Although there have been thousands of preventable casualties in garment factory incidents of the developing world, many are still unconcerned with the unsafe working conditions multibillion-dollar companies provide. But is safety the responsibility of the major corporations that hire subcontractors, or is safety the responsibility of government, which creates policy protecting the rights of workers?
In the Southeast Asian republic of Bangladesh, apparel accounts for 75 percent of all exports. According to Reuters journalist Ruma Paul, this places the densely populated nation behind China as the “second-largest apparel exporter” in the world. The laborers, who craft the nation’s largest export, are paid 14 cents per hour or $38 per month: low standards even in Bangladesh, where the average monthly wage is between $70 and $100. In perspective, that’s less money than the least expensive mobile-phone plan in the U.S. It’s no surprise that Pope Francis has accused major corporations of “slave labor.” In fact, the labor in Bangladesh has become so inexpensive that even China has begun outsourcing its services to the nation. But Bangladesh faces troubling problems of low standards in workplace safety. Much of South Asia, including Cambodia, India and Pakistan, as well as South Africa, endures identical problems.
On April 24, garment factory workers in Bangladesh suffered the deadliest garment factory incident in history. Working in Rana Plaza, a massive brutalist eyesore in Dhaka, 1,127 people were crushed when their workplace collapsed, killing the maximum capacity of more than three British Airways Boeing 747s. The “slaves” had only a 64 percent chance of survival when they checked in at work. Manufacturing clothes for United Colors of Benetton, Wal-Mart and H&M, they had no choice but to show up despite obvious signs of building failure, according to EastAsiaForum.org. Even though it was the deadliest of its kind, this incident was foreshadowed five months ago by another tragedy.
A garment factory, again in Dhaka, was the site of a fire on Nov. 25, 2012, which killed 112 workers. With women being the main victims, seamstresses in this three-story warehouse had no way to escape the first-floor fire. Because the building had no unlocked emergency exits leading to the outside and workers were told to ignore the fire alarm, most survivors were the ones who managed to climb onto the roof. This time making apparel for Sears, Wal-Mart and Disney, some workers had tried using fire extinguishers to choke the flames. The problem was the only useful fire extinguishers were actually buckets of sand hanging on racks — a common sight in developing countries — and the modern-looking fire extinguishers had been displayed to distract inspectors.
But still, the clothing industry doesn’t hold a monopoly on workplace safety issues, with other industries needing to make big changes, too. Regardless of whether workers are building iPhones and Sony Bravia TVs at Foxconn or sewing overpriced scarves for Benetton, the laborers are victims of the voracious appetite of Western consumer society.
In an interview with Business Insider, C. Britt Beemer, the chairman of America’s Research Group, which interviews tens of thousands of shoppers monthly, concluded that even since the newsworthy disasters, shoppers are “more concerned with fit and price” than “’where something is made’ and ‘abuses’ (of workers by factories).” Setting aside the responsibilities of major corporations, as students of UC Berkeley and privileged Americans — a fact from any angle — we ought to see the protection of the people who sew our clothes as not only a concern but as a duty. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse in court. Ignorance of the conditions in which a 14-year-old seamstress made our shirts and was later flattened should not be an excuse to support multibillion-dollar retailers.
The same retailers are blaming workplace disasters on autonomous subcontractors. Companies like Wal-Mart, H&M, Benetton and the rest meet in the financial hubs of Southeast Asia, such as New Delhi and Singapore, to hire subcontractors to do their dirty work. There is no doubt that this sort of business makes it hard for corporations to regulate safety in factories. But there is a reason the work is exported to particular countries: The wages are “ultra-low,” and there is a major “lack of regulation” according to the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. While it’s been known that major retailers will cut as many corners as possible to lower costs, few realize it happens at the expense of the lives of factory workers. However, the LA Times staff asserts safety standards could be met with just an extra “50 cents to a dollar on each pair of jeans.” Still, the question lies on whether corporations are culpable and should be held responsible or if the government — ours or of another nation — is responsible.
When the Dhaka fire happened last November, many saw the incident as the last straw in garment factory disasters. An interview with VancouverDESI.com, a prominent South Asian news source in Canada, revealed that even a Bangladeshi government official, Mainuddin Khandaker, of the Ministry of Home Affairs, “would … examine the report (of the fire) and take further steps in line with (a committee’s) recommendations.” That was in November. It took half a year, a public-interest petition and the deadliest disaster in garment factory history to have a Bangladesh court order action against the building’s negligent owner, Delwar Hossain. Why did it take the Bangladeshi government so long to take action?
Though the Bangladeshi government has had policy defending the rights of garment factory workers for years, “regulations have gone unenforced because officials fear the industry’s power,” claims the South Asian-Canadian news source. They’ve gone unenforced for the same reason that China allows Apple to employ abused workers or that local governments in parts of the world support drug trade and human trafficking.
And Bangladesh is only a model entity because it has been mentioned in the news. For every country where rich retailers subcontract factory workers or take advantage of other groups in developing countries, a pattern occurs: First, corporations want to make as much money as possible, minimizing costs by outsourcing factory work and cutting bureaucratic corners — no surprise there. Second, a government wants the particular industry’s wealth to circulate within the nation, letting certain weaknesses go unnoticed — no surprise there, either. Third, thousands of lives are worth the corporations’ profit and the government’s monetary gain, though this varies geographically. You may have a conscience if the third number irks you.
Some may argue that refusing to buy clothing from companies that outsource jobs to developing nations will force factories to follow safety standards. I say, “Good luck finding something to wear!” Last time I checked, nearly all of my clothes were made somewhere else. Besides, boycotting American-run companies will not only hurt the American economy but will also put people out of work where work is needed most.
If Woodrow Wilson were alive, he would have demanded an idealistic solution in which nations would come together to form a pact, making safety standards uniform internationally and giving each retailer a safety rating. Like a handful of Wilson’s grandiose plans, this would create difficulty in enforcement. Perhaps a simpler solution in the U.S. would follow Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ideals, ratifying legislation that requires visible safety ratings on products as assessed by an executive agency. Much like the FDA’s function, such an agency could ban the sale of products that fail to meet standards. Though this last solution does not fully address other countries’ enforcement of safety regulations, it puts pressure on other governments to meet the standards of the leading consumer-nation.
A pact to improve fire and building safety, formed recently by the International Labor Organization, IndustriALL Global Union and other trade unions, is a start. The Qatari news agency Aljazeera reports “four of the world’s largest retailers” have signed the pact, promising to repair buildings and “monitor suppliers.” However, the pact applies more to companies from countries where consumers have little influence on the market and where the government has weak influence over the people. That is, it wouldn’t affect me if I couldn’t buy clothes from Denmark. While all American companies should comply with this international agreement, the United States should create its own agency that deals with the issue. Doing so would protect our government from having to act based on the decisions of other nations.
Last November, the world faced a factory disaster killing 112. Five months later, another one in the same city killed 10 times as many: 1,127. What happens within the United States affects what happens in every other country. As an influential nation, the United States must be the first to create strict safety standards on imported products. This would reward compliant companies and punish ones with unsafe conditions. After all, this is something we can control. Workplace injustice in developing nations is no secret. We don’t need an 11,270-person disaster to occur. We got the message.
Alex Walczak is a student at UC Berkeley.