- Home ›
- Work conditions: informality, coersion and change ›
Carlin Carr replied on Wed, 07/17/2013 – 15:03 Permalink
Catalina, I appreciate you bringing up the flip side of globalization, and I’d like to believe that what you are saying is true. To be honest, though, I’m skeptical. Having just gone back to the US for a month following the flurry of articles on the Bangladesh garment collapse, I heard very little buzz around this anymore. It seems that these tragedies make headlines (right now in the US, there are many articles on the 20+ children who died from their school lunches–part of a large-scale midday lunch program–being poisoned; the US stories I’ve seen are raising awareness around malnourishment of children in India) and then quickly disappear from sight and thought. Does it really influence buying patterns? I have no scientific evidence for this, but from my own personal observations, I don’t think that people are buying more consciously, keeping in mind the conditions under which their clothes are potentially being manufactured.
I know this sounds like a pessimistic take, but it seems like the only incidents that make headlines are huge tragedies. Only then does the world take notice, and even then only for a split second. More proactive protective approaches for workers need to take place domestically. I believe in the approaches mentioned in the Bangalore article–grassroots workers’ movements and tightening of government regulations. However, given the complex international connections today, you’re right to say that we have to think of the solutions more globally. And we all are responsible, even after the headlines go away.