or if you really think it will save the world, reduce the global warming and end all conflict everywhere and forever, the club should give us the option of paying £450.
This option does exist, of course. We could all tell our wives that we are going to have to sell the car(s) and get public transport; we could tell our children that they can't have any presents for Christmas or their birthday; we could even cancel all our holidays, work through them for extra money and make our children go out to work at 16 rather than staying in education until they are twenty-one to get a University degree.
We could then take all the money we save and cut out the middle man (who is only interested in earning enough money to give his family what they want) and we could send the money we save directly to the poor in these countries so that they are wealthy enough to refuse to work in unsatisfactory conditions.
However, telling our families that we are going to take away all the things they desire in order to make charitable donations to people the other side of the world is much easier said than done. I also suspect that most of the Western World would have to make the same sacrifices to make a difference and then the irony is that those in the countries that manufacture these cheap goods would have no work as there would be on one in the world to buy their goods at any price as we'd given all our money away.
At the end of the day the club will charge as much as they can for these shirts. I keep reading £50, but as these shirts have always been £40 I will not buy one at £50. I will go without which will do nothing to help those making them.
If the club could charge £60 and still pay the same to manufacture them they would. If the club were to buy these shirts from someone that has higher manufacturing costs ans were willing to sell them for £30 I wouldn't give them any more than £30.
Basically the club (like all businesses, and individuals) will buy in as cheap as they can get away with and will sell as high as they can get away with. Thus if the club were able to get fans to pay £450 for a shirt they wouldn't give a penny more to those making them - why should they?
Smudge, this wasn't aimed at you, I was just quoting you to make a point.
or if you really think it will save the world, reduce the global warming and end all conflict everywhere and forever, the club should give us the option of paying £450.
people seem to overlook the fact that people work in these sweatshops because that is the only option. but without these shops there would be NO choice. not saying that its all rosey but you have to remember the facts that until there is an alternative these people need these workplaces to survive.
Anyone with an interest in this, or just to debunk a few myths about Nike sweatshops should watch Johan Norbergs documentary "Globaliasation is Good". Yes, Nike have exploited cheap labour in poor working conditions in the past but you'll see from the documentary that that is no longer the case.
It's iniquitous that the workers actually making the shirts are paid a pittance when they are retailed here for forty sovs. Forty quid is a lot of money for some families with children clamouring for shirts that are cynically redesigned each year to keep the sales going. It seems to me that both ends of the chain are getting shafted, while someone in the middle makes a tidy profit.
The difference between a football shirt and say a Primark product is the selling price. The Primark products are cheap so the profit is in paying the workers peanuts - where as football shiirts are expensive. If they were manufactured in a western country - they may cost a couple of quid to manufacture as apposed to 20 pence, but there is still loads of profit to be had. I'd feel better about it - I can choose not to buy things from Primark, but I do want to by Charlton products as they are my club - and I do to be honest - I have the Nike home shirt and my son has the goalkeeper kit . But I'd prefer we were nowhere near Nike and back with Joma!
I do understand the explanations of how the world works – and they are correct. But does anybody not hanker for a world that worked a little less well for greedy people and corporations. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one……
The difference between a football shirt and say a Primark product is the selling price. The Primark products are cheap so the profit is in paying the workers peanuts - where as football shiirts are expensive. If they were manufactured in a western country - they may cost a couple of quid to manufacture as apposed to 20 pence, but there is still loads of profit to be had. I'd feel better about it - I can choose not to buy things from Primark, but I do want to by Charlton products as they are my club - and I do to be honest - I have the Nike home shirt and my son has the goalkeeper kit . But I'd prefer we were nowhere near Nike and back with Joma!
I do understand the explanations of how the world works – and they are correct. But does anybody not hanker for a world that worked a little less well for greedy people and corporations. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one……
No, I don't think you're a dreamer at all - I think you're a sensible realist in understanding where the injustices lie. Some of the earlier posters on this thread wanted to excuse or deny the blatant exploitation and profiteering.
It's like the leads of corporations being hammered for their tax avoidance. Their humanity says - yes people are right to be angry - but then in th enext breath they say - it is Apple's, google's, Starbuck's (replace as necessary) job to make as much profit as possible - it is up to governments to stop them - it is an admission that these comapanies have no morals. I find that position abhorrant personally. The problem is - who would be willing to go without an i-phone, people are not even willing to go without a coffee!!!!!
As a mild, if not weak, defence of Nike - further to the documentary that @JollyRobin mentioned - it may be worth looking at The Girl Effect: http://www.girleffect.org/ It doesn't appear to be well publicised, and I only came across it through a work project.
