[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

8958: Re: 8943: Re: 8942: Re: 8928: Dorce replies to Corbett on jobs (fwd)

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 08/24/2001 12:41:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
corbetre@webster.edu writes:

<< Kathy, my post is not about the exploiters.  It is about one
 claim and one only.  You made the claim that no job is better
 than a bad job.  >>
That is a simplification of what I said and out of context.
The real quote is this: "Bad, abusive jobs are not better 
than NO jobs.  Fix the conditions then talk about investing in
assembly jobs.  Until then, expect road blocks."   I have no
problem with jobs that are menial and tedious and even 
difficult.  I just say the conditions should be humane....
>>THis is a view that I believe carries
implications that are not only harmful for people, but justify
deciding for others whether or not they should have the option
to work at jobs that you or some other obsevers decides is one
of these bad jobs.<<
I would NEVER impose my beliefs on those wishing to work
in factories.  I feel I am representing THEIR objections to
conditions in factories as well as conditions in society that
cause them to take these jobs no matter how inadequate and
abusive they are.  Do you realize that the hours are overlong, 
and they end up owing the factory more than they make
because their pay is not sufficient to feed their families so 
they borrow from the factory to buy food.  They work in 
filth, with little or no breaks in lighting that takes their 
eyesight before they are old. They have to pay for transportation, 
and by the time they get home they barely have time to sleep
a few hours before they have to get up and start the process
all over again.  It seems like a good idea to have a paying job,
but most of them quit before it kills them and there are others
to take their place.  It's a revolving door.  I'm sorry you are not
talking about the exploiters.......this is not a classroom exercise.
Taking an argument apart and dealing only with those things you
can squash is unfair and misleading.  You cannot separate the 
exploitation of workers from the rest of my statement......they are 
>>This is a related claim that seems patent nonsense to me.  I am a
not terribly unsympathetic person I do just what you say Americans would
not do and I do it every day.  I've taught courses at the university
for 36 years which deal with this issue and I demonstrate with
powerful literature how many hundreds of products from bananas
to clothing to drinks, are created for the market by the horrible
exploiting of workers.<<
I know what you mean.  I eat bananas and I eat green table grapes too.
But the images of exploited workers is dim and unrecognizable to me
now.  I have been reading on this very list about the exploitation of
workers at Grand Marnier and Cointreau plantations in Cap Haitien,
and I wrote to them (irritating them like a little mosquito, I think).  I
told them I would not buy another bottle of their product (which I love!)
until conditions improved.  I haven't yet.  My pitiful demonstration may
not do a thing to help Haitians, but it is sincere and I do not have to 
feel hypocritical because the Haitian cause is one that is a priority to
me.  There are champions for other causes.  If I were to know that a 
certain product was made in Haiti under deplorable conditions, I would
not buy it.  And I wager if Americans had to face it in visual images and
not just in print, they would be ashamed to support such products.  Again,
Bob.......because a thing is the way it is, doesn't mean it should be accepted
and continued.  Hopefully the 'greed is good' mantra is dying out and Haiti
and other third world countries will benefit.  Of course, rich people don't 
change their profit margins without being forced to.  American people
have power in numbers and in their ability to purchase great quantities 
of products.  We can withhold our purchasing to make a point.  They will 
change their practices if they feel it in the bottom line.  It's the right 
to do.  

Kathy Dorce~