By name and nature:
See:
article on clothing manufacturing
There really is not a lot of jobs nor candidates for union membership anyway, within this industry, so beating up the issue of sweatshops *again* is really flogging a dead horse no matter which way you look at it.
5 comments:
How does the proportional magnitude of these compliance costs compare with that of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
Just asking. :P
There really is no comparison. The CPRS as it has gone through has virtually zero compliance cost compared to this. The costs of the "tax" itself is where the cost is in the CPRS. The cost of the fairwear scheme is not compliance, but lost opportunity. Consumers and businesses alike lose faith in the Australian product.
I don't get get it - the article is all about compliance costs. What is the lost opportunity?
It's hard to explain, because no article refers to the issue of *what they are actually using the information for*. The bar is set so high with the legislation, that it is cheaper to employ sewers in a factory than to follow the letter of the industrial law that the "fairwear" legislation is trying to enforce. Thus, companies like ours employ factory sewers and lose the opportunities of individual sewers which for a number of reasons can realistically only work well from home. The only alternatives are to import readymade garments, work outside the letter of the law or give up on clothing manufacture because it is too hard to have any sense of certainty of legitimacy.
If my memory serves me correctly, you voted for the LNP in the last election.
Post a Comment