Toyota Linked to Human Trafficking and Worker Abuse?

[auricchio]

One question: Where is another article corroborating this one? And not just another writer copying what they read in this article.

[chogan2]

Originally Posted by auricchio

One question: Where is another article corroborating this one? And not just another writer copying what they read in this article.

The Japanese guest worker program has been discussed in a lot of other credible sources. For example, here's the BBC quoting the US State Department, last year:

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Japan scheme 'abuses foreign workers'

"The US state department has gone further. In its annual report on human trafficking, it said that "some migrant workers are reportedly subjected to conditions of forced labour through [its] foreign trainee programme".

As I said above, while the original report provided adequate documentation that Toyota parts suppliers use guest workers in this program, I don't think they showed that a) Toyota's suppliers were the most abusive or b) that Toyota is any different from any other Japanese manufacturer. Other than by anecdote.

I then tried even to understand what the current US guestworker program is like, and couldn't even get the details to compare it to the Japanese system. But I'm pretty sure we don't (yet) force the guestworkers to turn over their passports or (at least officially) allow guesworkers be locked into isolated compounds as a condition of employment. Far as I can tell, at present, our guestworker program is just a visa process, at least on paper. So I guess it's probably less prone to abuse and expoitation than the Japanese system, though, as with all things like this, it's hard to find systematic evidence to prove it or disprove it. But at least for now, I think that guestworkers here, if they have the financial means, can leave without having to beg for their employer for their passport.

[patsparks]

If people would be deported if they don't work hard enough as the article states, getting your passport back isn't so hard.

I find this hard to believe after reading about quality work practises within Toyota and it's suppliers. Good working conditions and quality go hand in hand.

[chogan2]

As an economist, I'll say one more thing about the whole exploitation of guest workers issue. Sometimes a really awful job is better than no job at all. To the extent that the guest workers freely chose their awful jobs over their alternatives, well, the conditions in their current workplaces are more an indication of their awful circumstances in general. So in those cases it's not clear that (e.g.) making those awful jobs go away would actually improve the lot of the exploited guest worker. They might have to go from their awful job to even worse circumstances back in their native country. But a lot of this essentially works out to be bait and switch, and devolves into de-facto slavery. At that point, the free market arguments above (should) go right out the window. What you're seeing is not the result of free and informed choice, it's extortion plain and simple. It may be difficult for us, with our US standard of living, to separate out those two cases.

That leaves aside the entire moral element of the discussion. Most people have no idea that outright, actual, literal slavery still exists. By contrast, some people (though by no means all) feel uncomfortable at the though of consuming products produced by slave labor. For example, there have been a series of agreements signed by the major cocoa producers and the governments of cocoa producing nations, to eliminate slave labor in the production of cocoa. My assumption is that the taint of slavery was cutting into sales a bit, as there had been a pretty widespread campaign to make known the use of slave labor in cocoa production. Whether or not literal slavery was as widespread as was alleged, the perception of eating a luxury produced with (any) slave labor was enough to turn some people off, to the point where the chocolate producers were willing to act. My takeaway is that free markets will sometimes produce some upper bound on the amount of slave-labor inputs to production, due to consumers preferences to avoid slave-produced commodities. But there has to be a widespread and well-documented problem before that mechanism will work.


BBC News | AFRICA | Pact to end African 'chocolate slavery'


Once you realize that at least some people are unwilling to purchase luxury goods tainted by slave labor, it's only a short step to realizing that some people even object to items produced with the worst sweatshop or debt bondage working conditions. So, again, producers' decisions will reflect the average "morality" of the consuming public. Some people will even object if other people buy goods produced that way.

And, again quite logically, if nobody much cares where their goods come from, as long as they are cheap, it's only rational to expect slavery, debt bondage, sweatshops and similar conditions to emerge. It would be an amazement if competitive free markets didn't produce that result, as one key attribute of markets is that, for a given output, producers are forced to produce at lowest possible average cost. If you don't use (e.g.) debt bondage, your competitor will, and you'll no longer be in business.

So from a market point of view, we, as a nation, long ago passed laws to prevent the worst sort of abuses. Out of our own self-interest. Because the markets, by themselves, are driven to do those things when there is a pool of labor available. Because most consumers are indifferent to how their goods are produced. Similar, imho, to our environmental laws. We passed them to protect ourselves, because individual self-interest was not an adequate way to assure a reasonably healthy environment. International trade (in theory) allows nations to compete to their best comparative advantage, that's the plus side, and that's where the focus remains on globalization. But it also means that (at least some of) our cheap goods embody labor conditions that we would not allow here. We don't allow slavery in this country, but we do sometimes import the products of it.

