Jump to content


Photo

Lewis Hamilton's Reebok Deal


  • Please log in to reply
217 replies to this topic

#151 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:37

Originally posted by primer


They don't. They sermonize about evil evil sweatshops.


Sermonise? In the UK Tesco ran a huge promotion about jeans for £1 - on the minimum wage that equates to about 12 minutes work for a pair of trousers. Meanwhile, the sweatshop workers were paid about 25% of a living wage. No one should be happy with that situation.

Advertisement

#152 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:43

Originally posted by F1Johnny


What about the Fair Labour Association? Did they set that up too?


:rotfl:

Funnily enough, yes. Reebok is owned by Adidas which together with Nike are licensees of FLA, (meaning they provide the cash).

At the end of the day, such organisations are set up in order to make the people who pay for them look better than they actually are.

#153 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:44

Originally posted by Josta
OK, lets look at the "fair factories clearinghouse". It is an organisation set up by.......... you guessed it, Reebok.


Well let's look at Reebok.

According to the Boston Globe and others in Jan 2005 Reebok developed a software program that helps track working conditions in sweatshops. They (Reebok) are sharing this software with other companies to help reduce the problems that occur in sweatshops and the like. I'd say that Reebok are definitely working in a positive direction when it comes to this matter.



From the Boston Globe article;

So this week, at the National Retail Federation's annual conference in New York, Burrows will talk about a new organization called the Fair Factories Clearinghouse. It will help develop and distribute a piece of software that was originally built by Burrows' technology group at Canton-based Reebok to track the working conditions at factories where Reebok's shoes and apparel are made.

The software, known inside Reebok as the Human Rights Tracking System, was something that other manufacturers had often asked Burrows whether they could buy. It has helped Reebok collect information about conditions at its factories around the world, from the number of fire escapes to the air quality to the wages to whether they're using child labor.

link:

http://www.boston.co...overseas_abuse/

#154 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:51

Originally posted by Josta


Do you realise that sweatshops employ very small children? Do you not find that disgusting?

As to sweatshop workers, please tell me how sweatshops could continue to work if the corporations didn't give them any money? If Nike, Reebok et al simply used non sweatshops in the country, then the sweatshops would be producing nothing, whilst those that stopped being sweatshops, would be producing all of the product.

Please tell me how sweatshops could operate if the western corporations used non sweatshop resources in the country?


:up:

Sweatshops employ child labour and ultimately even the bosses make little money - the disgrace is in Western companies adding huge multiples of the cost of manufacture - or in the case of Tesco that I mentioned earlier, in screwing third world workers out of a living wage in order to provide absurdly cheap - headline grabbing - goods to the developed world. What's needed is a "fair trade" style organisation for clothing (and perhaps one already exists).

EDIT: reading this thread I see that there is a "Fair Labour" organisation, albeit set up be Reebok which isn't very promising.

#155 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:55

Originally posted by fastlegs


Well let's look at Reebok.

According to the Boston Globe and others in Jan 2005 Reebok developed a software program that helps track working conditions in sweatshops. They (Reebok) are sharing this software with other companies to help reduce the problems that occur in sweatshops and the like. I'd say that Reebok are definitely working in a positive direction when it comes to this matter.



From the Boston Globe article;

So this week, at the National Retail Federation's annual conference in New York, Burrows will talk about a new organization called the Fair Factories Clearinghouse. It will help develop and distribute a piece of software that was originally built by Burrows' technology group at Canton-based Reebok to track the working conditions at factories where Reebok's shoes and apparel are made.

The software, known inside Reebok as the Human Rights Tracking System, was something that other manufacturers had often asked Burrows whether they could buy. It has helped Reebok collect information about conditions at its factories around the world, from the number of fire escapes to the air quality to the wages to whether they're using child labor.

link:

http://www.boston.co...overseas_abuse/


Fantastic. They have software that monitors sweatshops. Does it influence their actual decisions? err no.

Once again, Nike and Adidas, (which owns Reebok), have gone to the effort of setting up charities that are anti sweatshop, yet employ sweatshops. Either the management of the companies are schitzo, or it is just part of an elaborate plan to make them look better. Hmmm, what could it be?

#156 Impellam

Impellam
  • Member

  • 227 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:56

Not the best thread for a first post, but here goes.

Going back to the original theme of this topic, I can't see any problem with Hamilton earning as much money as quickly as possible - all sportspersons have a relatively short period to maximise their earnings. What surprises me is that apparently there are some here who would turn down the chance of being paid £10M for 30 days work promoting trainers. Alegedly. If he was being sponsored by the Burmese Government then yes, but a clothing brand??

