|
Monday 4/10/2000
|
|
Protest doesn't serve valid purposeI really must applaud the students starving themselves to prove a point. In fact, I think it's an excellent idea. If they avoid eating for long enough, they eventually won't be around to put up such a fuss about things. Seriously, though, I'm sick of people whining about the sweatshops. I'll worry about people in another country when everyone here in Lafayette (then Indiana, then the U.S.) has a good job, a nice house and plenty of food. Lets think about this another way. What happens if the Worker Rights Consortium declares some company that makes Purdue apparel to be an evil company they use sweatshops, workers get paid 40 cents a day, etc? What happens? Purdue pulls its license. The company stops making Purdue apparel, thus losing its entire market and going out of business. All of a sudden, those workers went from 40 cents a day to nothing. Zip. Nada. Yes, its a worst case scenario maybe the company will start paying its people more and improving working conditions. But if it does that, maybe it wont be worth the cost of producing clothes overseas anymore, and instead, theyll build a high-tech factory here in the states that employs very few people, preferring to use low-cost machines oops, that doesnt help those workers much! Theres a third reason Im opposed to this group: their actions are pointless. Go do something useful, people instead of sitting out there to pressure President (Steven) Beering to act on an issue he's already considering, pick up a hammer and help out Habitat for Humanity or lend a hand at the Salvation Army or hunt some squirrels and donate the meat to a local food pantry - anything other than sitting around chanting. Lance McGrath Group's policies won't help PurdueWith all of the recent press concerning the Purdue Students Against Sweatshops, I decided to look into exactly what joining the Worker Rights Consortium means. First, Purdue would be required to pay one percent (up to $50,000) of its royalty fees to the Worker Rights Consortium for dues. Last time I checked, Purdue doesn't have a lot of extra money lying around. What is going to have to be cut so that some worker in Bangladesh can have what he "deserves"? Second, Purdue does not have the final say in what measures are taken for companies that violate its licenses. This control is abdicated to the Worker Rights Consortium. Lastly, in its own policy document, the Worker Rights Consortium admits that its enforcement measures are not that successful in curbing abuse of workers. All it says is that it hopes that with more participation, companies will finally get the message. Please, don't take my word for this though, check out the Worker Rights Consortium yourself at Matt Wallace |
Compromise provides victory for both sides
Protest doesn't serve valid purpose Group's policies won't help Purdue
|
||||
|
|
|||||