[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Bear in mind that I am advocating campaigning against UK supermarkets. I am a UK citizen, so I'm not sure where your comparison to patronising racism comes from.

I said imperialism, not racism! i.e. Brits telling other countries that we do things better than they do and their systems are old fashioned or inhumane.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It also seems to be clear to me that many countries' authorities do indeed choose not to enforce human rights protection of various kinds, in many cases.l

Well, that is my point above. It is fairly arrogant of us to assume that our system is better than theirs. They have their own governments, who are responsible for their people, not us. If the locals have a problem with workers' rights or pay deals, then that is really their business, not ours. You wouldn't thank Indonesians for constantly criticising British businesses saying that all of our employees are over paid and lazy.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I'm not sure how you expect fair trade to become any more inside the mainstream system than it presently is, given the low demand for it..... supermarkets sell whole ranges of fairly traded goods, and Sainsbury's even announced that all of it's own bananas would be fairly traded (which they now are, which i congratulated them on)

Anything is possible, and vocal minority movements can carry a lot of weight, especially when they have a trend behind them. Supermarkets like to look more 'ethical' than their competitors.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I wouldn't assume that there was any ethical improvement there, although i would imagine that better quality produce would be used, in order to produce a better flavour.

I highly doubt that ethics enters into it at all; it is purely branding and finance.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

None of the Taste the Difference range uses any fairly traded ingredients, so unfortunately I'm not sure what point you are making there.

I am saying that perhaps this is something that will come in time.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Supermarkets squeeze sellers, who pressure field workers in turn.
But you seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with supermarkets doing that, since you reckon that's ok because they are doing it in order to make money.

No, I am saying that it is going to happen regardless of whether we like it or not. It is a fact of life for every single business that doesn't operate a monopoly.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

A supermarket chain could easily raise their wages.

I doubt that. If they raise their wages, they have to either absorb the losses or raise their prices. Either way means they make less profit. Shareholders won't accept that easily. It is only through economies of scale that they make so much money. It is still a very tight and competitive business.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

For example, Sainsbury's are seemingly not going out of business because of their banana decision.

Yes, because it is a good move that creates good will towards Sainsbury's, which in turn brings in more customers. That's the kind of thing that we have to support, to encourage more such ventures.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

What you are saying gives me the impression that you have not read the reports which i posted. Is that the case, or do you simply disagree with their contents ?

I read them, but I just think that it is nonsense to blame supermarkets for globalisation. It is a fact of life. No amount of complaining is going to make the slightest bit of difference. I say focus on what can be changed.

I also have no idea whether the quoted wages are bad or not. 30p in another country can be worth a heck of a lot more than it is in Britain. Without comparative numbers, the articles are meaningless.

If the workers think that the wages are worth the effort, then who am I to argue? I am yet to meet someone who doesn't think that they should be paid more.

And if it is truly a case of work or total poverty, then I have to ask, what were they doing before the work was available? Presumably living in total poverty. So surely the opportunity to have some work is better than none, regardless of how hard it is?

Originally Posted by Astrocat

You reckon that buying fairly traded goods is a form of subsidy, but that seems to contradict the meaning of 'subsidy'

It is a kind of subsidy from consumers to the Fair Trade companies. We are paying an artificially high price, way above the market price.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the fair trade foundation are inefficient, or that their efforts cause inefficiency of any kind.

I think I phrased that badly. Cut-throat capitalism means that businesses have to be as efficient as they possibly can - they must keep their prices low, costs low and productivity high, just to keep the repeat business from the supermarkets. If you have growers who are already promised a minimum contract value, there is no need for them to be ruthlessly efficient - because there isn't any competition. That's not a problem as long as the supermarket maintains the contract, but if they move on the company will have no chance in the open market.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Then, if that is the case, and if the converse were true (that the more you deprive people of rights, the more likely they are to keep their jobs) then why are so many impoverished produce growers and suppliers going bust left, right and centre as a direct result of supermarket market tactics ?

That happens everywhere. The point isn't that the workers will necessarily keep their jobs, but they will be able to get a new one more easily. In other words, less job protection means more movement of labour. In a larger, national, sense that is better overall because it keeps more people in work. For an individual it is a nightmare because they have no job security, and can be hired and fired at the drop of a hat, which is very stressful. It is an employer's dream labour market. However, this is what keeps the developing nations in a position to be able to compete.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It sounds to me as if that has much more to do with capitalism than socialism.
The companies are tight-fisted, so they try to save money by employing as few people as possible.

In France and Germany it is much harder to fire people from full time employment, so companies try not to employ people if possible. There is a lot of use of contract work instead, which of course removes all the worker protection that they fought to get in the first place. This is the false economics of socialism.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Why do you think so ?

Well, if the mass farms didn't exist, then those jobs didn't exist. So what do you think all those people were doing before? Globalisation has created vast numbers of jobs world wide.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It is well documented that in many areas, local business has been devastated by big supermarket chain/s and many people have no option but to get all of their groceries from one chain (to reach another chain they might have to go out of town at enormous expense which they can not necessarily even afford)

That's market forces at work again. Nothing can be done about that, and I imagine most people are actually happier buying everything from one place rather than having to visit several different shops.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Supermarkets are not going out of business with begging cups outstretched :P unlike many of the unfortunate people who are messed about with by their 'purchasing process'

Again, that is just business. The farming and food business is notoriously tough at all levels, whether in Britain or abroad.

This is a fun debate, but it is getting too long! I hope that you understand that I am playing Devil's Advocate for a lot of this.