WIKILEAKS: U.S. Fought To Lower Minimum Wage In Haiti

[Shroom Man 777]

...So Hanes And Levis Would Stay Cheap

A Wikileaks post published on The Nation shows that the Obama Administration fought to keep Haitian wages at 31 cents an hour.

(This article was taken down by The Nation due to an embargo, but it was excerpted at Columbia Journalism Review.)

It started when Haiti passed a law two years ago raising its minimum wage to 61 cents an hour. According to an embassy cable:

This infuriated American corporations like Hanes and Levi Strauss that pay Haitians slave wages to sew their clothes. They said they would only fork over a seven-cent-an-hour increase, and they got the State Department involved. The U.S. ambassador put pressure on Haiti’s president, who duly carved out a $3 a day minimum wage for textile companies (the U.S. minimum wage, which itself is very low, works out to $58 a day).

Haiti has about 25,000 garment workers. If you paid each of them $2 a day more, it would cost their employers $50,000 per working day, or about $12.5 million a year ... As of last year Hanes had 3,200 Haitians making t-shirts for it. Paying each of them two bucks a day more would cost it about $1.6 million a year. Hanesbrands Incorporated made $211 million on $4.3 billion in sales last year.

Thanks to U.S. intervention, the minimum was raised only to 31 cents.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileak ... z1OMPENOYi

The indivisible hand of the free market strokes again.

Gentlemen, we cannot allow the communoids to sap and impurify Haitians' precious bodily fluids. They need MURCAN freedom! Especially now, that their country is reeling from a devastating disaster, they need American help more than ever! So America must intervene and give them freedom and democracy! In their moment of weakness, America must defend them. In their moment of desperation, the United States must lend a helping hand... to make Haiti a better place for tomorrow. To make the whole world a better place.

Let the free world follow America's shining example in how it treats its neighbors. A beacon of hope. A light of freedom. So many people have lost their lives, their livelihoods, their friends, families and loved ones in Haiti ever since that earthquake - and it is our obligation as Americans... as human beings to support them in this most dire of times, so that their situation will change for the better. A change for the better that we, the people, can believe in. This is the human face of American foreign interests.

This is why the United States State Department, with the authorization of the President Herobama and Secretary Hillery Clinton, are doing their best to see that the development of Haiti goes the proper way. We owe it to the Haitian people, that the American ideals of freedom and democracy may enrich their lives. If not in a material way then perhaps in... a freedomy way. A truthy way. So that all the world may admire America's integrity. America's dignity. America's decency. We are the leader of the free world, and we must lead by example. To the people of Haiti, do not worry. Have no fear. The United States of America is here.

God bless Haiti. But not as much as God blesses America.

Thank you, all of you.

[Wing Commander MAD]

Is this really that surprising, the government or more accurately factions of it beholden to corporate interest(which is a damn lot of it) does this to it's own citizens all the time. Certainly terrible, but not at all unexpected if you think about it and have the slightest inkling of history. It's not like this is anything new, hello Bannana Republics of yore.

Furthermore, I'd like to point this is largly par for the course in U.S. politics. Welcome to the U.S. political system where he who spends the most tends to win and is then generally beholden to his benefactors/financiers afterwards. The fact that those with corporate backing have the most funds available, shouldn't surprise anyone. There is simply no way for non corporate entities to compete with corporations when it comes to funding. The end result is stuff like this. The only thing vaguely different from business as usual is that it's screwing over foreigners instead of domestics in the name of business, and really it not even that unusual. I'd be surprised if this wasn't happening.

[evilsoup]

Fucking great, a cynic. You know, just because bad things happen in the world doesn't mean that you shouldn't be outraged at individual incidents. Hell's bells, man, break out of that pathetic shell and feel something.

This is terrible. Not that I'm surprised (gods, I miss the days when I was surprised at this kind of shit), but there is no excuse for this. This saves some American companies a tiny amount of money - you can't even make bullshit arguments about national interests for this. In fact, driving up wages around the world would be in the best interests of America as a whole (it would stop outsourcing from American companies and create more consumers for American crap).

