Use of Forced Labor "Systemic" In Malaysian IT Manufacturing

itwbennett (1594911) writes "The use of forced labor is so prevalent in the Malaysian electronics manufacturing industry that there is hardly a major brand name that isn't touched by the illegal practice, according to a report funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and undertaken by Verité, a nonprofit organization focused on labor issues. The two-year study surveyed more than 500 migrant workers at around 200 companies in Malaysia's IT manufacturing sector and found one in three were working under conditions of forced labor."

Comments

"forced labor"

[tekrat]

Which is what, a euphemism for "slavery" ?
Isn't that the GOAL of Capitalism??

Re:"forced labor"

[TwoEyedJack]

Isn't that the GOAL of Capitalism??

Only if you ask a Republican.

Republicans freed the slaves.

Re:"forced labor"

[knightghost]

Here they called it "salary". Work 80 hours and get paid for 40.

Re:"forced labor"

[JMJimmy]

"one in three were working under conditions of forced labor."

Those stats are amazing! 3 in 5 graduates work in forced labour conditions in Canada/US. They just call them internships.

One person I know, 2 degrees, 1 professional certificate, 2 years of internships. Coming up on a decade of paying for training, working for free, and finding no one will hire because they can just exploit the next slave.

Re:"forced labor"

[TWX]

Slaves really weren't that expensive, that was why the South in the United States was literally the wealthiest society in the world right up before the civil war. A slave owner didn't provide food, shelter, or clothing. At most they provided raw materials for clothing and shelter and a small patch of land for the slaves to sleep on, and made the slaves grow their own food, make their own clothes, and build their own shelter. The only slaves that got the clothing/shelter/food treatment were the house slaves that directly interacted with the slaveowning family and their guests, and compared to the slaves that served as common labourers that number was incredibly small.

Plus, as human beings, slaves were just as inclined to sex as anyone else, and since anyone born to a slave was also a slave, it meant a continuous supply of new slaves for those plantations large enough to have multiple generations of slaves on one property, and probably gave them a surplus to sell. That's how the United States could continue to have slavery for decades after the last slave was imported from Africa, they just bred them or encouraged them to breed themselves like livestock.

This current phenomenon is indentured servitude, with the added indignity of paying for the privilege in advance.

Re:"forced labor"

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Republicans of today aren't the same as the Republicans of the 1860s, right? When it comes to the oldest Republicans still alive and in power today, they're still 6 or 7 generations removed from the Republicans of those days. Political parties can undergo massive changes within just a single generation. When you're talking 6 to 10 generations difference, the policies sure as fuck aren't the same!

Re:"forced labor"

[TWX]

Yes, Republicans freed the slaves. And sometime between the two President Roosevelts, Bizarro-United States happened and the parties effectively switched platforms. One can even point to the election of Woodrow Wilson as the biggest turning point, when Wilson as a Democrat took on the same Populist Progressive platforms as his third-party opponent in Thodore Roosevelt, leaving Republican incumbent William Howard Taft as the most conservative of the candidates in that election. Over the next several elections Republicans became increasingly convervative and interested in promoting big business, while Democrats increasingly cited the plights of individuals and how big business was bad for them as laborers, and less and less in favor of states' rights. By the time FDR died the bulk of the transformation was complete, only leaving womens' issues and civil rights to settle through the next few decades.

Re:"forced labor"

[mrchaotica]

Slaves really weren't that expensive, that was why the South in the United States was literally the wealthiest society in the world right up before the civil war

Well, that and the fact that slaves probably didn't count in the "per capita" part of "GDP per capita."

Re:"forced labor"

[timeOday]

Well, slaves actually did have substantial market value. Piketty has an interesting section on this in "Capital". Quoting from it :

What one finds is that the total market value of slaves represented nearly a year and a half of US national income in the late eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, which is roughly equal to the total value of farmland...

In practice, in the antebellum United States, the market price of a slave was typically on the order of ten to twelve years of an equivalent free worker's wages... In 1860, the average price of a male slave of prime working age was roughly $2,000, whereas the average wage of a free farm laborer was on the order of $200.

For reference, the US National Income in 2012 was $15.7 trillion, i.e. a few percent less than the GDP. 150% of that is about equal to the total value of all residential real estate in the US.

If you're paying for a job...

[TWX]

...then it's not really a job.

Doesn't matter if it's 'clean' multilevel marketing, paying a 'headhunter' to market you to local companies in your area, or paying someone to get you to a job somewhere else, if you're paying, then it's not a job.

At least around here, headhunters are paid by the companies that need workers with particular skills. That's a negotiation between the company and the headhunter. Good headhunters actually take the time to talk to prospective workers to determine their skill sets, so that they can develop a reputation of being good matchmakers between companies and workers. Bad ones just send anyone through with keywords that might sort of apply.

Shocked, I say! Simply shocked!

[Narcocide]

Lack of regulation and oversight breeds rampant victimization of the labor force?!

A look from the view of ultra-capitalism.

[Kylon99]

Let's play devil's advocate here. Let's think about this assuming we don't care about the mass suffering, slavery and murder of humans, which is kinda bad enough already for us to try to end this practice any way we can. Say we are just bare naked capitalists, only interested in profit, past the point even Adam Smith would find horrific.

This is still bad enough for us to care.

We can't use slavery to produce our products because of laws and non-corruption in our countries, nor can we change our system to allow slavery. It would cost too much. So there is no way we can compete with Malaysia who is allow things, official or not. They are gaining an 'unfair' advantage by resorting to this practice that only they can use.

Therefore, even if you are an inhuman psychopathic capitalist (or at least a long-term high functioning one), you should care about abolishing slavery, since it grants those who do an unfair advantage.

Not if you're global...

[rsilvergun]

the real capitalists are global. They benefit from us competing with cheaper labor. Marx predicted this but all anyone can remember about him is that a few dictators used his books for rhetoric.

As for Adam Smith, he actually as against this sort of naked capitalism. He wrote at a time of small merchant artisans. He didn't see the industrial revolution coming and if he had probably wouldn't have written the books he did. These days he's like Marx: all anybody remembers about him is what fits in with what they want.