A project that aims to empower young women around the world, so they can help to prevent poverty themselves. Surprisingly the website, giving a quick browse atleast, doesn't seem to do Nike many favours as I can't see them mentioned. However the Nike Foundation is a major backer of the project - http://nikeinc.com/pages/the-nike-foundation
Additionally, they play a large role in the RED Campaign - fighting HIV in Africa. Where despite the relatively small funds required, pharmaceutical companies wont expend any efforts at providing treatments. Now giving away your product is something that is extreme I know; but consider the efforts Nike are expending on the communities their employees come from...
Would it surprise you if I said the Pharmaceutical industry often has a vested interest in these areas too? Some are even in hot water for out-sourcing clinical studies to poverty stricken areas where participants are easier to find, cheaper to fund and ethical guidelines aren't as clear. Despite efforts to stem this it's still seen as an ongoing practice, and one that potentially conflicts with the Declaration of Helsinki. It's yet another industry that is prepared to crap upon the developing world from a great height, but one which we rely upon heavily - and despite their ethical "nuances" (to put it lightly) - actually do a lot of good.
As a mild, if not weak, defence of Nike - further to the documentary that @JollyRobin mentioned - it may be worth looking at The Girl Effect: http://www.girleffect.org/ It doesn't appear to be well publicised, and I only came across it through a work project.
A project that aims to empower young women around the world, so they can help to prevent poverty themselves. Surprisingly the website, giving a quick browse atleast, doesn't seem to do Nike many favours as I can't see them mentioned. However the Nike Foundation is a major backer of the project - http://nikeinc.com/pages/the-nike-foundation
Additionally, they play a large role in the RED Campaign - fighting HIV in Africa. Where despite the relatively small funds required, pharmaceutical companies wont expend any efforts at providing treatments. Now giving away your product is something that is extreme I know; but consider the efforts Nike are expending on the communities their employees come from...
Would it surprise you if I said the Pharmaceutical industry often has a vested interest in these areas too? Some are even in hot water for out-sourcing clinical studies to poverty stricken areas where participants are easier to find, cheaper to fund and ethical guidelines aren't as clear. Despite efforts to stem this it's still seen as an ongoing practice, and one that potentially conflicts with the Declaration of Helsinki. It's yet another industry that is prepared to crap upon the developing world from a great height, but one which we rely upon heavily - and despite their ethical "nuances" (to put it lightly) - actually do a lot of good.
Well, let's get back to the subject, here - yes, of course the pharmaceutical industry does a lot of good for humankind. However, the manufacture of sportswear by people in Asia who are paid a pittance, and is sold expensively to people in London, does absolutely nothing for humankind.
As a mild, if not weak, defence of Nike - further to the documentary that @JollyRobin mentioned - it may be worth looking at The Girl Effect: http://www.girleffect.org/ It doesn't appear to be well publicised, and I only came across it through a work project.
A project that aims to empower young women around the world, so they can help to prevent poverty themselves. Surprisingly the website, giving a quick browse atleast, doesn't seem to do Nike many favours as I can't see them mentioned. However the Nike Foundation is a major backer of the project - http://nikeinc.com/pages/the-nike-foundation
Additionally, they play a large role in the RED Campaign - fighting HIV in Africa. Where despite the relatively small funds required, pharmaceutical companies wont expend any efforts at providing treatments. Now giving away your product is something that is extreme I know; but consider the efforts Nike are expending on the communities their employees come from...
Would it surprise you if I said the Pharmaceutical industry often has a vested interest in these areas too? Some are even in hot water for out-sourcing clinical studies to poverty stricken areas where participants are easier to find, cheaper to fund and ethical guidelines aren't as clear. Despite efforts to stem this it's still seen as an ongoing practice, and one that potentially conflicts with the Declaration of Helsinki. It's yet another industry that is prepared to crap upon the developing world from a great height, but one which we rely upon heavily - and despite their ethical "nuances" (to put it lightly) - actually do a lot of good.
Well, let's get back to the subject, here - yes, of course the pharmaceutical industry does a lot of good for humankind. However, the manufacture of sportswear by people in Asia who are paid a pittance, and is sold expensively to people in London, does absolutely nothing for humankind.
Yeah, I thought the subject was the treatment of workers... In which case Nike is prepared to support the communities which it relies upon (and improve working conditions as noted in the documentary mentioned above.) in comparison to other companies that wont.
Pharmaceutical companies were the ideal example due to the good they do; despite that good they are still prepared to treat people like crap even when they possess (and manufacture) the very things those communities require.