Also, like him or loathe him (and I have no particular view either way), if you're of the latter persuasion you need to get used to the fact that, barring accident or illness, he's probably going to be around for another decade. The insinuation that he's having a bad year (only won 25% of the races) or that some of his recent ill-advised and bombastic comments make him less marketable doesn't stand up. For example, David Beckham was once the most reviled sportsman in the England after his petulance got him sent off in a World Cup game that England subsequently lost, he's married to a vacuous publicity whore, no longer plays at the highest level week in, week out yet still earns tens of millions in endorsements. Or, as it's Reebok, take Thierry Henri - nobody cares that he walked out on his wife and kid for a new bit of fluff, or quit the club he'd publicly professed to be a part of his life shortly after signing a new contract when someone offered him even more money elsewhere, they just recognise the name as being one of the best in his high profile profession.

The average buyer of trainers doesn't give a toss whether hamilton has had a good couple of races or not and don't know/don't care if he's making a bit of a pillock of himself with the specialist press (and indeed recently the mainstream). What their target audience cares about is that he's young, has a cool sexy job and is regularly in the papers and celeb mags because he's shagging a pop singer or model and hanging out with P Diddy.

As for the morality thing, that doesn't really hold water either imho, as if you applied the same logic to every company involved in F1, you'd have a pretty empty grid. I mean, Ferrari is sponsored by Philip Morris, who have one of the worst corporate governance records of any major corporation over the last few decades, whose highlights include selling childrens Marlboro T-Shirts in Kenya, employing teenage girls to hand out free packs of fags at restaurants and concerts popular with teenagers in Japan and cravenly breaking advertising law in eastern bloc countries, most particularly Russia and hungary. And for balance, ExxonMobil has consistently failed in it's operational duty of care to employers, customers and the environment during the same period.

At the end of the day, if you actively dislike hamilton then nothings going to change it. I'm sure if he gave a couple of million pounds to charity there'd be people who would be saying that he's a sham and only doing it for the publicity or tax reasons 9actually i think some levelled that at MS after his Tsunami donation, proving the old adage that there's nothing new in this world). I'm not a Hamilton apologist and do also cringe at some of his recently quoted remarks but hey, not so long ago people were saying how boring driver's remarks were, how they just followed the corporate script and never said anything worth commenting on. Guess what, along comes someone who actually says something and he gets slated for it, although sometimes granted such criticism is deserved (that mark Hughes article in the link provided was spot on btw).

#157 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 02 July 2008 - 22:59

Originally posted by Impellam
Not the best thread........ that mark Hughes article in the link provided was spot on btw).


A mighty first effort Impellam. :up:

#158 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:03

Originally posted by Josta


Fantastic. They have software that monitors sweatshops. Does it influence their actual decisions? err no.

Once again, Nike and Adidas, (which owns Reebok), have gone to the effort of setting up charities that are anti sweatshop, yet employ sweatshops. Either the management of the companies are schitzo, or it is just part of an elaborate plan to make them look better. Hmmm, what could it be?


Excuse me but I thought this debate was to be based on facts not innuendo. :rolleyes:

#159 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:09

Originally posted by Impellam
Not the best thread for a first post, but here goes.

Going back to the original theme of this topic, I can't see any problem with Hamilton earning as much money as quickly as possible - all sportspersons have a relatively short period to maximise their earnings. What surprises me is that apparently there are some here who would turn down the chance of being paid £10M for 30 days work promoting trainers. Alegedly. If he was being sponsored by the Burmese Government then yes, but a clothing brand??

Also, like him or loathe him (and I have no particular view either way), if you're of the latter persuasion you need to get used to the fact that, barring accident or illness, he's probably going to be around for another decade. The insinuation that he's having a bad year (only won 25% of the races) or that some of his recent ill-advised and bombastic comments make him less marketable doesn't stand up. For example, David Beckham was once the most reviled sportsman in the England after his petulance got him sent off in a World Cup game that England subsequently lost, he's married to a vacuous publicity whore, no longer plays at the highest level week in, week out yet still earns tens of millions in endorsements. Or, as it's Reebok, take Thierry Henri - nobody cares that he walked out on his wife and kid for a new bit of fluff, or quit the club he'd publicly professed to be a part of his life shortly after signing a new contract when someone offered him even more money elsewhere, they just recognise the name as being one of the best in his high profile profession.

