4 ms·

Car firms linked to child labour over glittery mica paint

36 points by azuajef 10y ago

tombert 10y ago
It upsets me at how completely unsurprised I am about this. At this point, I've kind of started taking for granted that corporations in America depend on child labor.
- rfeather 10y ago
  Not just America. Most of the manufacturers listed are European. Not to say US corporations are innocent of this. It's pretty upsetting to me since I own a car with glittery paint from one of the listed companies. It makes me curious as to how to solve the product sourcing traceability problem for the ethically minded like us.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    If you have "glittery" paint, you might have a metallic color which doesn't use mica. It's the pearlescent colors that use mica.
- a3n 10y ago
  Large corporations can be assumed to be doing multiple heinous things until they're exposed, at which point they'll issue a press release and hire a third party to certify compliance. Walmart does that with tomatoes sourced in Mexico, for example, where the tomatoes' conditions in their hothouses are better than the workers who tend them. The tomatoes get clean water.
zaroth 10y ago
Very sad article, not even so much that this material is in the supply chain (official India mica production is just a fraction of total exports) but the individual stories of the families caught in bondage to do this mining work for $1/day paying off a "loan" at 200% interest. Now if only the fine for allowing this material to reach your end product was treated as serious of a negative externality, as say, putting out a bit more sulphur in the exhaust than the latest EPA standard. I mean, sorry, but what a horrid fucking double standard?! Cheaters causing pollution in my backyard that statistically will result in perhaps 100 deaths, fine the bastards $50 billion and shut the company down. Modern day slavery and child labor producing 75% of India's mica output into our car paint and cosmetics causing untold suffering of thousands? Oh, but the standard contract language says they shouldn't do that, so companies wash their hands of it. If an equivalent agency to the EPA cared about this negative externality as relatively as much as the EPA cares about emissions, this would be a $1T fine which would completely shutter the companies profiting from the illegally mined mica.
- mikeash 10y ago
  It seems reasonably consistent to me. This stuff stops at the borders. If they were employing slave labor in the US, they'd get hit hard. Likewise, when companies produce horrible pollution in foreign countries, we don't really care. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good way to do things, but I don't think it's quite a double standard.
  - zaroth 10y ago
    We fine companies millions of dollars for illegally dumping waste in international waters. EPA raided a company and jailed the executives for purporting to recycle but actually shipping the waste overseas. So it doesn't have to stop at the borders. US law can and does punish companies for damage even outside the US. I would have hoped for something like child slave labor, companies would be looking at potentially facing a full embargo on their goods. When you put the fear of God into a company for something like that, they will make damn sure their supply chain is clean. I see it as the best way to stomp out these horrific abuses.
- zaroth 10y ago
  So what I want to know is, does such an agency / regulatory framework exist in the US to fine companies for child labor in their supply chain? If so, how do we lobby it to enforce such a fine? If not, who are the key senators / representatives who we could lobby to form a coalition to try to create such a regulatory framework? I assume that WTO must have a process to combat this. But also, just because it's not "polluting" our backyard doesn't mean US can't fine these companies dearly for using this illegal product in their supply chain. I can only hope that our WTO agreements don't actually shackle us from instituting not only massive tarrifs but also fines in these cases.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    Would that not result in a World Environmental Law ? There is quite a difference already even between the EU and US permitted chemicals.
arprocter 10y ago
Reminded me of this previous discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11246071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11246071
mc32 10y ago
I see two sides to this. One, the government of the country that allows this to happen is ultimately responsible. India is not a banana republic where companies can parachute in and muck about. So they bear responsibility for the working conditions they allow their fellow citizens to work under. Two, yes firms with long and convoluted supply chains still have an obligation to ensure the suppliers follow local regulations, at the cost of contract. That said, supply chains are convoluted and can be difficult to follow, and the best way to address it is by the people closest the problem, the local people. If the locals are corrupt or don't care much about their fellow citizens, it does not absolve the foreign firms, but it does make things more difficult. It would help if there were established a WTO-like mechanism, but for pollution and labor concerns, to help enforce by way of treaties and thus penalties. An option these economies would resist, I suspect would be to impose tariffs commensurate with their deviation from minimum international baselines for pollution, labor laws, etc. These growing economies, their governments and even the labor force, I suspect, would resist such efforts to bring progress in these areas. Let's not forget western economies grew on child labor in the 19th century as well. It doesn't make it acceptable, but it should provide context.
ancap 10y ago
I for one support child labor and recognize that people cannot be lifted out of poverty by fiat. Children working along side their parents means these families can eat, and trying to legislate that away only prolongs and exasperates their poverty. Every advanced economy started with child labor and other, from our perspective, deplorable conditions. The people must be able to gain enough capital first, before children can go to school, adults can have higher level jobs and enjoy other similar benefits of an advanced economy. But getting there is not a matter of outlawing child labor, instituting a minimum wage or other notions some have for "helping" the poor.
- RankingMember 10y ago
  Interesting perspective, but I'd drop that "I for one support child labor" opening line, as I suspect most won't read/listen to anything you say after that. I disagree that child labor is some kind of necessity to a nation developing its economy, but I will agree that legislation regarding it should be carefully considered.
- jon-wood 10y ago
  > The people must be able to gain enough capital first, before children can go to school, adults can have higher level jobs and enjoy other similar benefits of an advanced economy. Why? So that we don't have to give up a small amount the relative luxury we live in to help fund people who had the misfortune to be born in the wrong part of the world? If everyone would just get over themselves we could fairly easily fund decent living standards for everyone without first requiring people to rent out their children.
  - ancap 10y ago
    Several decades of African aid has demonstrated that is a lot easier said than done.

