New Report Finds Sweatshop Conditions at Wal-Mart Suppliers in Bangladesh

Is there anyone out there, in their right mind or not, willing to defend the concept of ‘Preannounced Inspections’?

I have always maintained that slavery was the ultimate goal of the globalized race to the bottom. Labor is just too damned expensive, no matter what it costs.

The Walmart mentality propagates the idea that more crap will make us happy. ~ Phil Butler

Ken V: Aren’t “preannounced inspections” akin to de-regulation?

P.S. : With toy season right around the corner, I just wonder how many lead-laden toys and trinkets will be flooding the market -because of,and in part,due to ,pre-announced inspections,which theoretically give the factories time to “put up a good front ,temporarily,by using non-lead paint. Then after the so called inspections, go back to leaded paint on toys and miscellaneous goods for export. And what about the hazards to the factory workers,themselves,and THEIR health and environment,after repeated exposure?

Is There Any Way to Stop Wal-Mart & Co. from Sweatshop Profiteering?

By T. A. Frank, Washington Monthly. Posted April 29, 2008.

The major challenge of inspections was simply staying ahead of the factories we monitored. False time cards and payroll records, whole days spent coaching employees on how to lie during interviews, and even renaming certain factory buildings in order to create a smaller Potemkin village—all of these were techniques used by contractors to try to fool us. We were able to detect some of them. A collection of crisp time cards that showed every employee arriving within seconds of the next was easy to spot as having been punched by a single worker standing alone at the time clock. An employee whose recollection of hours worked differed markedly from her time sheet was another indication of shady bookkeeping. But others were hard to defeat. Employee coaching deserves special attention for its crude effectiveness. Now, anyone in the business knows that when inspections uncover safety violations or wage underpayment more than once or twice—let alone five times—it’s a sign that bigger problems are lurking beneath. Companies rarely get bamboozled about this sort of thing unless they want to.

And many prefer to be bamboozled, because it’s cheaper. While companies like to boast of having an ethical sourcing program, such programs make it harder to hire the lowest bidder. Because many companies still want to hire the lowest bidder, “ethical sourcing” often becomes a game. For the half-assed company there are also half-assed monitoring firms. These specialize in performing as many brief, understaffed inspections as they can fit in a day in order to maximize their own profits. That gives their clients plausible deniability: problems undiscovered are problems avoided, and any later trouble can be blamed on the compliance monitors. It is a cozy understanding between client, monitoring company, and supplier that manages to benefit everyone but the workers.

While private monitoring can be misused, however, when it’s done right it can really produce positive change. I’ve seen it. When companies make a genuine effort, the results can be impressive: safe factories that pay legal wages.
As for those who feel especially strongly about the issue and kick up a (peaceful) fuss about sweatshops, I think they’re doing a valuable thing.  Boycotts, protests, letters to Congress, saber-rattling lawmakers, media exposes—they do have an impact. And just imagine if members of Congress or the executive branch made an effort to praise or shame companies for their records with foreign suppliers and to encourage transparent monitoring in the private sector. I suspect it would do more for international labor standards in months than the most intricate trade agreements could do in years.

One final thought: In an era of globalization. We are, like it or not, profoundly affected by the labor standards of our trading partners. If their standards are low, they exert a downward pressure on our own. That’s why monitoring and enforcement have such an important role to play. We don’t expect developing nations to match us in what their workers earn. (A few dollars a day is a fortune in many nations.) But when a Chinese factory saves money by making its employees breathe hazardous fumes and, by doing so, closes down a U.S. factory that spends money on proper ventilation and masks, that’s wrong. It’s wrong by any measure. And that’s what we can do something about if we try. It’s the challenge we face as the walls come down, the dolls, pajamas, and televisions come in, and, increasingly, the future of our workers here is tied to that of workers who are oceans away.

T.A. Frank is a writer in Los Angeles.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOTE: Mr. Frank is a former factory inspector.

By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: January 25, 2008-New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration intends to post inspectors to embassies and consulates throughout the developing world in HOPES of improving the quality of the food and medicines increasingly flowing to the United States, a top official said Thursday.

The agency’s commissioner, Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, said that he wanted to have “boots on the ground” in nations like India and China and regions like Central and South America and the Middle East.

The agency already sends inspectors to dozens of countries each year to inspect pharmaceutical plants and clinical trial sites. But Dr. von Eschenbach said in a briefing with reporters that he wanted the agency’s presence abroad to be on an “ongoing and CONTINUOUS BASIS rather than episodic and periodic.”

“Right now, we come, we leave,” he said.

The inspectors would primarily “build capacity and bring others in to do inspections that are certified,” Dr. von Eschenbach said.

The agency has long helped to train foreign food and drug inspectors and even advise in the writing of legislation to empower foreign versions of the F.D.A.

In recent years, as more food and drugs have been produced abroad for sale in America, the F.D.A. has been lLESS ABLE to ensure the products’ safety. The agency inspects LESS than 1 percent of imported foods.

Some on Capitol Hill have called for a large increase in the agency’s budget to improve such inspections. The Bush administration, however, has NOT endorsed those calls. Instead, F.D.A. officials have sought to bolster the aggressiveness and effectiveness of foreign health regulators, HOPING to prevent unsafe items from being brought to American docks in the first place.

Dr. von Eschenbach said that his plan to post inspectors abroad was still in its infancy. He was not sure whether he would ask for additional financing from Congress for the inspectors or find money in his present budget for them, he said.

He also said that he had yet to work out with the State Department how such inspectors might interact with other parts of the federal government. In addition, host nations would HAVE TO REQUEST their presence, he said.

In December, the United States and China agreed to a greater American role in certifying and inspecting Chinese food products, including an increased presence of American officials at Chinese production plants.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOTE: I see a lot of wishing and hoping in regard to the safety of foods and pharmaceuticals, but little actual EFFORT at maintaining quality control of foods and meds exports. Has anyone told the FDA that you can’t substitute a wishbone for a backbone?(Psst ,lobbyists already know that. They have been making their clients wishes come true for eight years now, thanks to spineless Federal agencies like the FDA,USDA,and CSC[Consumer Safety Commission] ).