The Benefits Of Mass Immigration Into Britain, Doctors, Nurses, Entrepreneurs, Etc. But Is There Really A Need For Others To Bring Their Sweat Shops To Britain?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4146648/Workers-make-clothes-major-brands-3-hour.html

[Mamyalynne]

The retailers need to do better homework on the manufacturers they use rather than pulling out when the news gets revealed.

[anotheoldgit]

Mamyalynne

Is it in order for most of our retailers to use the services of sweat shops abroad?

[jno]

the British love a bargain. I doubt these revelations will damage River Island's sales in the slightest.

Just goes to show, immigrants don't always go on the dole after all, they come here to work and they do.

[mikey4444]

Mamy is right here....whether the clothes are made here or abroad, the retailers need to be far more vigilant with their suppliers.

The issue of "mass immigration into Britain" is neither here nor there.

[Mamyalynne]

That is not what I said, no.

[mikey4444]

Mamy...I apologise but I am thinking that the first part of my post you would agree with ?

[Garaman]

No there is no need for immigrants to bring their sweatshops to Britain; we invented the sweatshop and are quite capable of running our own. We would rather limit the immigrants to those prepared to slave in them for low pay like in the days when Britain was Great. Ah the good old days.

[Mamyalynne]

My reply was to AOG , sorry to confuse.

[whiskeryron]

I have been trying to find the answer to the benefits of mass immigration into Britain. Maybe at last someone has discovered the answer.

[Zacs-Master]

Had to have a little chuckle at how AOG complains about threads being diverted and two posts in, diverts his own from talking about sweatshops in Britain to ones abroad.

Anyway.....'Need' is rather a vague word in the OP. One could argue that without these sweatshops the people in them wouldn't have employment. One could also argue that if the minimum wage were introduced, the stores in question would lose profitability possibly resulting in the closure of several high street stores.

[mikey4444]

Zacs....That is a very poor excuse for paying people £3 an hour.

Clothes that sell in places like River Island and New Look are not the essentials of life. These staff are not making bread or medicines. The same excuse is made of places like Sports Direct, and its a flaccid one there, as here. e have minimum wage laws for a very good reason and that is to stop cynical people like Fashion Square, and the retailers.

They are paying sweatshop wages to make even more profit that they do already.

[Zacs-Master]

it's not an 'excuse' Mikey, it's speculation on what might happen if they didn't exist. I'm not excusing them, merely pointing out the potential repercussions of their demise.

[mikey4444]

Perhaps there is another repercussion Zacs !

Perhaps they can start paying legal wages and still stay in business.

After all, if the people making these garments are being paid £3 an hour, and the finished article sells for £19:99, the sums don't seem to add up somehow.

The workers are being paid less than half what the legal wage is, so they are hardly profiteering, so who is I wonder ?

[Zacs-Master]

New Look and River Island both have shareholders who demand a certain return on their investment. To maintain that return (i.e. profitability) the shops owners would have to reduce overheads in some other way, probably by shutting some branches.

[mikey4444]

Its the Law Zacs !

[Zacs-Master]

Mikey, I've already said I'm not excusing it, so please don't shout at me and take some time to read what I've put. I'm simply saying it's not a case of raising wages and everything carries on as it is.

6 months down the line someone will be posting a daily Mail headline stating that high street shops are shutting and blaming Brexit.

[mikey4444]

Zacs....I am not shouting. But the law is what it is, and if the retail industry can't find a way to make money, without paying half minimum wage, then so be it.

But the sums still don't add up do they ?

[naomi24]

It is the law, but looking at it from another angle it’s highly likely that, for various reasons, the people making these garments wouldn’t be able to find employment elsewhere. Surely if they could, they would. That job could well be the difference between them keeping hearth and home together or not. Additionally, following on from Zacs-Master’s post at 17:51, it’s not only investors who whittle into that £19.99. Firstly the manufacturer must be paid and then staff wages, rent, business rates, lighting and heating, insurance, etc., etc. It’s not all profit for the business owner.

[Zacs-Master]

'so be it' -bit flippant. I'm sure if you had relatives working in the shops you might think differently. No, you're right the sums don't add up (I thought I'd pointed this out in my post about shareholders).

[Zacs-Master]

Naomi. Thankyou for echoing and expanding upon my reasoning.