Nike are actually making a positive change in the way they treat their workers, and are putting resources to efforts that aim to improve conditions in those communities. This is more than can be said for a lot of companies.
I'm glad you got us back on subject there, allowed me to make my point a lot more succinctly.
As a mild, if not weak, defence of Nike - further to the documentary that @JollyRobin mentioned - it may be worth looking at The Girl Effect: http://www.girleffect.org/ It doesn't appear to be well publicised, and I only came across it through a work project.
A project that aims to empower young women around the world, so they can help to prevent poverty themselves. Surprisingly the website, giving a quick browse atleast, doesn't seem to do Nike many favours as I can't see them mentioned. However the Nike Foundation is a major backer of the project - http://nikeinc.com/pages/the-nike-foundation
Additionally, they play a large role in the RED Campaign - fighting HIV in Africa. Where despite the relatively small funds required, pharmaceutical companies wont expend any efforts at providing treatments. Now giving away your product is something that is extreme I know; but consider the efforts Nike are expending on the communities their employees come from...
Would it surprise you if I said the Pharmaceutical industry often has a vested interest in these areas too? Some are even in hot water for out-sourcing clinical studies to poverty stricken areas where participants are easier to find, cheaper to fund and ethical guidelines aren't as clear. Despite efforts to stem this it's still seen as an ongoing practice, and one that potentially conflicts with the Declaration of Helsinki. It's yet another industry that is prepared to crap upon the developing world from a great height, but one which we rely upon heavily - and despite their ethical "nuances" (to put it lightly) - actually do a lot of good.
Well, let's get back to the subject, here - yes, of course the pharmaceutical industry does a lot of good for humankind. However, the manufacture of sportswear by people in Asia who are paid a pittance, and is sold expensively to people in London, does absolutely nothing for humankind.
Yeah, I thought the subject was the treatment of workers... In which case Nike is prepared to support the communities which it relies upon (and improve working conditions as noted in the documentary mentioned above.) in comparison to other companies that wont.
Pharmaceutical companies were the ideal example due to the good they do; despite that good they are still prepared to treat people like crap even when they possess (and manufacture) the very things those communities require.
Nike are actually making a positive change in the way they treat their workers, and are putting resources to efforts that aim to improve conditions in those communities. This is more than can be said for a lot of companies.
I'm glad you got us back on subject there, allowed me to make my point a lot more succinctly.
The maker of a Charlton shirt - the new, this year's one - gets paid fifteen pee. You buy it, because it's a "new" one - that is, this year's one - for forty sovs. Try and justify the difference.
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
Yes, but without meaning to sound condescending and without any kids of my own, I imagine the peer pressure amongst children spurs them to clamour for the latest kit. Parents may feel obliged to buy, even if they can barely afford it. When you see how cheap fairly decent clothes are in Primark, for example, it seems a lot of money for a football shirt that incidentally advertises the club, the sponsor, and the manufacturer. You pay top whack to act as a human billboard!
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
Yes, but without meaning to sound condescending and without any kids of my own, I imagine the peer pressure amongst children spurs them to clamour for the latest kit. Parents may feel obliged to buy, even if they can barely afford it. When you see how cheap fairly decent clothes are in Primark, for example, it seems a lot of money for a football shirt that incidentally advertises the club, the sponsor, and the manufacturer. You pay top whack to act as a human billboard!
Trust me when you have children a new football shirt once a year is the least of your worries.
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
Yes, but without meaning to sound condescending and without any kids of my own, I imagine the peer pressure amongst children spurs them to clamour for the latest kit. Parents may feel obliged to buy, even if they can barely afford it. When you see how cheap fairly decent clothes are in Primark, for example, it seems a lot of money for a football shirt that incidentally advertises the club, the sponsor, and the manufacturer. You pay top whack to act as a human billboard!
Trust me when you have children a new football shirt once a year is the least of your worries.
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
Yes, but without meaning to sound condescending and without any kids of my own, I imagine the peer pressure amongst children spurs them to clamour for the latest kit. Parents may feel obliged to buy, even if they can barely afford it. When you see how cheap fairly decent clothes are in Primark, for example, it seems a lot of money for a football shirt that incidentally advertises the club, the sponsor, and the manufacturer. You pay top whack to act as a human billboard!
Trust me when you have children a new football shirt once a year is the least of your worries.
Point taken! How about Nike, Andrews, and CAFC paying the kids to act as human billboards!
