"Hayek Complex" Or Excess In Shoes And Sweatshops

Recently, discussions on "sweatshops" have begun to heat up. Unlike previous criticisms, this debate is more about defending them, including NetEase news.

The so-called "voluntary" is the result of capital design.

One of the viewpoints of workers who support sweatshops is "voluntariness" of workers. The author does not agree with this statement. In fact, this voluntary should be a voluntary distinction between "emotional voluntariness" and "economic interests". I think this voluntary is more of the latter, which in fact leads to this "voluntary interest in economic interests", which is also the result of careful design of capital, which is actually drilling for legal loopholes.

It is not difficult to analyze the sweat and sweat of the Khan Khan factory from an economic point of view. It is true that this kind of enterprise is higher than other enterprises in terms of comprehensive wages, but if we pay attention to unit time wages such as "hourly wage", such enterprises must be lower than those of normal enterprises.

Let's take an example, for example, the wages of a factory worker are 3000 yuan per month, no overtime work, the monthly wage of the factory is 3500 yuan, and the overtime is 8 days. If the wage is higher on the whole, however, if the daily wage is calculated, the factory will be even taller. This is the secret of it.

We also admit that there are many workers in the society who will tolerate lower unit time wages for higher total wages, which is just like many people buying more products for the sake of getting low prices. This is also the reason why sweatshops can exist, but this also clearly shows their sweaty essence, that is, more deprivation of the value created by workers in unit time.

The author believes that the existence of sweatshops is basically a shortage of labor legislation, and if China can pay the hour wages in the course of labor legislation, the phenomenon of overtime work in China will be much less.

For sweatshops, these things that have existed for hundreds of years, we can find the answer from the early development of Western capitalist countries. In the early days of capitalist society, British capitalists were also extremely opposed to shortening the "factory legislation" of working days and launching a bloody struggle with workers. Until the shortened working day, when the workers' condition improved, the profits of capitalists also increased significantly.

This is because, in the new situation, on the one hand, capitalists have to upgrade their industries, on the other hand, their physical and mental state has been improved, and their working efficiency has been greatly improved, so that the capitalists have gained huge benefits.

This situation was immediately noticed by German capitalists. At that time, Germany was relatively backward. If German capitalists wanted to catch up with British capitalists and compete with the most powerful rivals in the world, they could not repeat the roads of British factories, but shorten the stage.

Therefore, German capitalists were anxious. German capitalists themselves established associations to shorten their working hours from 13 hours to 12 hours. After that, Germany became the first country to establish a social security system through legislation. For example, in 1883, Germany passed the disease insurance law, and the industrial injury insurance law was passed in the following year.

Even the most exciting and difficult passage of the old age disability insurance act was approved in 1889.

The improvement of workers' welfare situation has greatly promoted the economic development of Germany. Germany has also jumped from the backward countries in Western Europe to become a powerful country to compete with Britain and France.

Bismarck, the then German Chancellor, regarded German "factory legislation" as his greatest achievement and called it "the flower of social reform in all history".

Since then, other European countries have followed suit.

In 1905, the British laid down the law on unemployed workers. In 1909, the retirement law and the labor introduction act were enacted. In 1911, the national insurance law was adopted.

In 1894, France promulgated the mandatory retirement law, and the professional insurance act was enacted in 1905.

Since then, the main capitalist countries in the world have started their own "factory legislation" process.

Not only the rise of Germany benefited from factory legislation, but also the Nordic countries, and the capitalist development in northern Europe was very late. The other main capitalist countries in Europe completed the urbanization process in the first half of the twentieth Century. At the end of the Second World War, the Nordic urbanization was just beginning, and reached its peak in the 60s of last century. At that time, most of the Nordic Democrats were in power, and they attached great importance to the welfare of workers. The most important measure was that the government subsidized the construction of housing and raised various benefits for workers. It was these measures that made the backward Nordic region rise rapidly after World War II and became a benchmark area for the development of human civilization.

Now many Chinese may think that the United States is the most developed and freest country in the world. In fact, this is not the case. The GDP per capita in the United States has not entered the top ten countries in the world. In the latest ranking of the world's per capita GDP published in 2011, the United States ranked fifteenth. The former is basically the Nordic countries, and many studies have proved that northern Europe is the freest region in the world. We can say that the high welfare policy of northern Europe has truly realized the perfect combination of human rights, freedom and efficiency.

