"Neither is the fault of companies like Nike that these kids loose out in life. It is the government's fault for failing to establish better educational facilities and establishing a better standard of living. No point in shifting the blame to the corporations. Take out these corps from the equation, now ask yourself what these kids would be doing and if they're really better off."


Umm,

kids that work in fast food restaurtants-compulsory education payed for by the government until hte age of 16.
kids that work in factories- jack shit.

Well put, nuka_t. Though I wouldn't have been as blunt as that.

The real issue is that we simply cannot invent justifications or reasons for child labour to continue. Poverty is an issue, sure, but that must be dealt with in a different way. Sending your seven year old children to work in a Leather factory that's polluting your local water sources and flouting all government norms on environment and bribing the politicians is not the answer.

There needs to be a public outrage against child labour. Don't think that boycotting is not a powerful solution. Mahatma Gandhi made the whole world sit up and notice his boycott of foriegn cloth during the Independence movement. Don't buy stuff which you know is made in factories where children work in abject and miserable conditions. Write off letters to the editors (even in your own countries) about the real problem. Make more and more people aware how heinous child labour really is!

To keep saying that poverty is a cause of child labour won't help it. Poverty can be tackled in so many other ways than sending underage kids to work in hazardous environments!

Don't assume US laws apply everywhere. There are many countries with fast food chains where education is far from compulsory and certainly more where education isn't free. Go find out more about the world.

You keep avoiding the issue that I've raised. So big company gets removed from the picture? Now what? Poverty disappears magically? These kids become better off?

From my first post I stated I myself blame the country for allowing such harsh work environments, etc. I also blame the children's parents for allowing them to work in such harsh environments.

So yeah, in order of who I blame for crap child labor:

1. Parents <-- If its so hard and wrong, I'm sure any parent who loves their child would not let them work at such a young age or in such an environment. But that 10 cents and hour does go a long way when they themselves probably aren't making any more, but is it right and justifiable? No. But hey, that's their problem. They don't have to work there if they don't want to.

2. Country <-- Really no explanation to give, its a government, most likely they just don't care if they're already allowing such things to happen to their children of their nation.

3. Corporations <-- Taking advantage of other nations to pay cheap labor and costs, not caring about who's doing the work, work environments, etc. Typical large corporation anyways, only trying to save money so the board members get bigger bonuses.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by trickykid


1. Parents <-- If its so hard and wrong, I'm sure any parent who loves their child would not let them work at such a young age or in such an environment. But that 10 cents and hour does go a long way when they themselves probably aren't making any more, but is it right and justifiable? No. But hey, that's their problem. They don't have to work there if they don't want to. QUOTE]

Really easier said than done from an armchair' critic point of view. Supposing you have more than one child. One is old enough to work in bring in an income. The others are still infants. You really need whatever income available to support the entire family. Now what? Do you love your firstborn more and disallow him to work while the remaning starve?

You miss my point.
I never blamed the companies alone.

Yes. But remove the big companies from the picture and poverty doesn't disappear magically. Poverty alleviation is a topic by itself, friend and that's not what we're talking about here!

For what it's worth, my argument is:
Child Labour is not the solution to poverty as you keep making it sound as if it is!

That's about all that I can argue on this issue. My point is that child labour is so heinous that just mentioning poverty as a cause is not right. If Nike is really concerned about child labour, they would build schools for the children of people they've employed in the third-world countries..

Edit: There's a big saying in my language that is roughly equivalent to:

"Two wrongs don't make a right."

Poverty cannot excuse child-labour or the other way around, no matter how much people argue to justify it.

I suppose that on this topic that we can argue ad-infinitum about child-labour, politics and poverty alleviation. If anyone wants to read my arguments on this subject can just refer to my previous posts. I have nothing more to add or argue, because some people just can't be convinced.

Edit: I think it's time to cool off this thread. I sense a war of words about to ensue. Tempers might become flared.

Edit: No doubt this is a highly emotive and sensitive issue. I think that LQ is not the right forum to discuss it further.

I agree with your points but I think they are in the wrong order. I would say

1. Corporations <-- If they would take in slightly less profit children wouldn't have to work because the parents can make enough and it would improve living conditions.

2. Government <-- They should take an active stand against child labor and make laws against this stuff, but of course it would be hard because that is a big source employment.

