Skip to main content

British Corporate Exploitation and Bangladesh Plaza Collapse

Discount clothes chain Primark has said it will extend compensation for victims and their families affected by the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh.

Primark told the BBC it would continue to pay the wages of those affected for another three months.

The collapse, which happened in April, killed more than 1,100 people.


(Follwing comments extracted from discussion in BBC facebook)

ed: Well, nothing new about this. I think India faced a similar situation, with a genocidal amount of deaths, during the times when 'Britannia Ruled the (bloody) Waves'.


Dana: It is very interesting why would people go to work at a place,that is going to collapse any minute? I'm pretty sure there were number of signs showing disaster is awaiting. and they still went. I do realize they need job to provide for their families,but then was their choice to work there.

Ed: Yes, if abject poverty is a 'choice'.

And if it wasn't for this 'choice', British companies wouldn't want to go there in the first place as they wouldn't be cheap enough.


Paul Cochrane: It is for that country to introduce working conditions/ employment laws regardless of the rights or wrongs

Ed: If these poor countries did more to introduce better working conditions, laws, etc, then western companies would go elsewhere to exploit labour.

Thanks to your companies, these poor countries are now in competition to see who can offer the worse conditions...for their workers....which will then be seen as best conditions for the New Age Colonialists.


ed: Well, if you want your capitalist system, then quit complaining about the relocation of factories overseas.


Funny. Primark exploits the poor in other countries to clothe the relatively poor in this country so that they wouldn’t rise up and overthrow a system that allows this to happen to the poor in both countries. 



Greg Hughes: Time to bring back manufacturing to the UK

Alan Barker: Why do they have clothes made in Bangladesh? Because it's cheap and they can make more profit. If they wanted to pay better wages, they could do it in the UK and give jobs to all of the immigrants that are here and help the UK economy.

Paul Cochrane: Why doesn't the Bangladeshi parliament enact employment laws, similar to those enacted in Western countries? Why are we responsible for how a foreign country legislates working conditions and practices? It's time for these countries to put on their big-boy panties and look after their own citizens. The days of blaming others for their own failings should be over.

Andrew Brennan: british companies should just stop investing any money in bagladesh clearly the bangladeshi goverment does not care one iota about its workers and everything is the big bad west's fault

ed: If you think about it...

....the mindset it takes to bang on about how these factories should be located in the UK for the interests of the people here, or why British companies shouldn’t be blamed for the bad working conditions of Bangladeshis, instead of being appalled by what the Bangladeshis have to put up with and those who died whilst serving western corporate interests, is not dissimilar to the mindset of the corporations who couldn't care less about anyone but themselves.

In that sense, there isn't much difference between either. To understand the motivation behind these greedy and self-centred corporations, go understand yourself.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…