British politicians are happy to criticise domestic employment practices, but say nothing about the conditions of workers internationally.
Mitya Pearson is studying for a Masters in Politics & Contemporary History at King’s College London.
Chris Bryant’s claim – and then subsequent back-track – that Tesco and Next employed cheap immigrant workers over British staff showed the Labour Party’s willingness to criticise the employment procedures of major domestic companies. In the week before this Chuka Umunna expressed concern over news of a proliferation of ‘zero hours’ contracts among companies such as Sports Direct and McDonalds arguing that this is ‘not the way Britain should be competing in the 21st Century’.
Labour politicians are keen to involve themselves with companies’ employment policies if they treat British workers unfairly. This should be commended, but it is in complete contrast with the apparent apathy in mainstream politics towards the conditions of workers internationally.
While not wishing to trivialise or ignore domestic employment concerns, the working conditions and employment policies of some firms internationally are indisputably far graver. Research by the organisation War on Want shows that millions of garment workers in countries such as Bangladesh ‘are forced to work 14-16 hours a day, seven days a week’, in unsafe, cramped and hazardous conditions, where sexual harassment and discrimination is widespread and the formation of trade unions is blocked at every turn by management. Politicians and individuals alike are fully aware of this awful picture and of similar situations across so many developing countries. So why is this barely considered relevant to mainstream British politicians?
After all, there is no shortage of politicians wishing to show their support for the foreign aid budget. David Cameron has spoken of how ‘proud’ he is to provide foreign aid and Britain’s commitment to ‘not turn our back on people who are trusting us to help them’. Labour’s shadow international development minister Ivan Lewis has set out how ‘Ed Miliband and this new generation of Labour politicians are determined to build on their proud development legacy’. Arguably, there is a political consensus around our moral obligation to help those less well off in foreign countries. This manifests itself in support for an aid budget but stops short of seriously questioning international corporate practice.
In June, Alan Duncan, Minister of State for International Development, was moved to call on UK clothes retailers to ‘assume responsibility’ for factory conditions in Bangladesh and pledged £18m in funding for skills and safety training in the country. However, this only came in response to the Rana Plaza factory collapse in April of this year which left over 1,100 people dead and approximately 2,500 people injured. The collapse took place in a factory supplying clothes for outlets including Primark. It is remarkable that it takes a tragedy on this scale for British politicians to pay attention to the plight of workers overseas. It should always concern us that UK and Western multinationals are running a system which forces men, women and sometimes children into work in horrendous conditions for scandalously low pay.
I am not suggesting that any party should come out tomorrow and promise to eradicate sweatshop factories, or spend all their time denouncing them. Clearly this is a massive, complex, global issue. I am not demanding British politicians pretend they are able to completely eradicate it. However, the current approach of ignoring such widespread injustice is equally as misguided. It is undeniably odd to have a situation where everyone is aware of the horrible conditions people work in, feels a certain level of guilt about this, but balks at seriously pursuing international corporate responsibility. It is also inconsistent to do so while simultaneously either criticising domestic employment practice or extolling your pride in giving out foreign aid.
In Britain, as in other developed nations, we have a clear moral obligation to do what we can to help those in developing nations; this is accepted in mainstream politics. It should not, however, be seen to be satisfied purely by pledging aid and there should be a concern for working conditions and company practice both domestically and abroad.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
2 Responses to “Opinion: British politicians’ apathy towards sweatshops”
Jacko
Why doesn’t the government in Bangladesh do something then? They are aware of the situation. They have the same information we do. They could bring in laws tomorrow if they wanted. If they don’t want to help their own citizens then what can we do about it?
Mitya Pearson
Jacko, like I said I don’t expect any British politician to have all the answers to a global problem. However, if we have a moral duty to help those people in developing countries, as is acknowledged by politicians when they cite their reasons for having an aid budget, then surely this should extend to pursuing international corporate responsibility as well as providing handouts.
In terms of what we (by this I’m referring to British politicians) could do about it there are huge range range of things including naming and shaming UK or international companies associated with sweatshop factories, possibly leading to fines or legal proceedings brought against them, encouraging consumer boycotts or indeed further action form the Bangladeshi government, or simply bringing the issue further onto the political agenda. I’m sure finer minds than mine could come up with better suggestions than that but the point of this piece is that basically anything would be better than just ignoring the problem.
Ultimately though it comes down to whether you think nationality is a strong enough divide to preclude political concern for people facing injustice. I don’t think it is but you may do, in which case my argument just won’t speak to you.