Just further proof that while it's a good idea in theory, human nature means that Free Marketism just doesn't work in practice.

[Connor MacLeod]

Fucking great, a cynic. You know, just because bad things happen in the world doesn't mean that you shouldn't be outraged at individual incidents. Hell's bells, man, break out of that pathetic shell and feel something.

Does it occur to you that this sort of mentality is probably why America is so fucked up as it is? OH NO ITS TOO DEPRESSING TO THINK OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT, LETS GO WATCH NASCAR AND EAT CHEETOS or something equally mindless.

If people don't get outraged at individual incidents, how do you expect things to be changed?

[Rogue 9]

Fucking great, a cynic. You know, just because bad things happen in the world doesn't mean that you shouldn't be outraged at individual incidents. Hell's bells, man, break out of that pathetic shell and feel something.

Does it occur to you that this sort of mentality is probably why America is so fucked up as it is? OH NO ITS TOO DEPRESSING TO THINK OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT, LETS GO WATCH NASCAR AND EAT CHEETOS or something equally mindless.

If people don't get outraged at individual incidents, how do you expect things to be changed?

I think that's what he's saying, Connor.

[Connor MacLeod]

If it is, then I withdraw the comment and apologize. It just sounds alot like that "its too big a problem, I can't handle it" mentality I've gotten entirely too used to dealing with in my life. Sorry.

[Wing Commander MAD]

I did say it was terrible. That said, there is nothing I can do about it short of voting or boycotting said companies.

There isn't much that can be done on the voting front and Obama and his administration in the next election will simply be the lesser of two evils. The current crop of Republicans are too far gone to risk letting them get into power, which means the only real viable alternative at this time is Republican Light, a.k.a the Democratic Party. It sucks, but that's life. When improvements can't be made and the status quo not maintained, you go for damage control.

Boycotting is a luxury not everyone can afford. Personally, I go for cost/quality ratio as the main factor when I make purchases, as apposed to name brand. Something like this goes into the overall quality rating of the item in my mind, so if I go to purchase a pair jeans something like this will certainly be kept in mind.

Finally, I thought we were trying to cut down on whole "How dare they!!!" circlejerks N&P has become of late. Someone pointed out in the thread in testing regarding if the forum is dying that N&P seems in large part to have become an echo chamber like Fox News, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. The only real discussion of any interest seems to be when something big happens.

My point that this is nothing new and indeed should be expected given historical precedent still stands. Maybe it's news to Shroom (I doubt it though), but I've long since given up trying to parse the 5% of actual content from his babblings and only give his posts the most cursory of skimming glances.

[Simon_Jester]

Fucking great, a cynic. You know, just because bad things happen in the world doesn't mean that you shouldn't be outraged at individual incidents. Hell's bells, man, break out of that pathetic shell and feel something.

Does it occur to you that this sort of mentality is probably why America is so fucked up as it is? OH NO ITS TOO DEPRESSING TO THINK OR DO ANYTHING ABOUT, LETS GO WATCH NASCAR AND EAT CHEETOS or something equally mindless.

If people don't get outraged at individual incidents, how do you expect things to be changed

All this bubbling Internet outrage has very little to do with the real efforts to organize and stop abuses and bad policies; almost by definition if we are here going on about US foreign policy abuses, we are not somewhere else actually doing anything helpful about them aside from informing one another how horrible it is, which is blindingly obvious to anyone with a conscience anyway.

Meaningful, rewarding human life cannot exist in a perpetual standing wave of outrage. There has to be a limit, has to be an allowance for sheer outrage-fatigue. This is especially relevant in the modern world, where the Internet exposes us to every single goddamn bad thing that happens on six continents, day to day, without fail.

For most of the people on SDN, this is a recreational site. It does not make one a saner or more effective person to spend all one's recreational time in a state of righteous fury, and people are entitled not to spend their time that way, should they choose not to do so.

[HSRTG]

I will begin to give a shit at precisely the point where I can do something about this. Until then, this incident simply gets filed under "Yet another big corporation actively abuses third world nation(s)". I already don't buy anything from either corporation, because my clothing needs are filled elsewhere. I see no point in outrage over something that I cannot in any way affect.