36 points by azuajef 10y ago

It upsets me at how completely unsurprised I am about this. At this point, I've kind of started taking for granted that corporations in America depend on child labor.

rfeather 10y ago
Not just America. Most of the manufacturers listed are European. Not to say US corporations are innocent of this. It's pretty upsetting to me since I own a car with glittery paint from one of the listed companies. It makes me curious as to how to solve the product sourcing traceability problem for the ethically minded like us.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  If you have "glittery" paint, you might have a metallic color which doesn't use mica. It's the pearlescent colors that use mica.
a3n 10y ago
Large corporations can be assumed to be doing multiple heinous things until they're exposed, at which point they'll issue a press release and hire a third party to certify compliance. Walmart does that with tomatoes sourced in Mexico, for example, where the tomatoes' conditions in their hothouses are better than the workers who tend them. The tomatoes get clean water.

zaroth 10y ago

Very sad article, not even so much that this material is in the supply chain (official India mica production is just a fraction of total exports) but the individual stories of the families caught in bondage to do this mining work for $1/day paying off a "loan" at 200% interest. Now if only the fine for allowing this material to reach your end product was treated as serious of a negative externality, as say, putting out a bit more sulphur in the exhaust than the latest EPA standard. I mean, sorry, but what a horrid fucking double standard?! Cheaters causing pollution in my backyard that statistically will result in perhaps 100 deaths, fine the bastards $50 billion and shut the company down. Modern day slavery and child labor producing 75% of India's mica output into our car paint and cosmetics causing untold suffering of thousands? Oh, but the standard contract language says they shouldn't do that, so companies wash their hands of it. If an equivalent agency to the EPA cared about this negative externality as relatively as much as the EPA cares about emissions, this would be a $1T fine which would completely shutter the companies profiting from the illegally mined mica.

mikeash 10y ago
It seems reasonably consistent to me. This stuff stops at the borders. If they were employing slave labor in the US, they'd get hit hard. Likewise, when companies produce horrible pollution in foreign countries, we don't really care. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good way to do things, but I don't think it's quite a double standard.
- zaroth 10y ago
  We fine companies millions of dollars for illegally dumping waste in international waters. EPA raided a company and jailed the executives for purporting to recycle but actually shipping the waste overseas. So it doesn't have to stop at the borders. US law can and does punish companies for damage even outside the US. I would have hoped for something like child slave labor, companies would be looking at potentially facing a full embargo on their goods. When you put the fear of God into a company for something like that, they will make damn sure their supply chain is clean. I see it as the best way to stomp out these horrific abuses.
zaroth 10y ago
So what I want to know is, does such an agency / regulatory framework exist in the US to fine companies for child labor in their supply chain? If so, how do we lobby it to enforce such a fine? If not, who are the key senators / representatives who we could lobby to form a coalition to try to create such a regulatory framework? I assume that WTO must have a process to combat this. But also, just because it's not "polluting" our backyard doesn't mean US can't fine these companies dearly for using this illegal product in their supply chain. I can only hope that our WTO agreements don't actually shackle us from instituting not only massive tarrifs but also fines in these cases.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Would that not result in a World Environmental Law ? There is quite a difference already even between the EU and US permitted chemicals.

arprocter 10y ago

Reminded me of this previous discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11246071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11246071

mc32 10y ago

I see two sides to this. One, the government of the country that allows this to happen is ultimately responsible. India is not a banana republic where companies can parachute in and muck about. So they bear responsibility for the working conditions they allow their fellow citizens to work under. Two, yes firms with long and convoluted supply chains still have an obligation to ensure the suppliers follow local regulations, at the cost of contract. That said, supply chains are convoluted and can be difficult to follow, and the best way to address it is by the people closest the problem, the local people. If the locals are corrupt or don't care much about their fellow citizens, it does not absolve the foreign firms, but it does make things more difficult. It would help if there were established a WTO-like mechanism, but for pollution and labor concerns, to help enforce by way of treaties and thus penalties. An option these economies would resist, I suspect would be to impose tariffs commensurate with their deviation from minimum international baselines for pollution, labor laws, etc. These growing economies, their governments and even the labor force, I suspect, would resist such efforts to bring progress in these areas. Let's not forget western economies grew on child labor in the 19th century as well. It doesn't make it acceptable, but it should provide context.

ancap 10y ago

I for one support child labor and recognize that people cannot be lifted out of poverty by fiat. Children working along side their parents means these families can eat, and trying to legislate that away only prolongs and exasperates their poverty. Every advanced economy started with child labor and other, from our perspective, deplorable conditions. The people must be able to gain enough capital first, before children can go to school, adults can have higher level jobs and enjoy other similar benefits of an advanced economy. But getting there is not a matter of outlawing child labor, instituting a minimum wage or other notions some have for "helping" the poor.

RankingMember 10y ago
Interesting perspective, but I'd drop that "I for one support child labor" opening line, as I suspect most won't read/listen to anything you say after that. I disagree that child labor is some kind of necessity to a nation developing its economy, but I will agree that legislation regarding it should be carefully considered.
jon-wood 10y ago
> The people must be able to gain enough capital first, before children can go to school, adults can have higher level jobs and enjoy other similar benefits of an advanced economy. Why? So that we don't have to give up a small amount the relative luxury we live in to help fund people who had the misfortune to be born in the wrong part of the world? If everyone would just get over themselves we could fairly easily fund decent living standards for everyone without first requiring people to rent out their children.
- ancap 10y ago
  Several decades of African aid has demonstrated that is a lot easier said than done.