4 VANGUARD ■ FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2010 ■ OPINION
OPINION
EDITOR: RICHARD D. OXLEY OPINION@DAILYVANGUARD.COM 503-725-5692
H&M's signature baggage Where your fashion comes from and your money goes One week ago, H&M opened its doors to Portland. Mobs of people waited hours in line to be the first to browse through their selections of stylish clothing at great affordable prices. And many waited with great RICHARD anticipaD. OXLEY tion in the months prior to the store’s arrival, excited at the idea of having an H&M set down roots in the city—I was one of them. But today, I find it difficult to support the store. I find it difficult to support slavery. In its relatively short existence, America has a rather extensive history with tales of both fortune and shame. One triumph that we love to boast is the fight against, and the eradication of slavery in our country. We fought a war over the economic system that relied upon it, and in turn freed a people who suffered its horror and injustice. We like to remind ourselves that America turned away from slavery, that we banished it from our economy, and we truly did—well, sort of. Make no mistake—America is still a country that relies upon slavery, or at least exploitative
labor. Directly or indirectly, we all take part in supporting such a system. One can look no further than the clothes on their back to see proof of this. While it is true that the United States has abolished slavery, all its industry needed to do is look overseas to provide it with cheap exploitive labor. Child labor can be an extensive topic. It is strange to say, but I don’t always buy into the idea that child labor is bad. In many cultures, maintaining family units where all contribute to the success of the family, child labor doesn’t necessarily equate to cruelty. On the other hand, child labor that is forced and abusive is a completely different issue, such as that used at the Goldfame textile factory in Cambodia where H&M produces some of its clothing. In 2006, Expressen, a Swedish newspaper, found the factory utilizing ill-fed and undernourished children working away at H&M T-shirts. The newspaper described the working conditions as “near slavery.” To make the H&M T-shirts, the children, usually around ages 14 or 15, are worked until they collapse on the factory floor. Then they are removed to a first aid room to receive an injection before being sent home. The child workers are also forced to pay a day’s wages for this injection. Factories working with little regard for their
workers have continued to produce for H&M since Goldfame was exposed. In fact, last March a factory in Bangladesh was producing sweaters and cardigans for H&M—at least, it was until it caught fire. But since the safety conditions were so poor at the factory, workers were trapped inside as the fire spread. When the fire was finally put out two hours later, 21 workers had lost their lives and 50 more were injured. The issue has gotten so severe with H&M that Anti-Slavery International, a charity dedicated to stopping slavery in countries across the globe, has made an official demand that H&M cease using portions of its supply chain that utilize slave labor—they specifically cite Uzbekistan cotton used in many of H&M’s products. Though the country claims to have outlawed slavery, that progress was only made two years ago and the country’s cotton industry has been slow to change. According to Anti-Slavery International, Uzbekistan closes its schools each year and forces 200,000 children into the cotton fields for the harvest. The human rights magazine Independent World Report ran an investigation that found that the Bangladeshi factories H&M uses were producing with Uzbekistan cotton. Retailers such as H&M can commonly claim that they have no control over their suppliers, or that they simply aren’t aware of such conditions. But this is a lofty excuse. The simple fact is that
they hold most of the power. Suppliers will follow their lead if they take it—but sadly, many retailers such as H&M don’t want to take any action that could threaten their profit, even at the expense and lives of people. In the 2005 documentary “China Blue,” we find a Chinese factory owner meeting with a British retail customer. It is clear that the retailer held all the power, setting prices and demanding high numbers difficult for any factory to accommodate. Such a power structure forces factories in poorer countries, where labor is cheap and practices are suspect, to operate unethically in order to meet demand. I have long admired H&M fashion and prices. I have shopped at the store myself in other cities. But now that the retailer has set its roots down in Portland, I had to consider them as I would any other store—I had to consider where the clothes were coming from and where my money was going. The money you spend at H&M doesn’t go to the people who strained and possibly even died to produce what you buy. It goes mainly to the company itself—helping to maintain a system of slavery and other ethically questionable labor practices. We may have progresses passed slavery here in America, but other poorer countries haven’t—and that is where your clothes are made. ■
Humanitarian justice Punishment vs. rehabilitation According to a 2008 study by the Pew Center, one in 100 Americans is in prison. Oregon, however, is finding ways around imprisonment and finding more effective ways to not only punish but also reELISABETH habilitate WILSON criminals. According to The Portland Tribune, parole officers “are Oregon’s new jailers.” Now with more authority and administrative power, parole officers are, as Peter Korn reports, “an
increasingly critical component of public safety.” The expanding role of parole officers in Oregon is an exciting prospect when you consider how detrimental and expensive the alternative— prison—can be. Parole officers are a positive addition to the corrections community. In Oregon, about seven of 10 convicted felons are given probation rather than prison. The trend here, Korn reports, is to save prison space for only the most dangerous criminals and to send drug and property crime offenders to parole officers like Lisa Lewis and Barb Fletcher. With budget shortfalls and the recent closing of an Oregon minimum-security prison, the economics of choosing parole over prison look
The expanding role of parole officers in Oregon is an exciting prospect when you consider how detrimental and expensive the alternative—prison— can be. Parole officers are a positive addition to the corrections community.
pretty good. According to Korn, it costs the state $84 a day to keep an inmate in prison, but only $12 a day to have them under supervision. Not only is it expensive, but prison is also notorious for not being the best method of rehabilitation—even for hardened criminals. But for clients like those of Lewis and Fletcher—nine out of 10 of which have an addiction—it would be a disaster. Lewis is hesitant to send clients who fail a drug or alcohol screening back to prison, she tells Korn. “Is jail going to do what we want it to do?” Lewis asks. “It’s not going to help a drinking problem.” With increased jurisdiction in Oregon, POs have the authority to send their probationers back to jail without taking the case to a judge, but Lewis typically opts out of it. She builds a rapport with her clients and calls for sanctions in the client’s best interest according to their particular situation. It is the kind of rational humanitarianism that we don’t often see in the criminal justice system. There are those who say that not assigning jail time, especially after a violation of parole, is too lenient and that early release would encourage repeat offenders. Scott Taylor, the Director of Multnomah County Department of Community Justice, says the opposite is true. Arrest rates have gone down. According to Taylor, keeping first time felons in jail longer “gives them more time to associate with hardened felons and makes them more likely to re-offend.” Experts who study the effects of prison agree. In his 1988 study of the psychological stress that prison imposes on inmates, Paul Wiehn calls prison a “breeding ground for psychosis.” Correctional institutions, Wiehn reports, “contribute directly to the emergence of major psychiatric disturbances.” Wiehn describes the ordeal of a healthy young man who was convicted of larceny and, after six years in jail, was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He was an example of someone who could not handle the pressures of incarceration. With Oregon’s committed parole officers and new electronic monitoring like ankle bracelet technology and home breathalyzer systems, probation and house arrest are increasingly viable options for the rehabilitation of offenders. Usually the more humanitarian, personalized option is the more expensive, but that’s not the case here. Working to actually rehabilitate offenders instead of throwing them in prison is both economical and socially responsible. It’s the best of both worlds. ■