Took me a while to realise this (about 25 years of consideration and deliberation). It doesn't matter which end of the chain you're at, you're being screwed. If you're producing, you're being screwed. If you're consuming - you're being screwed. To paraphrase the inimitable Rodney Rude: "The world's a fucked place".
Yes, I think so. Some politicians like Tony Benn can talk about the iniquities of the capitalist system far more intelligently and eloquently than I. It seems to me that the sports shirt industry is particularly notorious, because of what we read about the bad pay and conditions of the Asian machinists and the relatively hefty price tag in Britain. I imagine some families find it difficult to afford new kit for their kids every year.
Are replica shirts one of the essentials of childhood now? Nobody forces people to buy these shirts, it is possible to watch football without wearing overpriced clothing...
According to the latest definition, a child is living in poverty, unless he has at least one genuine replica shirt.
I remember during the London riots a chav with gold chains, £150 trainers, £50 baseball cap, £30 Timberland t-shirt, £100 voi jeans and a £500mobile phone saying he and his family were living in poverty and that's why they were tea leafing... Oh don't forget £10 balaclava under his cap!!!
I remember during the London riots a chav with gold chains, £150 trainers, £50 baseball cap, £30 Timberland t-shirt, £100 voi jeans and a £500mobile phone saying he and his family were living in poverty and that's why they were tea leafing... Oh don't forget £10 balaclava under his cap!!!
Blimy, I wouldn't leave the house with such cheap clothes on! In fact I'm not sure I'd even wear them around the house doing DIY! ;-)
I remember during the London riots a chav with gold chains, £150 trainers, £50 baseball cap, £30 Timberland t-shirt, £100 voi jeans and a £500mobile phone saying he and his family were living in poverty and that's why they were tea leafing... Oh don't forget £10 balaclava under his cap!!!
Comments
We could then take all the money we save and cut out the middle man (who is only interested in earning enough money to give his family what they want) and we could send the money we save directly to the poor in these countries so that they are wealthy enough to refuse to work in unsatisfactory conditions.
However, telling our families that we are going to take away all the things they desire in order to make charitable donations to people the other side of the world is much easier said than done. I also suspect that most of the Western World would have to make the same sacrifices to make a difference and then the irony is that those in the countries that manufacture these cheap goods would have no work as there would be on one in the world to buy their goods at any price as we'd given all our money away.
At the end of the day the club will charge as much as they can for these shirts. I keep reading £50, but as these shirts have always been £40 I will not buy one at £50. I will go without which will do nothing to help those making them.
If the club could charge £60 and still pay the same to manufacture them they would. If the club were to buy these shirts from someone that has higher manufacturing costs ans were willing to sell them for £30 I wouldn't give them any more than £30.
Basically the club (like all businesses, and individuals) will buy in as cheap as they can get away with and will sell as high as they can get away with. Thus if the club were able to get fans to pay £450 for a shirt they wouldn't give a penny more to those making them - why should they?
Smudge, this wasn't aimed at you, I was just quoting you to make a point.
Mind you, it is the gaffers' !
I do understand the explanations of how the world works – and they are correct. But does anybody not hanker for a world that worked a little less well for greedy people and corporations. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one……
A project that aims to empower young women around the world, so they can help to prevent poverty themselves. Surprisingly the website, giving a quick browse atleast, doesn't seem to do Nike many favours as I can't see them mentioned. However the Nike Foundation is a major backer of the project - http://nikeinc.com/pages/the-nike-foundation
Additionally, they play a large role in the RED Campaign - fighting HIV in Africa. Where despite the relatively small funds required, pharmaceutical companies wont expend any efforts at providing treatments. Now giving away your product is something that is extreme I know; but consider the efforts Nike are expending on the communities their employees come from...
Would it surprise you if I said the Pharmaceutical industry often has a vested interest in these areas too? Some are even in hot water for out-sourcing clinical studies to poverty stricken areas where participants are easier to find, cheaper to fund and ethical guidelines aren't as clear. Despite efforts to stem this it's still seen as an ongoing practice, and one that potentially conflicts with the Declaration of Helsinki. It's yet another industry that is prepared to crap upon the developing world from a great height, but one which we rely upon heavily - and despite their ethical "nuances" (to put it lightly) - actually do a lot of good.
Pharmaceutical companies were the ideal example due to the good they do; despite that good they are still prepared to treat people like crap even when they possess (and manufacture) the very things those communities require.
Nike are actually making a positive change in the way they treat their workers, and are putting resources to efforts that aim to improve conditions in those communities. This is more than can be said for a lot of companies.
I'm glad you got us back on subject there, allowed me to make my point a lot more succinctly.