity. After the charity has paid their expenses very little actually makes it to the people who will actually benefit .
Why don’t people donate directly, or better still, donate their services (if it is a local charity) or goods.Buying goods for charity is a scam.
Posted by Jon 2005.06.02, 00:01
Buying goods from a charity is emphatically NOT a scam. Having worked for a range of different charities in the UK and abroad, it is my experience that a ?1 wristband would provide around 80p of direct donation to the beneficiaries of the charity. Costs are minimal (around 2p a band, including shipping) and the administration of the campaign and of processing the money would be less than 15p per ?1 spent, so each band actually would be 75 or 80p spent on, for example, medical equipment for an aid charity in Africa. The myth that charities waste huge percentages of the money they receive is at best annoying and at worst a major reason why people don’t give to charity. Rob, you should check your facts.
Posted by Rob 2005.06.02, 09:05
My brother had a part time job working for a company that sells goods on behald of charities. It is called OUTSOURCING. These companies do not do things for free. He was working on a commission basis. People working there were pretty cynical about the charity they were raising money for. The company selling on BEHALF of the charity has lots of expenses. It is MUCH BETTER to give money directly to charities. I am not saying that charities waste huge amounts on overheads. If you gave money to them directly they would have more money to help others.
It is like when kids are asked to raise money for their school by selling sweets. Next time in the school newsletter look at the amount that was raised for the school compared to the cash inflow. Instead pf buying $10 worth of sweets wouldn’t it be more effective to give that $10 directly to the school.
I work in business and to say something costs “around” something is not good enough. I am not disputing that things cost something.
I did some quick research on the internet. There is quite a lot out there about charities and overheads. There are well run charities and badly run charities. All I am commenting on is the best way to give money to charities.
SCAM is not the best word to use but I will use RIP-OFF.
Posted by Jemima 2005.06.03, 18:22
Jon, please read the story that started this thread and ask yourself how the bracelet can be 2p shipping included given the cost of materials and shipping as well as paying those making the bracelets- issues of free trade and world poverty cannot be fixed in one G8 summit- they are much more complicated than that. I also don’t understand why ‘make poverty history’ literature has focused almost solely on Africa thus far. I have worked both in South America and the Far East where poverty is just as much of an issue it just isn’t on our radar screen in the same way. Two of my friends de-mine in the former Yugoslavia where families by the site are living in abandoned vans with no clean water or electricity.
Africa is Geldof’s pet project so it gets the press while millions more suffer. Indonesia has recently issued yet another statement calling for aid to reach Tsunami victims faster- a tremedous amount was pledged but it seems that very little has actually been received and people are already forgetting just 5 1/2 months later.
What Rob is saying is quite simply- if you saved your 1 pound a week for 50 weeks and gave it directly to a charity you would have done more than buying a wristband a week for an entire year. For argument sake let’s say 80p goes to the charity for every 1 pound wristband- over the course of 52 weeks- buying 1 wristband a week- you would give 41.60- which is great- however in 50 weeks saving 1 pound a week and donating it directly- you would give- wait for it- 50 pounds- over 52 weeks- yes you would give 52 pounds- ten pounds (or almost 20 dollars) more. You might not be as fashionable but I know first hand your impact would be 100 times greater. This does not discount those that are buying wristbands and doing their part- however if some wristbands are made in sweatshops- and given the 2p cost that seems to be the case- they are doing alot more harm than good.
Carl- charties will take any kind of donations no matter how small- so you could simply give 1 pound a week instead of buying a new bracelet- USAID recently had a story on their website of a homeless woman in San Francisco who has given 25 cents a week since the Tsunami to Tsunami relief- that is roughly 14p- I am sure a charity would happily accept your pound donation.
Posted by disciple3d 2005.06.05, 07:12
There doesn’t really seem to be a very good argument against buying £1 wrist bands for charity (providing they are made ethically and lawfully.)
Why on earth would anyone want to argue against raising awareness of these issues? If you want the most efficient use of your money possible, then you could join an overseas charity organisation, pack your bags and actually go and help people directly.
Beyond that though there are lots of different ways to help, and the easier they are to do, the more likely people are to do them. If wrist bands become a fashion accessory, so what? If people actually think it’s ‘cool’ to care about poverty and the situations in developing nations, great!
The problem with apathy is that it is a very difficult habit to get out of - people who don’t donate to charity aren’t suddenly going to start giving large amounts of money, and people who already do give, tend to give in different ways, to different charities.
People feeling they are recieving something for their donation, are more likely to donate. It might not be the best use of their money, but it’s a small amount and it gets people involved in some small way. That is by far the most important step in changing the world - getting people to actually talk about doing it, and try to start helping.
As for the administration costs involved in charities - does anyone actually have any evidence that they are more than equivilent private organisations or the public sector, or is that just wild speculation?
