Here's your manufacturing... typical.

[Wolverine]

Published June 12, 2004

Patrol's uniforms made south of border
By Billy House
The Arizona Republic

Washington — It seems an odd fit: U.S. Border Patrol uniforms with labels that say "Made in Mexico."
Some agents are irate and others are amazed or embarrassed to find that their new orders for green shirts and trousers are being filled with articles of clothing manufactured south of the border.

The move comes amid a national debate over the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to foreign countries, which is expected to grow more intense as the presidential race shifts into higher gear.

And it is an ironic twist, the agents said, for the agency whose job it is to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border and keep Mexicans from entering the country illegally.

"I just received a half-dozen new shirts, pants — and the labels all say they are made in Mexico," said Rich Pierce, a Tampa-based agent and executive vice president of the 16,000-member National Border Patrol Council, the agents' union.

"Why can't we have uniforms made in the U.S.? What's next? Shipping our Border Patrol jobs to the Mexicans?"

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said they are trying to get as much as they can for the dollar by contracting with a company permitted to subcontract work outside the United States.

"Hollywood couldn't make up satire like this. But it isn't a laughing matter," Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., said Thursday. "This is another classic boneheaded bureaucratic Washington move."

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection bid out and awarded a $30 million contract to VF Solutions of Nashville to supply uniforms for 30,000 border agents and customs inspectors during the 2003-04 fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.

That contract, said agency spokesman Jim Mitchie, allows the company to subcontract to plants in the United States, as well as in Mexico, Canada and the Dominican Republic.

"What we're trying to do is get as much as we can for the dollar," Mitchie said. He added that the bottom line is: "Our Border Patrol agents are very well dressed, well uniformed and neat and clean. And that's how it should be."

http://www.news-leader.com/today/0612-Patrolsuni-110050.html

[Duemellon]

u'kno how we keep our standard of livin since competiting on the international level is becomin commonplace?

by increasing everyone else's.

[Juliana]

I don't get what the big deal is.
It's not like the clothing is trying to sneak in illegeally.

[bluelupis]

Damn, even at wholesale and bulk prices, that comes to 100.00 a uniform. That's quite steep considering even high end designer clothing is imported cheaper.

[BigSugar]

no, that comes to 100 per officer.....one officer got six shirts, six pants, etc.....i assume the rest got more than 1 uniform each.

if the Mexicans can do it cheaper and at the same quality, what's the big deal. we signed NAFTA. so did the Mexicans. The big issue is that the $30 mil is paid in the US to a US company who pays US taxes. they sub out lots of the work it seems, so if they had to hire US workers, build US plants to service the contracts, sub out to only US manufacturers, use only US made fabric, i'm sure the cost would be about 100 million or more. then i'd be pissed, knowing we overspent by 70 million for semantics.

[bluelupis]

You are right. I did misread. The logic used there is sound. The thing is, if the American company was paid 30 million, how much actually went to the actual manufacturers. The people sewing. That is the part that just burns my ass. This Nashville company made a killing even if they were the low bidder. NAFTA while signed by us is a business deal and a dark one at that. Human ethics and being treated as human is different. Don't confuse the two because they are polar opposites. And for the amount of taxes I pay and don't know where exactly the money goes or don't get to pick where the money goes, I would opt for the "100 million" extra for American made uniforms. That's what? Two bombs? Or are we computing it to how many lives those 50 mil bombs take? either way we're fucking someone.

[onest2.0]

Too bad the people at American Apparel (http://americanapparel.net) don't make uniforms.

[Somerset Frisby]

Ah, American Apparel shirts are the best!

[BigSugar]

yeah, but i bet our border guards would look AWESOME in a belly cropped skintight T, hot pants and a thong! that alone might scare away any illegal aliens.......

"Pedro, what the fuck is THAT!!"
"Yoohoo, fella's, come on over to America....we love little foreign boys!!"
"Fuck it Pedro....if i gotta do that to be an American, then i quit!"

[bluelupis]

Originally posted by BigSugar
yeah, but i bet our border guards would look AWESOME in a belly cropped skintight T, hot pants and a thong! that alone might scare away any illegal aliens.......

