3 ms·

Probably meaning that they'd lose their jobs if they solved the problem.

bashinator 3y ago
Everyone knows that once you've addressed a problem it goes away forever and no further attention ever has to be paid to it. That's how we fixed racism in the United States back in the 1960s!
- klyrs 3y ago
  I have a friend in this industry and I think your response excessively misses the point GP made. Auditors who actually succeed in flagging child labor find themselves without work -- either because of actions of their employer, or because their employer gets a reputation and businesses who employ child labor don't want the spotlight. It isn't that Nike (or whoever) wants to employ children, what they really want is to not get caught employing children. And they also don't want to pay higher wages, and they don't want to pay supply chain auditors. So if they can get away with paying a rubber-stamp auditor, they can claim they did their due diligence and wash their hands of it.
wredue 3y ago
Yes. This is an actual systematic issue in private sector services. Rather than regulatory body “random” selection for audit, private sector actually gets say in who is picked for their own audit, and if those auditors “find things” those auditors are no longer picked, and thus lose their jobs. I don’t know if child labour auditing is specifically impacted by this issue, but most definitely other forms of audit and bargaining are.
gnicholas 3y ago
I’d think that proven success (“there used to be a pervasive problem but now we are presenting it from manifesting”) would provide good job security. If structural changes were made, that would make auditors less necessary, but it’s not like the auditors are the ones that create the governmental rules around ID checking. They might lobby the issue, but it would be tough for them to advocate for less strict rules without seeming openly hypocritical.

Everyone knows that once you've addressed a problem it goes away forever and no further attention ever has to be paid to it. That's how we fixed racism in the United States back in the 1960s!

klyrs 3y ago
I have a friend in this industry and I think your response excessively misses the point GP made. Auditors who actually succeed in flagging child labor find themselves without work -- either because of actions of their employer, or because their employer gets a reputation and businesses who employ child labor don't want the spotlight. It isn't that Nike (or whoever) wants to employ children, what they really want is to not get caught employing children. And they also don't want to pay higher wages, and they don't want to pay supply chain auditors. So if they can get away with paying a rubber-stamp auditor, they can claim they did their due diligence and wash their hands of it.

wredue 3y ago

Yes. This is an actual systematic issue in private sector services. Rather than regulatory body “random” selection for audit, private sector actually gets say in who is picked for their own audit, and if those auditors “find things” those auditors are no longer picked, and thus lose their jobs. I don’t know if child labour auditing is specifically impacted by this issue, but most definitely other forms of audit and bargaining are.

gnicholas 3y ago

I’d think that proven success (“there used to be a pervasive problem but now we are presenting it from manifesting”) would provide good job security. If structural changes were made, that would make auditors less necessary, but it’s not like the auditors are the ones that create the governmental rules around ID checking. They might lobby the issue, but it would be tough for them to advocate for less strict rules without seeming openly hypocritical.