The average buyer of trainers doesn't give a toss whether hamilton has had a good couple of races or not and don't know/don't care if he's making a bit of a pillock of himself with the specialist press (and indeed recently the mainstream). What their target audience cares about is that he's young, has a cool sexy job and is regularly in the papers and celeb mags because he's shagging a pop singer or model and hanging out with P Diddy.

As for the morality thing, that doesn't really hold water either imho, as if you applied the same logic to every company involved in F1, you'd have a pretty empty grid. I mean, Ferrari is sponsored by Philip Morris, who have one of the worst corporate governance records of any major corporation over the last few decades, whose highlights include selling childrens Marlboro T-Shirts in Kenya, employing teenage girls to hand out free packs of fags at restaurants and concerts popular with teenagers in Japan and cravenly breaking advertising law in eastern bloc countries, most particularly Russia and hungary. And for balance, ExxonMobil has consistently failed in it's operational duty of care to employers, customers and the environment during the same period.

At the end of the day, if you actively dislike hamilton then nothings going to change it. I'm sure if he gave a couple of million pounds to charity there'd be people who would be saying that he's a sham and only doing it for the publicity or tax reasons 9actually i think some levelled that at MS after his Tsunami donation, proving the old adage that there's nothing new in this world). I'm not a Hamilton apologist and do also cringe at some of his recently quoted remarks but hey, not so long ago people were saying how boring driver's remarks were, how they just followed the corporate script and never said anything worth commenting on. Guess what, along comes someone who actually says something and he gets slated for it, although sometimes granted such criticism is deserved (that mark Hughes article in the link provided was spot on btw).


I disagree. There is one thing being associated with a company selling cancer sticks to the people willing and able to go along, and another in exploitation of children. If you really believe that advertising tobacco is the same as forcing an 8 year old to work 10+ hours per day, then you are mad.

So, sorry if I view Lewis' acceptance of child labour as more important than his hanging out with P Diddy, but some people have different priorities to you.

Advertisement

#160 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:09

Nike released a line of sneakers some years back which you ordered off the internet with a high degree of personalisation. You could specify your colours and have your name stitched down the side. So the legend goes, some character ordered his with the word S-W-E-A-T-S-H-O-P down the side. The shoes were accepted as an order but then rejected at the dispatch stage.

#161 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:12

Originally posted by fastlegs


Excuse me but I thought this debate was to be based on facts not innuendo. :rolleyes:


So now you are saying that an article about a software product = Reebok not using sweatshops?

Reebok have never denied using sweatshops, they have however set up anti sweatshop organisations. You can draw your own conclusion.

#162 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:24

Originally posted by Josta
So now you are saying that an article about a software product = Reebok not using sweatshops?


I'm saying that Reebok are not the Evil empire that you're trying to make them out to be.

Are they perfect? No their not, however, they are at least making a positive attempt to clean up the problems that have been associated with sweatshops in the past and I feel that they should be recognized for doing so.

#163 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:29

Originally posted by Impellam
Not the best thread for a first post, but here goes.
...


Excellent post, welcome to the board. And Josta, Philip Morris not the same a exploiting children? They've campaigned in Africa for decades to establish themselves with young and old alike. It's a lost cause to portray an enthusiastic purveyor of cancer as a lesser evil vs. a footwear manufacturer.

#164 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:29

Originally posted by Josta


I disagree. There is one thing being associated with a company selling cancer sticks to the people willing and able to go along, and another in exploitation of children. If you really believe that advertising tobacco is the same as forcing an 8 year old to work 10+ hours per day, then you are mad.

So, sorry if I view Lewis' acceptance of child labour as more important than his hanging out with P Diddy, but some people have different priorities to you.


You don't think that cigeratte and petrol companys are involved in exploiting the 3rd world?

And you really think by being advertising model for Reebok equates to him as accepting of child labour?

Does that mean you also think that Kimi is in favour of people of dying of cancer and of the devastation of the environment of Alaska?

#165 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:34

Originally posted by Orin


Excellent post, welcome to the board. And Josta, Philip Morris not the same a exploiting children? They've campaigned in Africa for decades to establish themselves with young and old alike. It's a lost cause to portray an enthusiastic purveyor of cancer as a lesser evil vs. a footwear manufacturer.


Not at all. People smoke because they want to smoke. People work in sweatshops because they are forced to do so. I would much rather see a 10 year old smoking a fag than being forced to work for 10+ hours a day in a sweatshop.

#166 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:38

Originally posted by Anomnader
And you really think by being advertising model for Reebok equates to him as accepting of child labour?


Josta and others like him adhere to the socialist leftist doctrine that anything regarding a corporation is evil and bad.

