Assuming it’s true that they are netting $3.50 or less per hour, I can certainly see where Exel is treating them badly, and I’m a little disturbed that you can’t. I can’t see where Hershey’s is treating them badly, though.
The students paid $3000-6000 of their own money for the privilege of doing minimum wage work. They came with an expectation of something more than packing candy into boxes (see the video…these are well educated students).
In the early 20th century companies frequently had “company towns” where they paid you a wage and then you paid them for housing and food. The company got near free labor as a result. Often people would become indebted to the company thus making them wage slaves.
You see no problem with any of this?
It is their company, their product, their ultimate responsibility.
I do not think hiring someone else to do your dirty work absolves you of responsibility.
Nike was forced to insist on better worker conditions when it was learned that their shoes were made in Asian sweatshops. They did not run the company that actually manufactured the shoes but it is their problem because it is their shoes.
So too with Hershey.
No, not what I was getting at. What I’m talking about is that in order to have a profit, you have to charge your customer more than the actual value for something somewhere in the process. Often, this comes in the form of charging more for the labor component for the good/service than you are paying for the labor. This is exploitation, with a small “e”. I’m not saying that it’s horrible (Help, help!
i’m being oppressed!) or that the labor isn’t generally amenable to it, just that it has to happen somewhere in the process for there to be a profit, and of course, there has to be a profit. But it is a form of exploitation, just not necessarily an extreme one. The Hershey case may be in the grey area here, if not worse. And, yes I’m taking more about the 14 lb. example you gave, generally.
You are assuming rather a lot here. How do you know Hershey’s had any idea how these workers were treated?
ETA: that was to W-A-M.
Maybe they didn’t.
In your world turning a blind eye is sufficient to absolve yourself of responsibility?
Imagine you have a mansion and hire someone to look after the workers (maids, cooks, gardeners and so on). That person abuses your staff and steals their money.
But hey, no problem right? YOU aren’t the one oppressing your staff. Someone else is doing it for you so all is good I guess.
As long as you remain ignorant of what is happening you have no culpability?
You have got to be kidding. You honestly believe even for a moment Hersey’s didn’t know every single detail of what goes on in its factories?
Not only that, but I could guarantee you all the supervisors at that factory are regular Hershey’s union employees making a decent living wage. All three of them.
I certainly believe they might not know what goes on in buildings which aren’t its factories.
And what I’m saying is that “actual value” is significantly variant between people such that it’s generally easy for both sides to think they’ve got the best end of a deal and be right, for their specific circumstances.
Cite?
It’s possible, if you have two self-employed makers/providers, but if they have employees, it’s not as likely that everyone on both sides isn’t being exploited in some way. I’m not saying it’s eeevil, just that that profit has to be squeezed out somewhere; even if someone who is paying in excess and is happy with it, it’s still a form of exploitation. Plus, the happy buyer may be passing the exploitation down the line and adding a little more to it. It’s not that every deal is exploitative, just that it’s likely that profit involves exploitation somewhere in the process.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement about how things work, just that you may not like that I’m calling it exploitation. But that’s the insidious side of capitalism; we’re sold on the idea that everybody’s operating completely freely and happily in some sort of utopian free market, but it’s not the case. It’s more of a matter of cooperation due to necessity, which is not the same thing.
I think your definition of “exploitative” is so broad as to be entirely useless, then, if everyone in a business deal can be happy and yet there’s still some spooky exploitation just hanging around the system.
That’s not really a fair breakdown of wage because it includes housing. Assume a 160 hour month, multiply that by (8-3.5), and you get $720. That doesn’t sound like an unreasonable monthly fee for a short term, furnished rental.
I could be wrong, but I’d be surprised if it wasn’t some kind of low cost college housing. Those facilities are already sufficiently furnished, and you can get a great deal just to get the college that extra bit of revenue for summer months when they’re not occupied.
So, it depends on the housing. If it’s a furnished efficiency apartment, that’s probably ok. If it’s crowded dormitory housing being leased on the cheap from a college for the summer, that’s not going to be as acceptable.
I’d be more ok with it if these workers had the choice to keep their pay and find their own housing as an alternative. Or if the cost of housing was advertised up front as part of the program. Doesn’t sound like any of this is the case.
Maybe, but I don’t really know. My point is that including it in with program fees is dishonest.
That may be, but I don’t think there’s necessarily anything spooky about it. I just think defining in some of other terms used for it tend to be as euphemistic as exploitation is adverse.
Just give them a Kiss. I know they want a Pay Day, but it ain’t like they want 100 Grand. No one expects them to be shopping on 5th Avenue.
Okay, maybe someone is fudging the numbers and there S’more to the story, but no reason to work Marathon hours. We don’t expect them to make Mounds of money, they just want to Skor a nice Whatchamacallit. Then again, it’s not like they are being paid Zero.
Dude, you’re forcing it.
That was sweet.
Tell him what you really think. Don’t sugarcoat it.
Pretend I said “Not only that, but I could guarantee you all the supervisors at that factory are regular Hershey’s union employees making a decent living wage. All three of them. ;)”
Does that help? I thought it was obvious enough to avoid the Vulcan literalist response.
At any rate, the percent of private sector workers covered by unions in 2010 was only 6.9%, down from 9% in 2000. I can’t find data prior to 2000, but I don’t doubt this trend as been going on at least since the 70’s & 80’s.
As a high school and college kid myself in the late 70’s and early 80’s I can say from my own experience it was already commonplace for the bulk of factory workers to be minimum wage temp agency workers with no benefits working alongside a small number of regular union workers/supervisors who were less educated than I was, making three times the salary, and receiving benefits like medical, vacation, retirement and of course much higher job security.