Is the blood of those slave workers in Bangladesh squarely on our hands?

I think the subject is more complex than the post suggests.

The cold fact is that if we in the west did not buy the goods that are made in third world countries, the workers there would have no livelihood - better a poor wage than none I would guess under the circumstances. So simply boycotting the goods is not the way forward. The ethical third world production sector is in its infancy and choosing that is a good option, but does not solve the problem; and the information to make that choice is not always easily available.

I have bought clothes (at some expense) from other more prestigious brand names and found that they too are made in a third world country. Once you start ferreting about through the labels you discover this.

I do not pretend to know what the answer is - but I am sure that if you spoke to the average Mum buzzing round Primark with a gang of children to feed and clothe on Jobseekers Allowance, she would not be thinking about whether the factories are safe. She should not have to - the companies themselves should be making sure that their suppliers provide safe working environments.

So....like everyone I abhor the loss of life and exploitation of workers, but I do not think I have blood on my hands. There is room for putting pressure on the companies involved as it is they who made the choicec to use these suppliers and they need to be alerted to the need to make proper checks.

But I guess the real people responsible are the property developers who are out for a fast buck, and the planners and building regs officers in the countries concerned (usually ones where great wealth sits side by side with extremes of poverty). How do we make these people care about the well-being of their fellow countrymen? - I do not know, but I suspect it is not by cutting off sources of employment for the poor by boycotting the goods produced.

No it's in the hands of the buildings builders, owners and building control failures.

But the cheapness of the clothes should tell us something. I think it is.

I know this! But the reason I "bumped" this thread was to publicise this petition...
www.avaaz.org/en/gap_enough_fashion_victims_global/?tTHlHdb

Which is designed to get public pressure on the brand name companies to ensure that the clothes they make their profits on are made in Factories where conditons of work are as safe as possible.

These countries need a few new examples of our 19th century philanthropic industrialists who went out of their way to provide good conditions for their employees. Saltaire, Port Sunlight, and a few more examples.

Don't think I could walk into primark again. But I would n't criticise hard up mum's for shopping at the cheap places.

I have signed up to it Nelliemoser!

Thank you for putting it up.

You can also support the "T-shirt tax" campaign www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/tshirt-tax-campaign-bangladesh-factory-victims

My first answer to your question would be yes.

In the West the consummer mostly doesn't care who makes our clothes and commodities so long as we can purchase at a price which suits our pocket.

The truth is that some of the business people around the world that run these sweat shops are providing employment in the main to people usually women who are uneducated and would not be capable of finding alternative work paying a good wage.

Even if our clothes did cost more the industry would still find the workforce who were prepared to work for less money the bosses are in it for the money and this is the driving force.

Unfortunately the payment of wages cannot be policed by the retailers in the West, the changes and protection of the workers as to come from the ruling political parties in the countries where this exploitation is taking place.

Some of these well known companies are making vast profits and they can well afford to monitor their suppliers more carefully. Of course, governments are also responsible for their citizens, but in very poor countries like Bangladesh I would imagine it is difficult for them to turn business away.

Exactly. Signed and passed on.

Agreed that low price is not a guarantee that garment is not made in similar conditions to more expensive brand. Which is why we need to require that ll importers must take more responsibility for workers' conditions and safety.

However, there is a difference in a way. Cheap garments from Primark, Matalan, etc, are bought often for just a few days wear, then discarded. And bought in huge quantities, way beyond what is needed, as they are considered 'disposable'- as said before, thrown away if a button is lost, or worse, when the novelty has worn out after a few 'wears'- a huge waste in so many ways (ecological disaster too, with pesticides used in production of cotton, or dangerous chemicals used in production of other textiles and dying, etc + transport, etc). Whereas generally speaking, more expensive items are worn a lot longer and looked after, buttons replaced and other minor repairs. Yes, of course, many people and families buy cheap because this is what they can afford - but too often it is just a buying frenzy, like a fox in a hen coop, because things are so cheap.

No 'in the west' angst here. The factory owners made the deliberate choice to underpay and exploit their workers in order to increase their own wealth. These garments are made to have a short life so we buy more - that's their business plan.

What happened to those poor workers is truly awful, but blaming the wrong people won't change anything.

As long as people want to make huge profits there will always be exploitation of workers.
As long as people are poor they will take advantage of cheap goods.

I wouldn't buy from Primark or any company that exploits their workers but then I can afford to pay a bit more. Not everyone can.

But, as others have said, why not buy less, but better quality. Or why not buy from charity shops. I bought two very good quality skirts in a charity shop yesterday. They would have cost a fortune new.