#167 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:41

Originally posted by Josta


Not at all. People smoke because they want to smoke. People work in sweatshops because they are forced to do so. I would much rather see a 10 year old smoking a fag than being forced to work for 10+ hours a day in a sweatshop.


:rotfl:

Do you honestly believe that?

Why do you think Cig firms choose sports such as F1 to advertise? its all about associate with an image and was also an attempt to hook people into smoking, especially young and naive children

As for people smoking because they want to, I assure you many people would stop if they were able to, but cigs have a certain addictive quality

#168 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:43

Originally posted by fastlegs


Josta and others like him adhere to the socialist leftist doctrine that anything regarding a corporation is evil and bad.


Josta the guy working for a Swiss Investment bank who previously worked for the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, as well as 5 other different investment banks. Obviously, an absolute socialist. :lol:

Now, take the actual points that I make and try to dispute them. One by one, please try. I would bet that you can't dispute a single fact that I put forward.

#169 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:47

Originally posted by Anomnader


:rotfl:

Do you honestly believe that?

Why do you think Cig firms choose sports such as F1 to advertise? its all about associate with an image and was also an attempt to hook people into smoking, especially young and naive children

As for people smoking because they want to, I assure you many people would stop if they were able to, but cigs have a certain addictive quality


Indeed they do have an addictive element. The thing is though, is that if you had a choice, would you rather see your 8 year old girl puffing on a fag or being forced into child labour for 10+ hours per day, with no rights whatsoever and if she puts a foot out of line, she would be beaten to within an inch of her life?

#170 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:52

Originally posted by Josta


would you rather see your 8 year old girl puffing on a fag or being forced into child labour for 10+ hours per day, with no rights whatsoever and if she puts a foot out of line, she would be beaten to within an inch of her life?


Havn't you got it all wrong?

If she is my 8 year daughter then IT IS ME FORCING HER TO WORK, so I'm going to care either way.

I just don't understand why you're not crusading against the other dubious advertisers in the sporting world.


To be honest I think you should stop watching F1, see here

http://www.eclt.org/about/tobacco.html
http://www.eclt.org/about/index.html

#171 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 July 2008 - 23:57

Originally posted by Anomnader


Havn't you got it all wrong?

If she is my 8 year daughter then IT IS ME FORCING HER TO WORK, so I'm going to care either way.

I just don't understand why you're not crusading against the other dubious advertisers in the sporting world.


To be honest I think you should stop watching F1, see here

http://www.eclt.org/about/tobacco.html
http://www.eclt.org/about/index.html


It is not about me campaigning against the other dubious advertisers. It is about you actively supporting child labour. I am suggesting that people who exploit children are bad. You are suggesting that I am wrong.

Who is right?

#172 Anomnader

Anomnader
  • Member

  • 8,616 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 03 July 2008 - 00:01

Originally posted by Josta


It is not about me campaigning against the other dubious advertisers. It is about you actively supporting child labour. I am suggesting that people who exploit children are bad. You are suggesting that I am wrong.

Who is right?


I actively support child labour because I don't care about Reebok and Lewis?

Going by that isn't every person on this board ">Including You<" supporting child labour by watching a sport that has and still is highly supported by the tobacco industry who also use child labour.

#173 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 00:11

Originally posted by Josta


Josta the guy working for a Swiss Investment bank who previously worked for the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, as well as 5 other different investment banks. Obviously, an absolute socialist. :lol:

Now, take the actual points that I make and try to dispute them. One by one, please try. I would bet that you can't dispute a single fact that I put forward.



I'm still waiting for you to display direct evidence regarding Reebok operating a sweatshop after 2005.

Just the facts please, no innuendo.

#174 F1Johnny

F1Johnny
  • Member

  • 5,556 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 03 July 2008 - 00:36

Originally posted by Josta


:rotfl:

Funnily enough, yes. Reebok is owned by Adidas which together with Nike are licensees of FLA, (meaning they provide the cash).

At the end of the day, such organisations are set up in order to make the people who pay for them look better than they actually are.


Do you know what a licensee is? Financial institutions for example pay license fees to a regulatory agency. They do not set up the agency, but they must conform to the rules of the agency. Do some research on regulatory bodies in general.

Maybe you are telling me to take your word on it that this agency has no teeth and therefore these companies are free to exploit. No thanks, I will go with an organisation that is 11 years old rather than an F1 poster that has been here for 8 months.

I am sure there have been breaches, as there will be in any big business, but to liken it to prostituting 12 year olds and Nazi war camps is ridiculous.

