To think that 62p an hour is NOT what feminism looks like...

[TheBogQueen]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2817191/62p-HOUR-s-women-sleeping-16-room-paid-make-Ed-Harriet-s-45-Feminist-Looks-Like-T-shirts.html

It's a daily mail so find your smelling salts.

But these t shirts are made by women sleeping 16 to a room paid 62 p an hour.

And then sold in Whistles.

This is (as we say at work) a WTF moment. It is possible to have a logo printed on Fair Trade T Shirts - we managed it fur our primary school polo shirts. You'd think that if the school PTA can manage this then the highly paid executives at Whistkes and the Fawcett society might manage that too.

Arthur, I think it's a bit odd to pick out Harriet's 'exploitative t-shirt'. Low pay and poor conditions are the norm in developing countries and it's very unlikely that any item of clothing you own from China, India, Bangladesh, Maritus etc will have been made by women being paid a living wage. So in that respect, most of the clothes we wear are exploitative.

That situation needs to change but nit-picking at charities.isnt the way to do that. It's clothing retailers like Whistles who have a responsibility to manage their supply chains so that workers get a fair deal including paying a decent price to suppliers.

Funny how female politicians come in for particular vilification. It's almost as if we live in a misogynist society or something.........

I give up. I purely said Harriet Harman because she wore it in the House of Commons and it was the photo that was ALL over the papers. Whereas David Cameron not wearing one although mentioned obviously was not all over the papers with pictures of him not wearing it. IYSWIM.

I think whistles and the Fawcett Society have messed up. That's all I'm saying. And the public, the daily mail readers, will whether I like it or not now associate these t shirts not with the feminist cause but with the exploitation of women in a factory overseas.

Have the MoS also had a go at Lorraine Candy, the editor of Elle who started this tedious campaign and who is the contributor of witless articles to the Daily Mail and the MoS, who last time I looked, weren't champions of women's rights?

I'm not defending the people who wore them without checking out their provenance, but I think the blame should be fairly distributed.

OK Arthur, I get your point - jumping on a bandwagon leaves you vulnerable. Although Harman has of course been championing women's issues for years as well as being a strong feminist role model. Let's face it, the Mail will vilify her for whatever she does.

I agree that the Fawcett society were naive. When you think about it, partnering with a clothing firm is pretty daft given the damage the fashion industry does to women generally as well as the specific women's rights issues connected to garment production.

But still, MoS remain the bad guys in this debate IMO.

i think the point about harriet harman is not that that's why you're picking her out arthur - it's almost certainly why the MOS is choosing to follow this up. she did IMO unwisely make an issue of the t-shirt thing in the house of commons. she can wear the t-shirt herself, no one's going to stop her doing that and nor should they (parliamentary rules aside), but no point using it as somethign to beat DC with - we KNOW he's not a feminist through his actions and if he wore one it would be hypocritical

Not engaging in whataboutery (as the fawcett/whistles case clearly needs to be investigated) but does anyone know under what conditions Help for Heroes wristbands are made? PM wore those happily whilst Ed didn't, and it appears not easy to find information how they're sourced.

The really sad part is that DC is going to have turned out to be right to have refused to wear it "despite being asked 5 times" according to today's Times, where as, Clegg and Milliband who apparently agreed straight away are going to be wrong.

Nick looks Ok is his, but poor old Ed really doesn't.

I was willing to give the Fawcett Society the benefit of the doubt, maybe, and accept that they'd made all the appropriate checks, until I read their weasel-worded statement. It's lovely that they were told that the supplier had 'world class policies for ethical compliance' (i.e. have some beautifully-worded blurb about how much they care) and a great environmental policy, but none of that tells anyone anything about their actual practice - specifically, there's zero indication of any assurance that the workers are getting paid properly. If Whistles had said 'and our suppliers pay average or above wages for the area' you can be sure Fawcett would have stuck that in their press release. But there's nothing there which means, in the best possible interpretation, that they didn't ask. As a (previously) long-term supporter of theirs, I think that's really shameful.

