Garment ethics

Posted by Joe on: 06.30.2008 /

Confusing times in the battle for human rights and dignity in the garment industry.

Last week, A BBC report uncovered serious abuse in the supply chain of Primark, one of the UK’s biggest budget fashion brands. To cut a very long story short, it was found that children were producing Primark clothing in very poor conditions for very low pay.

Primark quickly responded that this was a problem with the supplier, who had been subcontracting work which was not allowed according to their contract. Primark cancelled further orders with the supplier.

Which you might think warranted at least half-a-cheer from the campaigners.

In fact, some of those working at the sharp end of the issue have condemned the move. Homeworkers Worldwide, one of very few organisations campaigning for the hidden mountain of people who survive on left-overs from factories, facing extremely low pay, bad conditions and other exploitation said:

Homeworkers are usually women who turn to homeworking through lack of alternatives. The income they earn, however small, is vital to their family. Instead of stopping their supply of work, companies like Primark should recognise the part homeworkers play in production and ensure that they, and all other workers, receive minimum pay and conditions.

I have limited personal experience of this, having mostly visited factories. However, I have been told by a women’s social worker in Palestine that there are a large number of women working at home to supply the factories at times when they have urgent orders. Much of the time they have nothing to do, but when there is an order, they work very long hours and receive a very low piece rate. When I visited one of these women, she told me that she needed the work to pay the bills, but that she had no control over the volume or any leverage to force higher pay.

Looking into this more, I have discovered that the exploitation of homeworkers is not just something that happens in other countries, but is a real issue in both the UK, where disenfranchised women from ethnic minorities are exploited and the USA where it often affects migrants.

As the textile industries in both our countries have collapsed, these hidden economic groups are ripe for exploitation.

In conclusion, I am not sure what the answer is. We have to be deeply ashamed of ourselves when we need to campaign cap-in-hand on behalf of the poorest people to the very corporations who are forcing down prices and causing the poverty wages in the first place. In the absence of any other work, boycotting brands might only lead to further hurting those we are trying to help.