#175 F1Johnny

F1Johnny
  • Member

  • 5,556 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 03 July 2008 - 00:44

Originally posted by Orin
EDIT: reading this thread I see that there is a "Fair Labour" organisation, albeit set up be Reebok which isn't very promising.


Reebok did not set up the Fair Labour Association.

http://www.fairlabor.org/

#176 primer

primer
  • Member

  • 6,664 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 03 July 2008 - 07:40

Originally posted by Orin
Sermonise? In the UK Tesco ran a huge promotion about jeans for £1 - on the minimum wage that equates to about 12 minutes work for a pair of trousers. Meanwhile, the sweatshop workers were paid about 25% of a living wage. No one should be happy with that situation.

Originally posted by primer
Easy judgement for most human beings to make, except perhaps delusional retards who have never been in hardship, go through school and university living off daddy/mommies money, and think poverty can be made "history" by attending some music concerts.


You have been rather cooperative in this matter, and for that courtesy I must thank you.Posted Image

#177 halr

halr
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 03 July 2008 - 08:14

Originally posted by Josta


I disagree. There is one thing being associated with a company selling cancer sticks to the people willing and able to go along, and another in exploitation of children. If you really believe that advertising tobacco is the same as forcing an 8 year old to work 10+ hours per day, then you are mad -
So, sorry if I view Lewis' acceptance of child labour as more important than his hanging out with P Diddy, but some people have different priorities to you.


How exactly is selling 'cancer sticks' to you African children and encouraging children with no education to smoke more ethical than giving jobs to people who would otherwise have nothing

All this crap about exploitation is coming from people, the majority of which are likely own a pair of reebok or Nike trainers!

The fact is these people in developing countries have a CHOICE with regards to working in these factories, often these people would have no other form of employment. - Yes in comparison with the western world they get paid peanuts but their cost of living is so much lower. The fact is these multinational companies are creating employment where before there were no jobs - often a job in these factories is extremely sought after.

Many may disagree, but I believe these 'sweatshops' are part of the cycle of industrialisation that many countries have gone though including the UK albeit over 100 years ago during the Victorian age.
As these countries develop due to increased job levels and increased wealth among citizens (higher GDP) wage levels rise and these multinationals move to a less developed country - look at China 20/30 years ago there were sweatshops everywhere, now these countries have moved to less developed nations where they can pay less - its likely many of these firms will move to Africa next as the Asian countires are developing and increasing GDP

Some people really should look into this subject a bit more rather than jump on their high horse of morality, particularly those who tailor their views to the team/driver they favour!!

#178 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 08:36

Originally posted by giacomo
Hamilton is clearly displaying hints of delusion and megalomania in his interview statements. That's what happens to an immature person who is surrounded only with people who are kissing the ground he walks on.

So does that make him someone who should be vilified or pitied?

#179 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 July 2008 - 08:58

Originally posted by halr


How exactly is selling 'cancer sticks' to you African children and encouraging children with no education to smoke more ethical than giving jobs to people who would otherwise have nothing

All this crap about exploitation is coming from people, the majority of which are likely own a pair of reebok or Nike trainers!

The fact is these people in developing countries have a CHOICE with regards to working in these factories, often these people would have no other form of employment. - Yes in comparison with the western world they get paid peanuts but their cost of living is so much lower. The fact is these multinational companies are creating employment where before there were no jobs - often a job in these factories is extremely sought after.

Many may disagree, but I believe these 'sweatshops' are part of the cycle of industrialisation that many countries have gone though including the UK albeit over 100 years ago during the Victorian age.
As these countries develop due to increased job levels and increased wealth among citizens (higher GDP) wage levels rise and these multinationals move to a less developed country - look at China 20/30 years ago there were sweatshops everywhere, now these countries have moved to less developed nations where they can pay less - its likely many of these firms will move to Africa next as the Asian countires are developing and increasing GDP

Some people really should look into this subject a bit more rather than jump on their high horse of morality, particularly those who tailor their views to the team/driver they favour!!


What absolute tosh. These people would have jobs if the multinationals didn't use sweatshops. Why? Because the likes of Nike, Reebok etc still need to make shoes. If they impose strict conditions on the suppliers then the people still get their jobs, they just don't get exploited. I suggest you look a little closer into what being a sweatshop actually entails. Children, very small children are forced, yes forced to work rediculous hours in dangerous conditions for a pittance.

The exploitation comes about from the multinationals for 1 reason, and that is to get an extra couple of quid per pair of shoes. They don't give a shit about the children who are forced to work, and it is because of this that it happens. Bottom line, shoes need to be made and it is up to the companies involved to ensure exploitation doesn't happen. Everyone gets their jobs, shoes gets made, people don't get exploited, everyone is happy. Except of course, Reebok make 2 dollars less profit on a pair of 100 dollar shoes that cost 3 dollars to manufacture. Oh the pain.