3. Parents <-- If the kids are working because the parents want a new car that's one thing, but in a lot of cases kids have to work to support the family.
Great coverage of child and 3rd world labor in this video

Darin's got it pretty right. I'll add my own comments on each point.
Pretty much spot on. Nothing to add at this point.
Alas....
Not to mention Gouvernment-income from the taxes , levied , so the "guys in the pluche" can line their pockets even more.
That's put very mild :
"Support their families"?
Now THAT's an euphemism.....
"Making their families survive at all" would be a far better description.
Unless these companies start paying better wages , these families are in a deadlock ; Make their kids ruin their health in the shamefull conditions , they have to work in,
or starve to death...

That's the thing, a lot of people just see it as kids sowing some shoes together, its bad, but they get paid so its not terrible. In the video i gave the torrent to it shows how some kids are actually working in coal mines because grown men can't fit down the shafts, how the dust ruins their lungs so by 30 more have advanced respiritory diseases, and how in the mine they are giving chewing tobacco to keep their mouths from driving out. Despite all of this these boys still want to work because its one of the highest paying jobs they can get and they need the money for their families.

See, that's my point though.

IMHO, a kid should never have to work to support their family. If you want to have kids, you should support them, well, that's how I feel. I'd be damned if I decide to have a family and I make the kid work to help support me and the rest of the gang. I'll keep my <bleep> in my pants and not have children if that's how its gonna be..

So I guess Number 1 falls back on Number 2, its partially to blame the government as well for not setting up programs for those "adults" who can't work, disabled, can't support their family, etc.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking disabled people but I've seen and know of many jobs that doesn't require manual labor and that even fully paralyzed people can perform in this day in age.

Lets again blame the country or businesses for lack of technology to help those in such situations.

So I stand by my order I feel is to blame in crap child labor situations. I myself will one day have kids to support them, if I can't, well, I'm not going to have kids. So if all these people can barely support themself in their current job, well its simple, don't make more kids to support.

I disagree, so far this discussion is very constructive and I feel no one has spoken out of line or carried away thus far. If it continues this path, it will not get closed, if it starts getting too personal, well then we decide then when that one person ruins it for the rest. But I feel it has not reached that point yet.

Cheers

the bad thing about all this isss that it has become a norm in these countries and children working is a GOOD thing. its like getting a divorce in america is normal and child labour isnt. in other countries getting a divorce is unheard of, but everybody sends their kids to work in a factory.

i talked to someone from sri-lanka a while ago and she was telling me why she likes dubbya

"he set up garment factories all over sri lanka(im assuming its american companies like nike, not goerge specifically, but they just call them bush)

now all the kids have jobs

bush is good, but what he does to the arabs is wrong"

so really, there isnt anyone to blame. everybodys happy. sort of. the person i was talking works as a maid for 7 days a week 365 days a year for 5 years so far for a hundred bucks a month.

its just different standards.

Thank you trickykid .

In the first place, there is a new dimension to the child labour issue which didn't occur to me yesterday.

In India, child labour is outlawed. Whatever child labour is going on out there is absolutely illegal and unjustifiable. But because of the lax attitude of the authorities and public apathy, child labour continues to remain so.

Just because the children are happy working, that doesn't mean that it's good for them. As I made my point earlier, young children at that age simply are not empowered enough or have enough knowledge to make these decisions. Parents paint a rosy picture of working life to their children just to enjoy some extra cash through them.

Which child wants to go to school? Their childish attitude is that anything other than school must be fun. School is a necessary part of empowering children as well as educating them and allowing them to grow up as useful citizens.

It's not as though the government (at least in India) is doing nothing about child labour. Noon-day meal schemes are trying to lure back children to school with promise of at least one free meal a day. There are rural self-employment programmes for adults (at least on paper). Most of all, these government schools are free for the poor. Nobody can complain that they don't have enough money to send their children to school.

Thus, I conclude my argument (once and for all, I think) that I believe that child labour exists only for the following reasons (and not due to economic necessity):

• Children come cheap.
• They can be made to work longer hours without complaining.
• They won't go on strikes. They cannot stand up for their rights.

The above reasons are some of the reasons why companies still hire children for work. Anybody who argues that companies are really interested in the welfare and development of children must be joking.

First off no one argued such a thing, Second it comes down to the fact these families need the money and they will do what it takes to survive.So if you remove the child labor what will be done for those families? If a country is a third world country anyways there is very little that can be done more to help those families.Instead of looking for the problem look for the solution.