[K. A. Pital]

I will begin to give a shit at precisely the point where I can do something about this. Until then, this incident simply gets filed under "Yet another big corporation actively abuses third world nation(s)". I already don't buy anything from either corporation, because my clothing needs are filled elsewhere. I see no point in outrage over something that I cannot in any way affect.

You are powerless against big corporations? Seriously? And that state of things doesn't make you wonder, doesn't make you desire to change things? Like, maybe, join some grassroots organizations, spread anti-corporate propaganda, donate to, I don't know... some political structure aimed at preventing such outrages?

I'm sorry, but you're just another satisfied brick in the wall. I've seen many members on this board who do more for the Third World than you do and at the same time they never bitch about how powerless they are and how they shouldn't give a shit because they're powerless.

[TC Pilot]

I think that the government actually getting involved in these kinds of disputes is abnormal (at least nowadays). Generally, corporations or international organizations have enough leverage and options to extort these sort of concessions from Third World countries on their own.

On the other hand, I'm curious as to what minimum wages are in other parts of the Third World, compared with Haiti. There are, after all, few countries as broken and run down as Haiti that are still safe/stable enough to be open to corporations. A common tactic was to simply pack up shop once wages got too high, so perhaps they're reaching the proverbial bottom of the barrel. Maybe.

Haiti apparently has an unemployment rate of just over 40% according to CIA Factbook. Raising the minimum wage in that kind of situation is a bit surprising to me (not wrong, just surprising).

In any case, these sorts of things just help to reaffirm my belief that what the world needs nowadays is a dose of socialism.

[evilsoup]

I think that the government actually getting involved in these kinds of disputes is abnormal (at least nowadays).

Isn't that kind of unknowable? After all, this case only came out due to wikileaks being their general awesome selves.

But yes, this is just another peice of evidence as to the need for a single democratic socialist world-state, where the views and interests of all people in the world will be taken into account, plus everyone will have jetpacks.

@Conner: wow, reading comprehension fail

@Wing Commander: I kind of agree actually, but your comment just pissed me off; it seemed like cynicism for its own sake, not really shining any useful light on the issue. And I'm sure there are things you can do, even if you can't afford a boycott; you could write to your ... Representative (or whoever you lot write to about these things), or try to organise a petition. Or just generally try to raise awareness of the issue. It's limited and small, but it is something.

[Zaune]

But yes, this is just another peice of evidence as to the need for a single democratic socialist world-state, where the views and interests of all people in the world will be taken into account, plus everyone will have jetpacks.

Well, could it really make things any worse at this stage?

[evilsoup]

Yes.

Well, logically speaking, of course it could. But I'm not being sarcastic when I suggest a one-nation world.

[Stark]

The flip side of stuff like this are those corporations who (for whatever reason) engage in socially responsible behaviour; some will not work with countries that don't have workers protection, some demand safety standards in factories they source product from, some conduct inspections and monitoring to ensure their cheap third-world labour is held to first-world standards in some way.

[Phantasee]

The UN has that Global Compact program to encourage companies to be socially responsible. They've recently started something called PRiME or something like that. My school is a member, it promotes teaching social responsibility and ethics and so on at the outset, in the schools, before people go out and become the business leaders of tomorrow.

I like to think that it will make some kind of difference, some day.

[Starglider]

My school is a member, it promotes teaching social responsibility and ethics and so on at the outset, in the schools, before people go out and become the business leaders of tomorrow.

Decisions like this are taken because boards are required to maximise profits, and executive compensation is directly linked to profits. Corporations can be chartered to accomplish any ends the founders desire, but for 99.99% of all companies (certainly all publically traded ones) it is 'maximise returns to investors'. A large fraction of those investors are wealthy shareholders, but an even larger fraction are pension funds.

So the question is, are you prepared to accept lower pension payments so that companies can spend more revenues on wages instead of profits? In the long run it's possible that the additional economic growth will more than make up for the cost now, but investors still have decided to take that hit and hold the shares/bonds instead of switching to a more ruthless, profitable company.