Advertisement

#180 Torch

Torch
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:07

Originally posted by fastlegs



I'm still waiting for you to display direct evidence regarding Reebok operating a sweatshop after 2005.

Just the facts please, no innuendo.


Bump ;)

#181 halr

halr
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:10

Originally posted by Josta


What absolute tosh. These people would have jobs if the multinationals didn't use sweatshops. Why? Because the likes of Nike, Reebok etc still need to make shoes. If they impose strict conditions on the suppliers then the people still get their jobs, they just don't get exploited. I suggest you look a little closer into what being a sweatshop actually entails. Children, very small children are forced, yes forced to work rediculous hours in dangerous conditions for a pittance.

The exploitation comes about from the multinationals for 1 reason, and that is to get an extra couple of quid per pair of shoes. They don't give a shit about the children who are forced to work, and it is because of this that it happens. Bottom line, shoes need to be made and it is up to the companies involved to ensure exploitation doesn't happen. Everyone gets their jobs, shoes gets made, people don't get exploited, everyone is happy. Except of course, Reebok make 2 dollars less profit on a pair of 100 dollar shoes that cost 3 dollars to manufacture. Oh the pain.


I have looked into this thanks - I wrote my university dissertation on the subject and although I wrote a balanced view, from the information I gathered I have formed the opinion that investment in these countries is not as bad as many uninformed people tend to infer.

To correct you many people are NOT forced to work, the demand for these jobs is huge. If they would have jobs elsewhere why dont they work elsewhere if its so bad???? The fact is there is no alternative for the majority.

I agree conditions are poor and these companies could do more but the fact is the jobs they provide are better than any current alternative for many people who work there.

#182 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:12

Originally posted by primer



You have been rather cooperative in this matter, and for that courtesy I must thank you.Posted Image


All that proves is that you're a complacent ****. :confused:

#183 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:18

Originally posted by halr

The fact is these people in developing countries have a CHOICE with regards to working in these factories, often these people would have no other form of employment. - Yes in comparison with the western world they get paid peanuts but their cost of living is so much lower. The fact is these multinational companies are creating employment where before there were no jobs - often a job in these factories is extremely sought after.


The point is that these workers aren't paid a living wage. If you're on only 25% of a living wage then all of the family needs to work, children included. Meanwhile the products you make are sold as prestige items in the West. Given the prices they charge surely these companies should be paying at least 100% of a living wage? With wages so low in these countries we're talking about very small inroads into the profit margin.

#184 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:24

Originally posted by halr


I have looked into this thanks - I wrote my university dissertation on the subject and although I wrote a balanced view, from the information I gathered I have formed the opinion that investment in these countries is not as bad as many uninformed people tend to infer.

To correct you many people are NOT forced to work, the demand for these jobs is huge. If they would have jobs elsewhere why dont they work elsewhere if its so bad???? The fact is there is no alternative for the majority.

I agree conditions are poor and these companies could do more but the fact is the jobs they provide are better than any current alternative for many people who work there.


Well I take it you failed your degree then. The children are forced to work because the pay is too low for a family to survive with just the parents pay. As for "why don't they work somewhere else", this simply shows that you have absolutely no idea about the problem. If the multinationals imposed strict work practice agreements on their suppliers, they wouldn't need to work elsewhere. Like I said, shoes need to be made, bottom line. The responsibility for placing these people in this situation come from the likes of Reebok. Instead of doing something about it though, they simply ignore it for the same of the bottom line, (and set up anti sweatshop organisations to make it look like they are doing something about it).

You seem to be suggesting that the alternative to sweatshops is no shops. This is ignoring the fact that SHOES HAVE TO BE MADE. To defend the likes of Reebok in doing this for the sake of a couple of dollars on a 100 dollar pair of shoes is quite simply outragous.

#185 halr

halr
  • Member

  • 36 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:37

Originally posted by Josta


Well I take it you failed your degree then. The children are forced to work because the pay is too low for a family to survive with just the parents pay. As for "why don't they work somewhere else", this simply shows that you have absolutely no idea about the problem. If the multinationals imposed strict work practice agreements on their suppliers, they wouldn't need to work elsewhere. Like I said, shoes need to be made, bottom line. The responsibility for placing these people in this situation come from the likes of Reebok. Instead of doing something about it though, they simply ignore it for the same of the bottom line, (and set up anti sweatshop organisations to make it look like they are doing something about it).

