St. Valitines Day Massacre

[bleubird]

One of the big days for the sale of chocolate.
Mostly shit chocolate.
Hersey's gets most of their cocoa from west Africa.
http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/
I don't eat shit chocolate.
70% of cocoa comes from west Africa,so it is hard for these big corporations find another source.I get that,but could they not put a little pressure on growers to not use slave child labor?

 

[rousseau]

Yea it seems like this is a problem for a lot of industries. The west has money, creates the potential for profit, more impoverished countries exploit people to meet demand.

Outside of developing the brunt of the third world or hardening the legal system that deals with this stuff, not sure there's much else that can be done.

 

[bleubird]

Yea it seems like this is a problem for a lot of industries. The west has money, creates the potential for profit, more impoverished countries exploit people to meet demand.

Outside of developing the brunt of the third world or hardening the legal system that deals with this stuff, not sure there's much else that can be done.

Coffee is a good example of how this can work.

 

[TV and credit cards]

This is good stuff: Endangered Species Dark Chocolate with Espresso Beans and it made the list.
I think it helps where you shop. It's difficult to mind where all you buy is coming from.

 

[Harry Bosch]

One of the big days for the sale of chocolate.
Mostly shit chocolate.
Hersey's gets most of their cocoa from west Africa.
http://www.foodispower.org/slavery-chocolate/
I don't eat shit chocolate.
70% of cocoa comes from west Africa,so it is hard for these big corporations find another source.I get that,but could they not put a little pressure on growers to not use slave child labor?

Thank you for this link. There is actually more slavery today than at any time in history. I will definitely boycott food or products that have been identified as being supplied by slaves.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check time:

Despite their role in contributing to child labor, slavery, and human trafficking, the chocolate industry has not taken significant steps to remedy the problem. Within their $60-billion industry,[27] chocolate companies have the power to end the use of child labor and slave labor by paying cocoa farmers a living wage for their product.

Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

 

[laughing dog]

Reality check time:

Despite their role in contributing to child labor, slavery, and human trafficking, the chocolate industry has not taken significant steps to remedy the problem. Within their $60-billion industry,[27] chocolate companies have the power to end the use of child labor and slave labor by paying cocoa farmers a living wage for their product.

Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

While child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty, that does not absolve employers of their responsibility in hiring or abusing their child employees.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Reality check time:

Despite their role in contributing to child labor, slavery, and human trafficking, the chocolate industry has not taken significant steps to remedy the problem. Within their $60-billion industry,[27] chocolate companies have the power to end the use of child labor and slave labor by paying cocoa farmers a living wage for their product.

Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

If the employers are not abusive, then paying them more would immediately benefit the workers.

If the paying the farmers more would not mean more in the pockets of those who work the farms, that is because the employers are abusive.

It can't really be both. It's either caused by poverty or it's caused by the abuses of greedy employers. Strengthening laws and raising wages would solve both problems.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

Generally the expectation would be to implement proper auditing and inspection practices to ensure employment conditions are meeting standards. If they aren't, the trick is to actually take action or terminate the contract instead of looking the other way. Obviously 100% oversight and compliance are not something any company can guarantee, but this does not mean sufficient oversight to improve labour conditions cannot be attained.

 

[rousseau]

Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

Generally the expectation would be to implement proper auditing and inspection practices to ensure employment conditions are meeting standards. If they aren't, the trick is to actually take action or terminate the contract instead of looking the other way. Obviously 100% oversight and compliance are not something any company can guarantee, but this does not mean sufficient oversight to improve labour conditions cannot be attained.

Problem is that it's not a one way partnership. If the company is dependent on their farmers, then ceasing a contract means a disruption in their supply chain. Surely they could make it work if they wanted to, but can you imagine being the guy in the company trying to push that policy? Hello termination.

This is why the problem needs government over-sight, which ideally should not have a profit motive in the matter.

 

[credoconsolans]

Where does Godiva buy their chocolate from?

