In Myanmar, Garment Factories That Source Popular Brand-Name Clothing Retailers Aim To Defeat A 40-Cent Hourly Minimum Wage

By Cole Stangler

Factories in Myanmar that supply major Western clothing companies are fighting a government proposal to set the country’s first-ever minimum wage at roughly $3.25 a day.

At the same time, the brands themselves -- Gap Inc. and H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB among others -- have declined to say where they stand on the proposed rate, which amounts to 40 cents an hour.

The ongoing debate, pitting the government against a burgeoning export-driven garment-manufacturing sector, sheds light on the spectacular competitive pressures that define the global apparel industry. It also exposes a clear divide between the views of on-the-ground suppliers and the public assurances of brands they serve.

In the last few years, top Western clothing retailers such as Gap, H&M, Marks and Spencer Group PLC and Primark Stores Ltd. have signed contracts with more than a dozen garment factories in Myanmar, the former British colony also known as Burma. The country emerged from decades of military dictatorship in 2011 and major U.S. and European sanctions shortly thereafter. It now offers some of the cheapest labor costs on the planet combined with easy access to Asian markets -- both attractive features for corporations looking to source low-cost, ready-made garments for export.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/myanmar-garment-factories-source-popular-brand-name-clothing-retailers-aim-defeat-40-2010505

Anyone still want to argue that those overpriced brandnames are worth the extra money?

Anyone still want to argue that those overpriced brandnames are worth the extra money?

Without meaning to defend the big brands who should, and can certainly afford to, pay more to workers, I'd like to point out that non brands exploit workers even worse.

And unlike the brands, who worry about reputation, the non brand people are impossible to put pressure on to improve worker conditions and wages.

Capitalism is a great system, but without amelioration, it shows the seeds of its own destruction.

T

Anyone still want to argue that those overpriced brandnames are worth the extra money?

Without meaning to defend the big brands who should, and can certainly afford to, pay more to workers, I'd like to point out that non brands exploit workers even worse.

And unlike the brands, who worry about reputation, the non brand people are impossible to put pressure on to improve worker conditions and wages.

Capitalism is a great system, but without amelioration, it shows the seeds of its own destruction.

T

"amelioration" kind of threw me on this one. To save some from Googling it means to make things better. At $3.25 a day I can now see what they mean by "Burma is open for business" As the military will be around in the future in one shape or another you can be sure they will enforce this to the hilt to protect the investment of the vultures flocking there. They will want to make sure said vultures do not flock off to greener pastures. Big business today has no morals or scruples they know only greed and more profit. Its a dog eat dog world. A friend of mine visits Yangon frequently and he tells me prices there are crazy. If you live in a nice place you can figure when your lease expires to pay 50 to 100 percent rent increases. They are laying in wait for all the foreign tourists, and factory support people to arrive and the high rents should make the all feel right at home. Yes greed indeed has a trickle down effect.

Anyone still want to argue that those overpriced brandnames are worth the extra money?

Apparently so. What affluent people will do to be seen

Actually, I prefer the Thai way - copy & keep the $$$ within LOS.

The Myth of the Ethical Shopper - Why boycotting and shopping smarter won't eliminate sweatshops.

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-myth-of-the-ethical-shopper/?src=longreads&mc_cid=301091b12a&mc_eid=52b4a1aef5

It's grim reading as various sweatshop conditions are described and gets depressing as a long list of compliance failure are recounted. The final takeaway is this:

"Listening to consumer advocacy campaigns, youd think our only influence on the developing world was at the cash register. But our real leverage is with our policies, not our purchases. In the '90s, the U.S. told Cambodia that to sell its clothes here, it had to open up every single garment factory to International Labor Organization inspections. Trade agreements require developing countries to establish huge intellectual-property inspection bodies to raid markets for bootleg Blu-rays. We just need to offer poor workers the same kinds of protection we give pharmaceutical patents.

We are not going to shop ourselves into a better world. Advocating for boring stuff like complaint mechanisms and formalized labor contracts is nowhere near as satisfying as buying a pair of Fair Trade sandals or whatever. But thats how the hard work of development actually gets done: Not by imploring people to buy better, but by giving them no other option."

T