You seem to be suggesting that the alternative to sweatshops is no shops. This is ignoring the fact that SHOES HAVE TO BE MADE. To defend the likes of Reebok in doing this for the sake of a couple of dollars on a 100 dollar pair of shoes is quite simply outragous.



I agree with your point about the work practice agreements - they are there to appear as though they are doing something about it.
the point Im trying to make and you are clearly not getting is before these sweatshops appeared the majoirty of people either had no jobs or worked the very little land they had for no profit/wage.
multinationals have created jobs in these areas - and yes shoes still need to be made and would probably be made elsewhere if they had to pay more but the simple point is jobs have been created.

Making a stupid comment like ' you must have failed your degree then' shows how ignorant you really are - you clearly didnt bother to read my full opinion or you would have read that I wrote a balanced arguement - Im not trying to pretend that sweatshops cannot be improved Im simply saying by instantly condemning them as terrible is not right and history shows as nations develops standards improve

#186 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,803 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 09:48

Originally posted by Buttoneer
So does that make him someone who should be vilified or pitied?


Only to about the same extent he should be praised or worshipped.;)

His personal karma account is only getting balanced currently - the hype of last year vs. the bashing during the last weeks, both exaggerated and not completely justified.

#187 Torch

Torch
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 03 July 2008 - 10:02

Originally posted by Orin


If you're on only 25% of a living wage then all of the family needs to work, children included.


Does anyone actually have any evidence of Reebok using sweatshops, using child labour and only paying 25% of a living wage?

Cheers

:)

#188 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 10:20

Originally posted by Torch


Does anyone actually have any evidence of Reebok using sweatshops, using child labour and only paying 25% of a living wage?

Cheers

:)


Probably not any longer http://www.fairlabor.org/conduct (thanks F1Johnny)... which makes the (anyway hypocritical) criticism of Hamilton endorsing that particular company even more spurious, unless there is evidence that the FLA is toothless?

...On which note, Tesco extensively uses the manufacturing capacity of developing countries and has a code of practice to guard against exploitation. However ISTR some charity organisation had filmed / interviewed workers covertly and found the working hours were appalling and the pay terrible. Basically, as long as the company made the right noises it wasn't concerned about the reality. Hopefully the FLA is rather more rigorous.

#189 SlateGray

SlateGray
  • Member

  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:09

Originally posted by Orin

extensively uses the manufacturing capacity of developing countries


Nice PC speak for using sweat shops.
Sad that the hamster feels the need to take money from the sweat of forced child labour. It is also sad that fanboy loyalty blinds some to the relaities of the world. They can't help but gobble up the corprate BS.

#190 Kooper

Kooper
  • Member

  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:17

Not to be outdone (and in recognizing his superior car control), Anthony Hamilton has picked up a nice endorsement himself - :lol:


Posted Image

#191 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:20

Originally posted by F1Johnny


Reebok did not set up the Fair Labour Association.

http://www.fairlabor.org/


No but they are part of it. Through their holding company Addidas:
http://www.fairlabor...pants/companies

=====

Companies, Suppliers and Licensees
In joining the FLA, affiliated companies make a commitment to develop a rigorous labor compliance program that includes implementing the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct and conducting monitoring to ensure that any violations are identified and corrected. Affiliated companies' efforts in this regard must meet FLA standards for public disclosure and long term improvement.

Companies affiliate with the FLA in categories based on their revenue and business model as well as on their licensing relationship with FLA-affiliated universities for manufacturing of collegiate logoed products.

Participating Companies make a sustained corporate commitment to fulfill the ten company obligations required by the FLA, including submitting to unannounced independent external monitoring audits, and enforce the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct in their supplier facilities.

Participating Suppliers are factories taking a leadership position by directly committing to implement the same standards as Participating Companies. To see a list of Participating Suppliers, click here.

Some Participating Companies and all category B, C, and D licensees have licensing relationships with FLA-affiliated colleges and universities for manufacturing of logoed products. (Participating Companies that are also licensees are indicated by an asterisk * below; accredited companies are indicated in bold.) FLA-affiliated licensees must commit to implementing the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct in the factories that supply their collegiate products.

To see the specific requirements for university licensees and visit the Licensee Help Center, click here.

To see a list of Category B Licensees, click here.

To see a list of Category C Licensees, click here.

To see a list of Category D Licensees, click here.

To see FLA Participating Suppliers, click here.

Paticipating Companies

adidas AG*
All adidas AG footwear, apparel and equipment. adidas acquired Reebok International, Ltd., an FLA accredited company for both apparel and footwear, in 2006.