I would argue that it’s more likely that their overheads are less, as charities have much smaller incomes than equivilent sized private companies or public organisations, have many volunteer workers who are unpaid, and have to be more efficient in their use of funds to survive based on donations.
Posted by Whitney 2005.06.09, 10:36
(this is off the original topic) Hey Jemima I am not sure what you will think of this, but I wanted to let you know what I think about the focus on Africa. First, the goals of the Make Poverty History campaign address all impoverished people, not just those in Africa. Yes, there is often a focus on issues in Africa. But there needs to be. The numbers of people dying there because of povery are staggering. EVERY SINGLE MONTH, as many people die in Africa from malaria as died in the December tsunami. Most of these deaths can be prevented with inexpensive mosquito nets and homemade repellants. And that’s only one part of the poverty related deaths there. To bring any neglected region to the forefront is a starting place for awareness about others. I see what you’re saying, I would probably feel pretty helpless if I were trying to work with impoverished people in a less recognized area, but I just wanted to explain why perhaps the literature says a lot about Africa. Thanks.
Posted by Timen Swijtink 2005.06.11, 17:37
I believe rather than getting such a bracelet, you should donate directly to the charity. It’s not charitable to buy such a wristband when it is seen as a accessory, a fashion item, in our society. You would pay 4x what they cost just to have it, because it’s “cool.” That truth is pretty sad, considering the people the charity helps make less than that a day.
Most unfortunately, these wristbands is the only method to get people to “donate.”
Posted by Human Quilt 2005.06.12, 05:57
Hey, I was flipping through some blogs, and I really think you could like a project I am just starting. It is called The Human Quilt. The idea is to bring people together from across the globe and have them all share their story through a square. It’s only a day old, so I don’t have much up yet. But, I’d appreciate it if you could take a look at it, and maybe post something.
www.humanquilt.blogspot.com
Thanks,
JJ
Posted by Jeff 2005.06.29, 11:01
I read some of the above entries and would like to offer a plan that would, like the bands, raise monies from many people.
Idea: All holders of accounts at banks, and other depository type of finanacial institutions, should be able to authorize their banks to make specific deductions from their accounts. In this case the account holder would tell the bank to make a monthly deduction of the cents entered in the final balance line of his monthly statement. This amount would vary each month of course. After the deduction the bank would transfer the monies to a specific account designated by the donor. There are hundreds of millions of this type of account in the US alone. The average monthly deduction would be 50 cents, thus yearly the average would be $6.00. These amounts make it possible for almost anyone to become part of a process that would raise many millions yearly. An authorization form could be attached to each monthly bank statement and it would remain in effect until cancelled by the account holder.
Problems : The banks will have to be persuaded out of a sense of good corporate citizenship and good public relations and if that doesn’t work by legislation to mandate this for the depositors.
Also : The plan needs to be marketed by people such as the celebrities backing the live 8 concerts.
Posted by 2010: Poverty Elimination 2005.07.02, 17:21
Today Live 8, what do you think about?
Posted by snoopy 2005.07.10, 19:05
It’s a tough one - the phase of the bands will soon wear off as fashion accessories do which means some other clever device will have to be thought up. This is rather upsetting that coming up with ideas like the bands are so vital in getting people to fish out money. These do however promote the awareness in a quick and multiplying way which is so important. My main concern is that most of these bands are created in sweatshops and are backed by big brands such as nike which contradicts what they are promoting. Globalisation like global warming is an increasing and threating factor in society today. What to do!???
Posted by Sneal 2005.10.03, 18:44
Yes, i agree with alot of points made by alot of you, with the whole “rip off”, “scam” thing with the charity wristbands… But i never take off my MPH one and my breast cancer one, even though alot of my money wouldnt have reached where i would have liked, its allowing me to state my political belief with these problems in todays society… Because im still in highschool, and do have a job, but im quite a selfish person when it comes to money, i cant always make direct donations to charities, but i do support them in anyway that i can…
Posted by alysha 2005.12.28, 19:26
there are many good points made on both sides of this argument… i am still in high school and value the little money i make very highly. but i am still willing to buy these wristbands because they are a way to show support and to raise awareness. in Oz (where i’m from) most of these wristbands cost between $1 and $3. i am proud to state that i own 3 of them (1 for cancer awareness, 1 for the david hookes organ donor foundation, and one for the beyond blue depression organisation). i would also like to say that when i first started buying these wristbands, i wore them to school every day as i still do. a lot of people came up to me and asked what the band was for and if there was any way they could get them and what other charities could be supported. the next week on a school camp, we found a store that had them and almost all of the people on the camp bought one. so in closing, i would just like to say, all of these wristbands are not just about making money for the charity. they are also to raise awareness and in that respect i feel that they are doing the job extremely well.
Posted by Chelsey Zawacki 2006.01.17, 21:15
I totally agree with what you’re saying. I wish more people felt this way and took the time to express themselves. Keep up the great work.
Chelsey Zawacki http://www.rubberwristbands4less.com
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