"Pedro, what the fuck is THAT!!"
"Yoohoo, fella's, come on over to America....we love little foreign boys!!"
"Fuck it Pedro....if i gotta do that to be an American, then i quit!"
LMAO! That is by far the funniest shit I've read all day!


So how do you like our new uniforms Clarise? We left the shirts because they were too expensive and constricting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/the_exchange/images/salisbury_drop_in_gay_men_p.jpg

[AngelV]

Originally posted by bluelupis


http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/the_exchange/images/salisbury_drop_in_gay_men_p.jpg


Is that Right Said Fred?!?


:D

[classicgrrl]

LOVE the pants!

The actual sewers are probably paid about .25 per day ifn they are lucky.

but hey, ifn it isn't turning a profit then it's useless. music included. Ain't that right Sug?

[Phreon]

Originally posted by BigSugar

if the Mexicans can do it cheaper and at the same quality, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that the way most foreign garments are produced so cheaply is because they can be produced in factories that have few or no labor/safety laws (or regard/enforcement of such laws).

Of course you can make a pair of Khahkis or sneakers cheaper when you've got a legion of 19 year old girls working 12 hour days, being paid 5 cents an hour with no overtime (and often no pay at all after 8 hrs).

So the big question is do you think it's o.k. that since we're now in the grand GLOBAL MARKETPLACE, our work standards are slowly eroding because the only way a U.S. companiy can compete with a sweatshop in Indonesia is to degrade the quality of jobs here? Is it o.k. that people (around the world) are treated so poorly just so you can buy a stuffed bear more cheaply for your kid?

Here's a link to Sweatshopwatch.org (http://www.sweatshopwatch.org/swatch/headlines/2001/naftamex_apr01.html)


Think about it the next time you eye those Reebok or Nikes on the shelf.

Phreon

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Phreon


The big deal is that the way most foreign garments are produced so cheaply is because they can be produced in factories that have few or no labor/safety laws (or regard/enforcement of such laws).

Of course you can make a pair of Khahkis or sneakers cheaper when you've got a legion of 19 year old girls working 12 hour days, being paid 5 cents an hour with no overtime (and often no pay at all after 8 hrs).

So the big question is do you think it's o.k. that since we're now in the grand GLOBAL MARKETPLACE, our work standards are slowly eroding because the only way a U.S. companiy can compete with a sweatshop in Indonesia is to degrade the quality of jobs here? Is it o.k. that people (around the world) are treated so poorly just so you can buy a stuffed bear more cheaply for your kid?

Think about it the next time you eye those Reebok or Nikes on the shelf.

Phreon

Word.

Or... just about any toy as most are manufactured in China. (How did China receive favored nation status?) For that matter, most products at Wal-Mart are manufactured in China. Just because some criminals in Congress voted away American citizen rights to jobs under NAFTA and other asisnine "fair" trade agreements, does not make it right, just, moral, or ethical.

This great nation was founded upon three economic pillars: agriculture, manufacturing, and free enterprise. One is not fully supporting us anymore. The second is destroyed. The third is hard pressed to survive due to massive regulations and taxes.
If one believes that not making a nation's own necessities is okay, then is one willing to go to war over said products if the supply is cut?

I'll leave you with a statement from founding father Thomas Jefferson.

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, and then by deflation, the banks and orporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power of money should be taken from banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money, are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies."

[DudeMan]

Okay so we stop buying clothes from overseas and pay more to have them produced here. Yeah, our society can afford to pay a little more for clothes and soccer balls, so fine.

But then the factories and assembly lines in Burma and Bangladesh close. Then the people we were 'exploiting' are out of work altogether and the poverty rates there increase even further, more children are malnourished and the government can't afford the upkeep on the sewage treatment and water purification sites. Cases of malaria increase dramatically because the untreated sewage attracts mosquitos and, remember we care so much about bird eggs that we banned DDT from being exported for insecticide.

But hey, at least we aren't supporting child-labor and sweatshops anymore!

[classicgrrl]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Okay so we stop buying clothes from overseas and pay more to have them produced here. Yeah, our society can afford to pay a little more for clothes and soccer balls, so fine.