Hershey's - for Valentine's Day? Really? Some people are that cheap?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Problem is that it's not a one way partnership. If the company is dependent on their farmers, then ceasing a contract means a disruption in their supply chain.

That's business. It does happen for various reasons. I work for a company which makes clothing, bags and other equipment. We have fairly high ethical standards, though naturally we are imperfect. We have had to cease operations with factories and materials suppliers (many of them overseas) which couldn't meet standards. It resulted in losses for us and for the factories, but we have obligations to fulfill and we need to handle our business. If the only way for us to handle our business is for others to be subjected to persistent abuse, our business should be rightly called a travesty and a monstrosity.

Surely they could make it work if they wanted to, but can you imagine being the guy in the company trying to push that policy? Hello termination.

It isn't a 'guy' who makes the decision. A company as an organization has to have a set of standards. In this case, having a minimum standard of not indirectly employing slave labour would be the byproduct of avoiding public disdain or perhaps just having the tiniest shred of fucking ethics. Again, expecting some sort of miraculous 100% turnaround on issues like this is not very likely. Surely there will be companies which will always do the absolute minimum they can get away with, and those companies will happily sell their product to people who don't know about human rights abuses, don't care, or are poor enough that they always have to put buying the cheapest product ahead of ethical purchases. But this surely doesn't mean every single person involved from production to distribution to consumption is callous and unwilling to do something better.

This is why the problem needs government over-sight, which ideally should not have a profit motive in the matter.

This problem needs to be addressed at all levels.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Where does Godiva buy their chocolate from?

Hershey's - for Valentine's Day? Really? Some people are that cheap poor?

FIFY. And yes, some people are.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Reality check time:



Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

While child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty, that does not absolve employers of their responsibility in hiring or abusing their child employees.

The thing is if you stop the cocoa industry from hiring child labor you're not going to improve the lot of the children. You only fix child labor by improving the standard of living in the society to the point that parents can afford a child that isn't laboring.

- - - Updated - - -

Reality check time:



Leftist crap. Paying them more would not end the abuses because the abuses are caused by the lack of options for the kids and the lack of enforcement of the law. Paying the farmers more would mean more in the farmer's pockets, not more in the pockets of those who work on the farms.

Child labor is almost always a reflection of poverty in society rather than abusive employers.

If the employers are not abusive, then paying them more would immediately benefit the workers.

If the paying the farmers more would not mean more in the pockets of those who work the farms, that is because the employers are abusive.

It can't really be both. It's either caused by poverty or it's caused by the abuses of greedy employers. Strengthening laws and raising wages would solve both problems.

You need to raise wages in the society as a whole, not just one industry.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You need to raise wages in the society as a whole, not just one industry.

But you CAN raise wages in one industry if the employers in that industry are not greedy and/or abusive.

 

[bleubird]

Loren,you use the word hired,again it seems you did read the article.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

http://worldnews.about.com/od/saudiarabia/qt/vdaysaudis.htm

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia and India, Valentines day is hated by religious fanatics.

 

[bleubird]

Where does Godiva buy their chocolate from?

Hershey's - for Valentine's Day? Really? Some people are that cheap?

70% of cocoa comes from west Africa.It maybe shit chocolate or it my be better chocolate it is produced by child labor non the less.
All buyers and consumers need to act.

 

[JonA]

There is actually more slavery today than at any time in history.

Evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

http://worldnews.about.com/od/saudiarabia/qt/vdaysaudis.htm

Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia and India, Valentines day is hated by religious fanatics.

And in Minnesota:

Victory for Islamic Hatred of ... Well, Everything​

 

[laughing dog]

The thing is if you stop the cocoa industry from hiring child labor you're not going to improve the lot of the children. You only fix child labor by improving the standard of living in the society to the point that parents can afford a child that isn't laboring.

If children are allowed to work, there is a cost to keeping them out of work. If children cannot be hired, that cost is reduced and they are more likely to be allowed to stay or go to school, all other things equal. Furthermore, if an employer is abusing his child workers, then stopping that abuse does improve the lot of the child.