The majority of Americans, certainly, are not prepared to accept lower pension payments. They won't instruct their pension funds to invest only in non-exploitive companies, so what makes you think they will vote for a party that achieves the same thing (less efficiently) through legislation?

[Phantasee]

I don't actually understand how your post relates to mine.

Anyway, here's the Global Compact: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
and Principles for Responsible Management Education: http://www.unprme.org/

Looks like most of the major business schools in Canada have joined up:
Haskayne at University of Calgary, Grant MacEwan, Queen's, Rogers at Ryerson, Ivey at UWO, Concordia, SFU, Schulich at York, University of Victoria.

[Simon_Jester]

The majority of Americans, certainly, are not prepared to accept lower pension payments. They won't instruct their pension funds to invest only in non-exploitive companies, so what makes you think they will vote for a party that achieves the same thing (less efficiently) through legislation?

For the same reason that child labor legislation was passed politically, not by investor boycotts? I mean, come on Starglider, practically every major restriction on corporate behavior in history came from politics, not from investors.

You're never going to see investor boycotts become a reliable method of making companies do things that do not directly affect the bottom line, not unless the company is doing something that inspires such universal high-publicity disgust that its name becomes a complete scandal.

That doesn't stop the political process from interfering in corporate behavior, as it has been doing for a century or more.

[Stark]

I don't actually understand how your post relates to mine.

Anyway, here's the Global Compact: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
and Principles for Responsible Management Education: http://www.unprme.org/

Looks like most of the major business schools in Canada have joined up:
Haskayne at University of Calgary, Grant MacEwan, Queen's, Rogers at Ryerson, Ivey at UWO, Concordia, SFU, Schulich at York, University of Victoria.

Even companies like Ikea (who are designed from the ground up to dodge tax) implement standards and 3-step programs for their suppliers and factories in the third world, complete with inspections and training material. A company can be MAKE TEH MONIES and also have a social agenda.

[Starglider]

For the same reason that child labor legislation was passed politically, not by investor boycotts?

At the time there was not a massive and constantly growing retired class whose income is directly linked to corporate profits. If it was just workers vs the super wealthy, democracy can actually work (if it manages to overcome the massive propaganda spending). If there is a huge voting block with high turnout who directly benefit from it, and who are more likely than young people to write off non-Americans as irrelevant, it's much harder.

I mean, come on Starglider, practically every major restriction on corporate behavior in history came from politics, not from investors. You're never going to see investor boycotts become a reliable method of making companies do things that do not directly affect the bottom line, not unless the company is doing something that inspires such universal high-publicity disgust that its name becomes a complete scandal.

Oh I agree absolutely, my point was that this is a failure of human pyschology, not a lack of legal capability. Shareholders, particularly major professional ones such as pension firms, have direct and practical power to set the agenda of corporations and pick and chose who sits on the board. They chose not to use it because virtually everyone who holds shares prefers to think only of the payout, not whether workers are getting a fair share.

[evilsoup]

Except that as soon as it can, Ikea also takes the piss. The only reason corporations now aren't as bad as they used to be (when that is the case, some are just as bad) is because they can't get away with the same amount of shit.

Well, okay, not the only reason: some corporations have made the cold decision that the propoganda boost of doing good works is worth the price.

[TC Pilot]

Isn't that kind of unknowable?

Clearly not. One could, presumably, figure it out it one bothered to look for it. It's not like this sort of interference was hidden. It's just that this one case didn't involve the "send troops in" and/or "overthrow their government" approach as was traditional for the region.

The flip side of stuff like this are those corporations who (for whatever reason) engage in socially responsible behaviour; some will not work with countries that don't have workers protection, some demand safety standards in factories they source product from, some conduct inspections and monitoring to ensure their cheap third-world labour is held to first-world standards in some way.

There are a few examples of this (I recall a British clothing company forced factory owners in Bengladesh to improve working conditions or they would pull their business), but such behavior is generally rare. One might think that it's a difference of mentality: corporate profit vs. human welfare, but the sad thing is that the two are not neccesarily exclusive.