Father the letter mentioned both oekotex and another ethical accreditation (the auditing standards of which need to be looked at) - what is weasily about accepting third party audits?

The weasiliness (is that a word?) is in the fact that they seem, at least to me, to be trying to give the impression that they sought reassurances about how much workers were getting paid but there's nothing in the reported exchange with Whistles that indicates that. If they were really concerned about the wages and conditions of the people making the t-shirts, they would have asked specifically about this point since they can't really think that either policies or ethical audits from the manufacturer have any necessary relation to what actually happens. Oeko-tex relates to environmental standards in production, doesn't it, not to things like workers' wages.

I don't understand why they didn't get Fair Trade t shirts .

Completely agree. And have posted a comment on it in that ridiculous thread about "Feminist babywear " in the Feminist section.

The really sad part is that DC is going to have turned out to be right to have refused to wear it "despite being asked 5 times" according to today's Times, where as, Clegg and Milliband who apparently agreed straight away are going to be wrong

No the really sad parts are
(a) the unthinking assumption that just because Cameron is a Tory he must have been in the wrong for refusing to wear this ridiculous T-shirt.
(b) the unthinking assumption that there is something inherently worthwhile in slogan T-shirts
(c) no one having the wit to consider that garments like t- and shirts and jeans are more often than not likely to be of dubious provenance.

I liked the campaign in the beginning. It was refereshing to see men and women wear these t shirts, I thought it was a simple idea and clever because of that.

but the Whistles thing just seems...well...very Ab Fab.

That being said, almost all of our clothes are mass-manufactured by people in LEDCs on ridiculously low wages

Speak for yourself. I am very conscious of this and one of the reasons I don't wear jeans and t- shirts. It is perfectly possible to find out the provenance of clothes.

Frankie Boyle nailed it IMO.

From Twitter: "Trying to support feminism through clothing is like supporting the animal liberation movement by wearing a leash."

Ah. Maybe the really sad part is that I was daft enough to post on a feminist thread. I was lulled into a false sense of security by that fact that it was in nice fluffy AIBU.

BogQueen - Fairtrade tees usually just mean fairly traded cotton, so no guarantee of workers rights in their manufacture.

Oh i wondered about that Fuzzy - so it just relates to the raw materials rather than manufacture?

Has to be balanced with the cost of living too, I think, but they sure sound like tough working conditions that wouldn't be acceptable in a Western country. I don't know- are these women exploited or are we "first world" types spoilt? The lifestyle we enjoy is way above how two thirds of the world live.

It's terrible but the sad thing is these jobs are often looked upon as desirable compared to alternate jobs available (sex trade, dangerous jobs with rubbish etc). That's probably why the owner seemed proud.

I can't really add to anything that's been said about whether or not 62p per hour is a good wage in Mauritius. It does occur to me, though, that it's clearly only considered possible to look like a feminist if you're either willing or able to pay £45 for a cheap looking (some of the seams were puckered) t-shirt. And if you live somewhere that actually has a Whistles store.

I have no qualms about spending large sums of money on well made clothes. I'm currently buying a lot from Edina Ronay. One of the selling points is her dresses are made in the UK.

I'd never dream of spending £45 on a t-shirt.

It's a few years since I worked on these issues but 62p an hour sounds like a better wage than many garment workers earn and clearly take thaw women above the world bank defined poverty line of $2 per day, which many working in the garment industry don't make - particularly home workers. 62p an hour is more than these women would expect to make in a Bangldeshi factory, hence why they're willing to travel the thousands (?) of miles away from their families to work. However, their wages are obviously not on a parity with local earnings but hey, why else do you import migrant labour from poorer countries - because it's cheap! And 62p per hour is probably well below a 'living wage' which is what garment workers across Asia are currently fighting for. As for conditions - my guess that this factory which is owned by a big Asian multi-national, is probably quite modern and safer than some. But I wouldn't be surprised if workers are under pressure to meet high productivity targets, discouraging them from taking breaks. The hours sound long but again not as long as some - I've spoken to women in Bangladesh who would work well into the night and then have to sleep under their machines. So, on balance, it probably is one of the better factories but obviously better isn't good enough.