But then the factories and assembly lines in Burma and Bangladesh close. Then the people we were 'exploiting' are out of work altogether and the poverty rates there increase even further, more children are malnourished and the government can't afford the upkeep on the sewage treatment and water purification sites. Cases of malaria increase dramatically because the untreated sewage attracts mosquitos and, remember we care so much about bird eggs that we banned DDT from being exported for insecticide.

But hey, at least we aren't supporting child-labor and sweatshops anymore!

so it's ok for those workers to be treated poorly because otherwise they would be out of work entirely?

I guess beggars can't be choosers, huh?

[Duemellon]

now that the economy is becoming global, we r openin our employment opportunities to other countries. Our standard of livin was based on being isolatd from competition for a considerable time due to being the only cohesive national entity/w the infrastructure intact after WW2. However,/w the fall of Russia & increase in tech & transport capabilities, we can no longer maintain our dominance in being able to mass produce, deliver, & hav highest standards of quality along/w the heavyhanded diplomacy to encourage them to trade/w us.

The rest of the world is catchin up & we gotsta play ball.

Now what does that mean? That means that our standard of livin is going to start bein compromised by them. B/c they will do the things we do, b/c the quality of the product will b good enuf to compete/w us, we can't maintain our high level of livin while they're eager to live off of crumbs.

we hav a few choices:
1) Try to reisolate/insulate ourselves by turnin internally to purchase our own products while reducing imports & increasing exports

2) Welcome them in, without consideration of their society's standards & economy which will actually bring our economy down as we can't hire our own ppl, purchase our own goods, while usin practical business principles

3) Look to increase their standards of livin, while sacrificing some of our own, in a manner that will bring enuf balance to the citizenry of the world that they will demand & expect standards of living that we hav become accustomed to, thus forcing the international business community to cater to the worker's demand

Probs with #1:
Self isolation leads to stagnation & bein unaware of mounting external threats. As we cut off imports & purchase our own, our economy gets closer to a 0 sum operation. The international world will begin to trde/w each other over trading/w the US & our exported goods will b reducd until one day, when we "wake up" we'll see that these other countries have establishd themselvs as the premiere economic powers.

Probs with #2:
If we only take from the global community then we will destroy our economy & our standards of livin. The only ones who will benefit will b companies that deal/w international markets & international employees. Any national store will b forcd to get goods from those bringin in the goods. This will force our standards of livin to the point where the workin class is unable to consider livin as they did 10 yrs ago. This, as it seems to me, is the direction we're heading.

Probs/w #3:
We admit we hav to deal/w the international community & their human crises. We actually become involvd in education, emigration, & a sense of community by tryin to encourage the expectations of life & class mobility. I really, REALLY, think that #3 is the way to go.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by classicgrrl

so it's ok for those workers to be treated poorly because otherwise they would be out of work entirely?

I guess beggars can't be choosers, huh?
It's not okay for workers to be mistreated anywhere, but it's also not appropriate to push our values and standards of living on cultures that are substantially less developed than our own. The US, England and every other industrialized country in the world all went through periods where there were long hours, where children worked, etc. Now we're rich enough to be able to put in place environmental and labor standards that put much of that in the past. Countries like Bangladesh can't yet afford to do that, however. But Malaysia and Thailand are on the verge of being able to do so, just as Singapore and Hong Kong were able to do 20-30 years ago.

We need more and freer trade, not less, to help other economies to develop. The US textile industry has pushed high tariffs onto imported clothing, and the unions and 'human rights' advocates have gone along with it. Same thing with agricultural subsidies, which make it very hard for developing countries to compete on the global market. Feeling like we're doing something good and actually doing good are two very different things.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by DudeMan

We need more and freer trade, not less, to help other economies to develop. The US textile industry has pushed high tarriffs onto imported clothing, and the unions and 'human rights' advocates have gone along with it. Same thing with agricultural subsidies, which make it very hard for developing countries to compete on the global market. Feeling like we're doing something good and actually doing good are two very different things.

It is not our job to help other economies develop. Each sovereign nation must find their own way. No one gave the U.S. oodles of money when we were starting out with our hard won independence. The U.S. did it the old fashioned way-own manufacturing, agriculture, and business creation. Additionally, there was no income tax.