The experience of the rise of Germany and Nordic countries shows that backward countries can fully promote the economic development of the country by improving social security and social welfare, and then go beyond the advanced countries. After more than 30 years of reform and opening up, China has long been integrated into the world industrial system, and contemporary China is faced with the "factory legislation" such as the early capitalist countries such as Britain and Germany, and is also facing the improvement of the welfare system such as the massive housing construction in Nordic Europe.

Intellectuals' "Hayek complex" is too thick.

There is no shortage of human rights intellectuals in contemporary China, but these people's understanding of human rights is limited to the political field. Once they encounter human rights problems, they will smile like Monalisa, but behave like a capitalist.

Not only is the lack of attention, but to some extent, China's intellectual circles and public opinion circles have also become the dragging behind of the human rights improvement of Chinese enterprises. The most subtle and crucial factor is that the mainstream economists in China believe in Hayek doctrine. Most of the mainstream economists in China are members of the Hayek Association, while quite a few Chinese media people are also believer in Hayek doctrine, though these people do not fully understand Hayek doctrine.

Hayek is famous for his opposition to social welfare and workers' rights in his life. Therefore, it is easy to understand that in a country like China, a knowledge-based elite and public opinion leaders who believe in Hayek doctrine have low human rights and low welfare.

In fact, the world economics field, especially the Nobel Laureate, does not lack the conscientious people who care about the human rights of enterprises. For example, Myrdal, who wins the prize at the same time as Hayek, is the founder of the welfare society theory and the trader of the Swedish model. Amartya Sen, another winner of the Nobel Prize, is known as the conscience of economics. Her theory of "development based on freedom" emphasizes the importance of "positive freedom (enjoying the freedom of happy life"). These people are popular in other countries, but they are rather neglected in China.

Intellectuals in contemporary China are always shouting "open the people wisdom" and "open the wisdom of the officials". In fact, most of the intellectuals who need to open their minds are Chinese intellectuals. "Knowledge class without knowledge" is the biggest tragedy in China. What Chinese intellectuals lack is not only knowledge but also conscience.

He Zhiquan: the source of funds is difficult to ensure fairness.

The British media has disclosed that the mascot of the London Olympic Games was produced in a sweatshop in Yancheng City, Jiangsu Province, and the accusation that Apple's foundry Foxconn is "sweatshop" is also growing.

Some theorists argue that some labor organizations have problems with Chinese workers. They generally do not face up to the actual situation of Chinese society, but criticize China's labour problems purely because of their unclear moral highlands.

We often talk about sweatshops in the media. What's the real story behind it?

How to judge "sweatshop"

Most people will ask: what is the standard of sweatshops? Is it like the slave society we imagine? Sweatshops are workers who do not eat or drink but work. Personally, sweatshops are a more subjective word.

To measure whether a factory is sweaty, do we still need to see the working hours, wages, working conditions, safety and health? Whether we take the laws of our country as the standard or the international standard as the evaluation standard? If we look at working hours and overtime, the labor law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that the labor law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that they work 8 hours a day and work 5 days a week, that is, working hours beyond 40 hours per week as overtime; and forty-first of the labor law stipulates that employees can work overtime for 3 hours a day, that is, the total working hours are not more than 11 hours per day, and the total overtime time is 36 hours per month.

The Convention on International Labour Organization (ILOConvention) defines 48 hours per week as normal working hours, and the maximum weekly overtime is not more than 12 hours, that is, the total working hours can not exceed 60 hours a week.

Of course, there are other important elements such as minimum wage, safety and health, disabled child labor, forced labor and so on.

From the example of working hours, it is easy to see that our labor laws are stricter than international conventions.

Why is it still being criticized by foreign trade unions and the media for sweatshops? In fact, the problem of sweatshops has existed for a long time, and whether we are looking at China's labour problems according to the standards of foreigners, or according to China's economic development, is worth considering.

"Sweatshop" has existed for a long time.

Why do foreign trade unions, NGO and the media have the power to criticize China's factories and interfere in our internal affairs? This is the issue of international trade under globalization.