Still have no idea what relevance this has to Toyota in particular. Just wanted to get across the idea that you could find what appears to us to be abusive labor conditions in pretty much any line of goods you'd care to look at. As far as I can tell, the only place where consumer preferences are enough to draw a line is where there is well-advertised use of outright slave labor. Other than that, just about anything goes. Even if this story were 100% correct in every particular, and Toyota aggressively undertook to use the most abusive practices possible as a means of controlling costs, I'd bet the impact on US Toyota sales would be negligible. If we don't care, why should they?

[hill]

This won't be the 1st Time PR Newswire belched out Phoney Stories:

SEC Opens Probe of a Fake News Release - Investor Relations - CFO.com

Their excuse usually goes something like this: "Well, we aren't real journalists anyway ... we just buy the story from others ... you know .. outsourcing"

[chogan2]

Originally Posted by patsparks

If people would be deported if they don't work hard enough as the article states, getting your passport back isn't so hard.

I find this hard to believe after reading about quality work practises within Toyota and it's suppliers. Good working conditions and quality go hand in hand.

Fair point, but note that it wasn't Toyota proper with regard to the use of guestworkers, it was Toyota's suppliers, and it was upholstery in particular that was highlighted in that report (ie, not technical work at all, but stitching, which is classic sweatshop work.) Plus some mention of forming of small metal stampings. I'm no expert on auto making, but my understanding is that, far more than US makers do, the Japanese makers, for purchase of components, set the spec and the price, and leave it up to the suppliers as to how to meet the spec and the price. If, as stated in the document, Totota was in the middle of a long cost-cutting drive, it would not surprise me to see some suppliers scraping the bottom of the barrel/going over the line to get those savings.

Again, I don't think it's any different from any other manufacture these days. They picked Toyota for the impact of the Prius, pure and simple. That's why they plastered the Prius on the cover and plastered the faces of US stars that endorsed the Prius all over the report.

[MaxLegroom]

I find this sort of funny, really. The reason the NLC makes such a big point of the Prius is that quite a few of these stars mentioned bought the car as a statement that it, at least partly, political. Now one gets to ask them about their stances on human rights. I didn't read about this from the source that was originally mentioned in this thread, I read it from another car forum. Specifically, one where they don't typically have nice things to say about Toyota, anyway. Once you boil away the union bias, you are still left with substantial issues to chew on, it seems.

Meanwhile, the reaction I've been sensing here is to fob some of this off, if not all of it as union propaganda, while continuing to harp on Wal-Mart.

I tend to see us, as a people, this way. We decided we wanted people (ours, at least) to have a income that allow them at least a modicum of dignity in their life(minimum wage laws, unions). We decided that we want a cleaner environment(environmental regulations). In our decision to have the cheapest goods possible, we decided that the previous two items aren't terribly important, after all, and buy goods made in lands that ignore both of these issues, among others. How very sincere that is...

[miscrms]

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to the allegations. However, I doubt its any different than what goes on all over the world, including here in our own country. Toyota and the Prius' popularity just give the opportunity for someone to get noticed. Kind of like when Greenpeace went after Apple owing to the huge popularity of the ipods a while back. Apple's practices were no worse than anyone else's in the same industry, but they made a high profile target to get some attention. I think both causes have their merits, but not really a fan of this tactic of singling out one popular offender.


Rob

[YoDaddyAlex]

Originally Posted by sendconroymail

I'm really against this sweat shop crap. I think they ought to hire assembly line workers with a third grade education. They should give them $80k per year, great medical benefits, and give them a huge pension and medical benefits when they retire. While working they should not be asked to work hard and should be able to take breaks whenever desired. They should not be able to get fired and if they are a real bad worker you should be forced to give them a few years salary and some great benefits to send them out the door. Ohh wait a minute the big three already does than for their workers. Never mind.

you sound like a Ronald Reagan child. someone who grew up buying into the anti-union propaganda of the day. nothing destroyed the big 3 except their bad management, and an obsession with making stock holders happy

[SeniorDad]

Irony, it's so....ironic.

MySpace.com - National Labor Committee - 26 - Female - NEW YORK, US - www.myspace.com/national_labor_committee