The present U.S. policies of giving many countries handouts or subsidies with our tax dollars is not constitutional. Yet it continues. When the U.S. insinuates itself with other nations, the U.S. demands certain things in return or else. How many nations have we changed regimes in?

Meanwhile, the citizens of the U.S. are being abandoned and immorally treated by their government. Free trade is in fact killing the once great American middle class. We don't need to feel good about something unless we are doing something positive in our own nation first.

[Duemellon]

to just let the gates open will greatly effect our own standards of living if we don't actually look to advance them.

The age of industrialization took place in the 1800's, very few countries were poised to take advantage of that & those became humongous suppliers for themselves & increased exports to other nations greatly. However, that same period was a very dark period for ppl workin for other ppl. Long hours & shortages are one thing when u'r workin for urself (farming, small business, etc) but when they shunned the more independent life to work for someone else, they left themselvs at the mercy of this new paradigm of control, indenture-ing, & brutality.

These other countries are still learnin some of these, but their lack of labor laws is what will pull us back so that we can compete. The idea that our skillset is unique enuf that we can avoid competiting for those jobs is a myth. We must face the reality that those foreigners are takin our jobs b/c they're livin in the 1800's style industrial revolution. We can't isolate ourselvs, that's just economic suicide, so we can hurry their advancement along & make them teammates, coworkers, just like us thru education, sharing, & sacrifice.

Personally I'd rather live /w a 50hr work wk than a 70hr one. If we compromise right, we can do that.

[Phreon]

The most sickening part is that the most agregious violators of labor laws overseas always seem to have American ties.

There are "Free Trade Zone" dotted all over the world where a country's labor laws do not apply or are simply ignored. The companies that occupy these zones do little or nothing to contribute to their host countries, as huge tax breaks relieve their financial burden, they pollute and rape the surrounding land and the poor working conditions and pathetic pay betray the workers who signed up in the first place. Promises of enough money to send back home are replaced with the reality of a paltry salary just barely enough to support one's self in the company owned dormitory/town. Long hours, inhumane treatment and the threat of dissmissal or even death in some cases squelches the workers voice of dissent.

Are these companies really helping Chinese, Mexican, Indonesian, Thai and other peoples? What benefit are the people of these countries reaping? Nothing. Nike reaps the benefit of being able to sell a $4 sneaker for $120 bucks while playing Pilate and washing their hands of any wrong doing.

I'm all for free trade, but the wholesale exploitation of human beings ain't it.

Example: A company manufactures in the U.S. and sells a particular product for $50. They fire all their American employees and outsource to a company overseas that can produce the same item for a mere fraction of it's original production cost.

The questions you should ask. How are they able to produce it so cheaply? Is treating human being like animals an acceptible practice? If the item costs said company so much less to produce, why haven't prices dropped? Where has that sudden surplus of income gone?

Then ask yourself if you honestly believe that if relieved of labor and trade guidlines, given especially with today's quick payoff driven market, most corperations will resort to fair, equitable and humane business practices? Right...

I'm a less government is better type, but the idea that the market will correct itself and weed out shady practices went the wayside in my mind, simply because it consists mainly of consumers who lack the discriminatory skills necessary to see the enormous load of horseshit fed them every day. The "market" is driven by stupid people.

There ought to be a minimum set of labor standards an international supplier MUST comply with in order to do business in the U.S. or with U.S. owned companies. That would send a clear message to offending countries that we mean business, unlike the wimpy sanctions we place that are merely a slap on the wrist. It would also prevent companies from picking up and moving shop from a country that's under the microscope to a lesser known area. If there was a set of baselines set into place, it wouldn't matter where a shoelace factory was located.

I'm not saying the government should have it's hand in price control, subsidies, etc. My thoughts are that it should be a silent hand ready to put the smack down on any company that violates a set of minimum, fair practices guidlines. Sort of like what the FTC was set up to do before it was declawed.

But of course, we have organizations like the WTO, that have managed to weasil the ability to cirmumvent the laws and values of a soverign nation all for the corperate good.

Is Nike about making a good product or increasing the bottom line?


Phreon

[onest2.0]

Enquirer article (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/21/loc_loc1auni.html)