Since the 80s of last century, many

After exposure and NGO were severely criticized as "sweatshops", international brands also began to require suppliers to comply with relevant standards, namely, to comply with the requirements of labor and environment stipulated in the codes of production (CodeofConduct, CoC) written by the buyers in accordance with the laws of the supplier's country and the international Labor Organization Convention, and the relevant laws and regulations (environmental protection law, labor law, etc.) of the supplier's location, followed by many industry standards (IndustrialStandard), such as the code of conduct in the electronic industry (ElectronicsIndustryCitizenshipCoalition, that is, EICC, apple and Foxconn are all members of the standard), and multi stakeholder actions (Multi-stakeholderInitiative) such as ETI, BSCI, etc., and also hope that the brand will ensure the performance of the labor and environment of the supplier when purchasing the world. In Europe and the United States, with the media

A few years ago, the CSR movement slowly spread to Australia and even the famous local brands in China. They began to supervise their supply chain.

On the one hand, they are aware of the deficiencies of China in the enforcement of labor laws, and the cost of operation is relatively large. On the other hand, the relatively low cost, efficient production and good pportation of brands are China's best choice for them.

However, considering the supervision of foreign trade unions and NGO, brands also need to gradually improve the CSR management of supply chain. Therefore, brands often send internal or third parties to the suppliers' factories for examination.

Some enterprises that are relatively mature in supply chain management will also support suppliers to carry out some labor and environmental protection projects, such as workers' hotline, left behind children, carbon emissions and so on.

However, most brands' attitude towards factories is "as far as possible" in line with international labour standards. It is not necessarily 100%Compliance, nor is it necessary for suppliers to fully comply with China's labor laws, because brands also know very well that if government law enforcement is not enough, it is impossible.

Moreover, whether the brand can promote the performance of the supplier in social responsibility is also depends on the bargaining power of the brand, and the actual point is how much the brand purchases.

What's more, the size of the supplier's enterprise may be larger than that of the brand, or they are only a few suppliers with only a few brands, and there will be no other supply channels if the brand is not selected.

I once discussed with a European household electrical appliance company that they had had problems with purchasing household appliances in China. The suppliers they looked for were still not willing to improve on some labor problems, but the suppliers were already doing well in the industry, and the other factories were in worse condition.

After weighing the pros and cons, the appliance brand continues to look for this supplier, but is also afraid of being exposed by foreign NGO.

Therefore, there are still a large number of factories with certain labor problems. The question is just which brand suppliers they are.

Accusations

Since there are still many factories that have problems, they will leave a critical excuse for foreign trade unions and pressure groups.

There are a lot of NGO in the world that specifically disclose the bad behavior of enterprises. It's like that in Hongkong, SACOM and SOMO in Holland regularly publish research reports and criticize enterprises.

They will conduct their own research, but most of them are through the labor NGO in their factories or students to collect information for them.

They are a group of NGO who assemble ideas and safeguard labor rights. Therefore, many bad working conditions are caused by the exploitation of large enterprises.

The enterprises they criticize are mainly brand enterprises. This is because the concerns and effects on one hand will be more obvious. On the other hand, they also need capital operation.

Most of their funds come from some trade union organizations, political organizations or foundations in the European and American countries.

Foreign trade unions are powerful political forces. For them, the labor movement is their concern and their political capital. Therefore, NGO helps them to get information and do research. They are also willing to criticize the sweaty supply chain of enterprises in public opinion.

In my opinion, when the research report becomes a tool that they support with financial support, it will affect the fairness of NGO's topic selection and reporting.

Some NGO in order to get financial support, because foreign trade unions like to listen to the story of Chinese workers being exploited, they must be biased when they write reports, and the reports are not necessarily pertinent, causing many situations to be exaggerated (of course, there are also many factories with poor environment in China).

I once read a report that criticized the computer brand supply chain, which listed all the suppliers of the computer brand, but later I inquired about the brand and found that two or three were not their suppliers at all.

However, because of the authority of NGO in the public opinion field and the brand's feeling that it would be denial would be criticized by the public, it had to make a statement that it would re evaluate the supplier's performance and promise to report regularly.

So, to sum up, the criticism of sweatshops is a political struggle.

We do not need to constantly criticize brands or factories in China or interfere in our internal affairs because the supply chain is very complex.

Only by recognizing the essence of the problem can we find a solution.

To truly understand labour demand

When we mention sweatshops and criticize labour conditions, have we ever considered the biggest stakeholders - our workers' friends? What do we think then? Do trade unions, brands, suppliers, for their own interests or face, do things that are imposed on workmen by random auditing, training and projects, or do we really have to understand what workers need? These are all things we must consider when we blame sweatshops.