Primark - how on earth do they do it?

[unavailable]

Yesterday, I bought in Primark for the first time.

I have been in a few of their shops, but felt to overwelmed by all the stuff and chaos to do any more then leave again swiftly.

Anyway, I saw this really nice wool dress (lined)for £12!! I was very pleased with it, but am now a bit guilty that it may have been made by 5 year olds in some slave labour sweat shop in the far east - otherwise how on earth could their stuff be so cheap?

Are Primark any worse than other companies? Can I shop there guilt free or should my first purchase be my last?

I have eclectic tastes. But surely so many people can't be wrong? All I hear is Primark this, Primark that. I don't think it helps that I always mix Primark up with Peacocks.

Somebody told me yesterday that Peacocks are being investigated too; not seen anything confirming this though.

The thing is (only raed first 50 posts so apologise if this has been covered) that if the child labour is shut down, they turn to prostitution and the like, because they still need the money. I know what I would prefer.

But surely if adult employees were being paid a fair wage and working in humane conditions the children wouldnt need to work.

Yes, but that is an issue of global politics. For examples why some Governments will spend billions on space research whilst their people starve. Or why developed countries are still insisting that debts are paid when it is preventing other countries from developing at all.

These things are not going to change because Westerners tutt and say 'this shouldn't be happening'. All taking away this type of labour does, is limit the everyday people of these countries even more, until they are forced to choose the 'greater of two evils' so to speak.

So what was "child labour in a sweat shop, prostitution, or starve", becomes "prostitution or starve".

A lot of the adults in these countries are either sick with HIV/AIDS or dead. Children are bringing up children.

It is a bit like someone with a nice clean house and money to pay for fine food and wine, looking in pity on people who are homeless and scavenging in bins. They think "those poor homeless people shouldn't be eating food that other people chuck out", so they put locks on those bins.

Putting a lock on the bins doesn't mean that those homeless people will suddenly have a better option. Their option will then change from "scavenge, steal or starve" to "steal or starve".

And in the UK, it is awful. But ask those assylum seekers how grateful they are when the sweatshop that provided £180 cash in hand per week was shut down? Do you think they will be at the jobcentre? No. They took that job because it was the only one they could have. So all it has done is stop them earning. Illegally, yes, but they will still find another way to get money, because they are poor. So where will they turn? Sex or drugs, because it is all that is left.

It's a bit like the film "The Terminal".

Sorry but I disagree with the last few posts. There is no need to close the factories, just get them to pay a living wage and have decent conditions. There are factories all over the world doing this, but Primark et al choose not use them because they can get the job done cheaper in places where such basic neccessities are ignored. Primark are a hugely profitable company, the are growing rapidly, which means an even greater demand for their clothes, which means an even great demand for unethical labour while while Primark profit. The only language these companies understand is profit, so not shopping there puts pressure on them to change their ways.

It is possible to offer cheap clothing and still be ethical - H&M for example I believe is better - there's a link somehwere on this thread that shows a study.

lou0131205 -

re. developing countries - Isn't there an argument for saying that, as the main consumers of these goods, we can use our, pathetically tiny, influence to raise conditions in the countries in which these goods are produced?

It's a standard liberal argument; the economy is global, goods are produced where production costs are cheaper and sold where costs are higher and can thus be sold for more. The workers in the developed nations may lose out on the employment because their workers' rights, wages, and the hidden costs incurred by the cost of further rights in developed countries, drive the production costs up. Answer; to insist, inch by inch, that the (costly) rights enjoyed by the consumers and producers in the developed countries are extended to the developing countries in which those goods are produced.

There's no intrinsic reason why the workers of developing countries should go on being super-exploited. It's not "culturally authentic" that they shouldn't be allowed unions or sick pay, etc., etc.

Similarly, in this country the basic minimum wage is there for a reason. It helps absolutely no-one if some from is cutting that and employing asylum seekers to do it.

Exploitation is not a form of benevolence or charity.

Exploitation is can never be dressed up as even a temporary, limited, pragmatic solution to dire economic and political situations.

That British Primark employer broke the law on many fronts and exploited the appalling situation that many asylum seekers are in in order to do so. They exploited the, politically and legislatively brought-about, vulnerability of people in order to make a profit. There's an (I'm certain unintential) implication in your post that we should view their action as in some way a "helping hand" for these people, and that we have helped no-one by forcing them to stop (and therefore an implication it should continue).

These people are wretched, capitalist exploiters, they deserve no quarter of our sympathy.

Influence, yes, totally. Not come in with our size 9's thinking we have the best ideas and rip apart their livelihoods.

I don't think these people are being given a benevolent helping hand. But, the people who are facing the exploitation are prevented by our government from earning a legitimate wage in legitimate conditions.

Should they improve wages and conditions, all that will happen is that immigrant workers, who can do so legitimately, will queue up for the jobs that can't be taken by the barred assylum seekers.

I think what I am saying is that it is morally bankrupt, but we have to be careful when judging in our ivory towers that we don't, in trying to end suffering for these workers, cause simply a different suffering.