u4d18 wrote:Simple example, my in-laws in Malaysia employ an Indonesian maid who works pretty much 7 days a week (ok, the work's not that hard, but it's still 7 days). She's getting paid £100 a month, sounds like a slave huh? That's 500 Ringit Malaysian but a school teacher is getting paid just over a 1000RM in Malaysia. So in reality a cleaner is getting half the pay of a school teacher. That doesn't sounds too unfair. It's just when you convert it to our currency it sounds unfair.
This may be giving them some more money than they can earn at home but a school teacher only works 5 days a week. So a maid is earning roughly half as much as a teacher for an extra week's work per month, with no time off. Maids may not have qualifications like a teacher, but surely a better way would be to let their maid have time off to study on a course of something similar in order to help her get a better job in the future?
Jimmy Slade wrote:
50 quid for a pair of shorts made from waste plastic drinking bottles mmm small profit margin there then
ethical to the point of a marketing advantage its a business like any other , Breaking up Limestone to make Neoprene with huge pieces of industrial plant no better ethically than using waste product from Oil mining
Well, if paying Hurley $100 for their boardshorts is any better, then go for it! As far as I know, it's not. Boardshorts, and the surf industry in general, is ridiculously over-priced, I agree on that and it's sad to see.
Another thing, ethics aren't so much based on profit margins as they are on treatment of others around them (take a peek http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethics
). Patagonia may only be the best of a bad bunch, but they appear to be a damn site better than any others in the industry and, if buying from them means paying a similar price to other less respectable companies for buy a high(er) quality product made in a sound working environment without the use of sweatshops seems, then it seems wholly justified. Again, here's a link to what they are doing to help make companies in their industry more accountable for the many abuses of labourers that go on - https://www.patagonia.com/usa/patagonia.go?assetid=37492
It may not be perfect, but it's a start.
Jimmy Slade wrote:
Most of this envirionmentalism and morality and ethical choices are made by people with more money than sense and as said above are quite often buying stuff for the sake of it rather than needing it where did reduce and reuse dissapear off to but its ok they put their glass bottle out every monday morning so are saving the planet
So I can assume you think that all of the content on this site is total & utter bollucks, then? http://www.patagonia.com/web/eu/environmentalism
You may be right, you may be wrong; it's still better to see companies at least showing an interest in environmental issues (even if they are doing relatively little - but that we can't judge) than just being blatantly out to make money and let nothing get in their way of doing so. It seems Nike have a proven track record of being horrible fughers without showing any remorse - > http://www.icmrindia.org/casestudies/catalogue/Business%20Ethics/BECG018.htm
Jimmy Slade wrote:hopefully Nike will drive some of the exorbitant prices on kit down
Exorbitant prices on kit? Have you seen how much an average pair of Nike shoes costs?! Do you think they plan to make 'economical' surf gear for the whole family to enjoy?! They may be a powerhouse and create some competition but I think they will just make their prices to match pre-existing ones and hope to take home a fat slice of the same pie that Gordon Merchant & co. have been dining on for years.
I think Quiksilver, Rip Curl & Billabong are all up to the same for sure, it was more to make a point, especially as Nike 6.0 is, at this very moment, attempting to establish itself in the market - my main point was, as surfers, to attempt to shun them. However, I realise how this may well be a pointless effort but it provoked some thought and comment and that's a start.