====

#192 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:23

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kooper
Not to be outdone (and in recognizing his superior car control), Anthony Hamilton has picked up a nice endorsement himself - :lol:

And? After all years of having 2 jobs to give Lewis his karting time, what's wrong with this picture?

Some people are really jealous it seems.

#193 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:26

Originally posted by SlateGray


Nice PC speak for using sweat shops.
Sad that the hamster feels the need to take money from the sweat of forced child labour. It is also sad that fanboy loyalty blinds some to the relaities of the world.


:rotfl:

Sadly you're probably immune to irony.

#194 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:27

where is the evidence that reebok employs child labor? Did I miss something?

#195 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:33

Lets have an evidence-based discussion (I'd say Reebok is the best pick to NOT associate oneself with childlabor)... endorsed by UNICEF, what better endorsement could one ask for:


>> from UNICEF child labor resource guide: http://www.unicef.or...appendix6_C.pdf

During the 1990s, many different businesses based in the UK and elsewhere adopted codes which either referred to labour standards in general or incorporated a specific prohibition on child labour. This
section cites the examples of four companies which adopted codes excluding the use of under age child workers by their suppliers and which also took other action regarding child labour.

The companies:
-Reebok International Ltd
-Levi Strauss
-Pentland Group plc
-IKEA

Reebok International Ltd
The company adopted the “Reebok Human Rights Production Standards” in 1992.1 The standards cover nine areas, including child labour. The specific requirement on child labour states:
No Child Labor “Reebok will not work with business partners that use child labor. The term “child” refers to a person who is younger than 15, or younger than the age for completing compulsory education in the country of manufacture, whichever is higher.”

Auditing and monitoring
Initially, monitoring was carried out entirely by two Reebok staff members. In the mid-1990s, the company started independent audits of its human rights standards. Meeting human rights standards The procedures for meeting Reebok’s human rights standards are contained in A Guide to the implementation of the Reebok Human Rights Production Standards.

This specifies that all Reebok suppliers must keep personnel files which include evidence of the age of each
worker younger than 18. The Guide also requires employers to comply with any legal restrictions
applying to young workers below 18, and to have systems in place to identify any places or operations which are inappropriate for young workers. Employers are also required to ensure that all workers
engaged in operating, or working close to, hazardous equipment, working at dangerous heights or lifting heavy loads, or are exposed to hazardous substances, are above the legal age for such work.
In order to ensure that younger children are not working, Reebok stipulates that, “children will not have access to production areas”, bans children from visiting their parents in factory production areas, and
excludes children from the workplace “unless they are part of a guided school group tour or other such unusual event.” Reebok’s high profile on human rights issues means that the company has taken special care to avoid being criticised for allowing violations of 113The United Kingdom Committee for UNICEF labour rights to occur in its supply chain. In 1996 and 1997, this led to some criticisms of the company’s efforts to ensure that under age children were not involved in stitching Reebok footballs in Pakistan, notably when the company began printing labels on the footballs declaring: “Guarantee: manufactured without child labor”. The use of such labels was criticised by other sporting goods retailers. In order to deliver a cast-iron guarantee that children were not being exploited, Reebok established central stitching factories to replace the practice of stitching footballs in private homes.

While one result was to guarantee that under age children could be identified and kept out of the workplace, another was that few women worked in the stitching factories and it was reported that their income
and economic independence suffered.

#196 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:40

so what's next to discuss?

"Porsche (Anthony's endorsement) kills many innocent children on the streets"???

Come on bashers, don't let me down...

#197 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 20,703 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:43

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
so what's next to discuss?

"Porsche (Anthony's endorsement) kills many innocent children on the streets"???

Come on bashers, don't let me down...


relax - i suspect it was a tongue in cheek comment after he wrote off the Porsche.

#198 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:45

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


relax - i suspect it was a tongue in cheek comment after he wrote off the Porsche.


its getting very booring here... no more mudslinging bashing...

#199 Kooper

Kooper
  • Member

  • 2,189 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 July 2008 - 12:50

g&v, that pic is my admittedly weak PS skills. I was just funning on Anthony for the wreck a couple of weeks ago.

Advertisement

#200 SlateGray

SlateGray
  • Member

  • 6,128 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 03 July 2008 - 15:38

Originally posted by Kooper
g&v, that pic is my admittedly weak PS skills. I was just funning on Anthony for the wreck a couple of weeks ago.

You forget that hamster fans have no sense of humor mostly because they are in a deep state of denial, what with the truth leaking in from everywhere, they, like their hero, are getting all dark and paranoid.