Nest Cafe
Eric was a regular at the Nest café. The quality of the food and drink was unexceptional, but they were remarkably cheap.
One day he asked the manager how she did it. She leaned over and whispered, conspiratorially, “It’s easy! You see, all my staff are from Africa. They need to survive, but they can’t get regular jobs. So I let them sleep in the cellar, feed them just enough to survive and give them $10.00 cash a week. It’s great! They work all day, six days a week. With my wage bill so low, I can offer low prices and make handsome profits.”
I looked stunned.
“Don’t look so shocked,” she continued, reading my reaction. “This suits everybody. They choose to work here because it helps them, I make money, and you get a bargain. Top up your coffee?”
Eric agreed, but perhaps this would be his last coffee here. Despite the manager’s justification, he felt, as a customer, he would be complicit in exploitation. As he sipped his coffee, however, he wondered if the staff would appreciate his boycott. Weren’t these jobs and the shelter of the cellar better than nothing?
Tags:
Maybe it was the Marx essay I just wrote...
So wait, is there some reason why it's okay that these people are being exploited and abused simply because they're African? Just because they come from a continent that is impoverished doesn't mean that their working conditions in a First World are irrelevant. I would bet the farm that no one reading this would respond the same way if the people who were being exploited were white. We have been conditioned to perceive minorities the stereotypical poor, and accept it when they are in that position. That needs to change.
To see the exploitation taking place here, one has to look at how a restaurant or cafe works. When a customer goes to a restaurant, they are not paying for the food or drink. Almost everything offered at a restaurant is available raw and unprepared at your local supermarket at a considerable discount. What they are actually paying for is the labour at the restaurant. They are paying the workers to prepare and serve them their food. Without these workers, the restaurant is nothing. Instead of recognizing this and paying the workers accordingly, the manager has done everything she can to maximize profit and alienate her employees. If this isn't unethical business, I don't know what is.
The fact that the people working at the cafe have no other option is not reason to adopt a defeatist attitude. This is where action like boycotts must be taken, because without them this kind of exploitation would go on forever. Perhaps these people will lose their job. Transition periods can be rough. But in the long run, Eric is doing much more good than bad.
We don't have a choice but to live under the all-encompassing blanket of capitalism. It is the economic system of EVERY (and I mean every) country on earth. There is no escaping it. It is up to us, then, to combat the oppressive aspects of it in every possible way. Someone who prioritizes profits to the extent seen in the manager of the Nest Cafe shouldn't be supported for any reason. They are the kind of people that need to be openly confronted using a variety of sometimes-legal tactics.
Finally, with prices that cheap, the cafe has to have a large amount of customers. Ethics aside, Eric is a drop in the consumerist pot. His decision doesn't matter on a practical level.
ignorance is bliss
You see a patio set at Wal-Mart for 25$, you know that it is cheap.. do you know why it's so cheap? What would happen if you discovered why the coffee was priced the way it was? I think it's the same way with the coffee. I would be happy to buy the coffee however If I knew why the coffee was so fairly priced I probably wouldn't buy it. I would not continue to support them because I would feel rather uncomfortable knowing that these people are working in such awful conditions. Ignorance is bliss.
A boycott might not be the
A boycott might not be the best solution. If he no longer goes to the coffee shop, the manager will have to lay off some of the employees. Rather, I think that Eric should try to help the workers get a better job and possibilly a citazenship so that they can lead better lives. If these people are from Africa, they are from a conflict area and should be entitled to be allowed to live in Canada (assuming that this takes place in Canada) and would then be on the welfare system and could get their life together. A boycott of one donen't solve anything, either rally the majority of the "regulars" at the coffe shop to boycott, or try to help the people that are just barely getting by.
Thats just wrong....
He should boycott, the employ's might not like it but who the hell cares.. it wrong! no matter what anyone ways this is wrong, its like shoving a young child in your closet and giving it one meal a day, and by the time people fine it... fwala... the kid is half dead........
JUST BLOODY BOYCOTT!!!! BLOODY FRIKIN' HELL, BOYCOTT!!!!! THIS IS WRONG AND INHUMAIN. BLOODY BOYCOTT!!!!!!
Whats wrong may be Wrong but its still a choice
But this is not with children and those people are choosing this they know what they’re doing and they can walk away form it unlike a child that would feel dependent on the store owner yes its cruel but its better then nothing and starving to death with out purpose or chance to get on their own feet and possibly freeze at night or winter. I think these people are choosing it knowing that its bad but it can be a lot worse even if its in bad conditioned they have security in knowing they have at least one meal everyday and a place that’s protected and protective and they do get paid and really its better pay then it could be like in china or any sweatshop this place seems to be much better in comparison.
Analogies
Children is a very good analogy for these workers. They are entirely dependant on the manager, and they can't see any way to walk away. They don't know there are other options and chances are they have very inferior education if any. They are being fed just enough to survive (which could be less than a meal a day) and being overworked, but they're suriviving, which hey, is better than not surviving.
Once again, I think the argument that you should be happy with what you get if it's better than what you could have got is a load of crap. Would you expect someone to be thankfull for living somehwere they were beaten, if their previous home had been somewhere they were beaten and raped? I sure wouldn't. The thing is, they probably would be greatful to some degree anyways, because they don't know anything else. They don't have the perspective or knowledge they need to get themselves out of there, which is where people who know what's wrong, like Eric, need to step in. In this situation things would be better for them, but still they arent' good enough, they deserve better. What kind of life are they even leading working all day 6 days a week on the edge of exhaustion and starvation. These are human beings and they deserve much better, I don't care where they came from or what could have happened to them that would have been worse, this is the way things are and it isn't right. It is cruel and immoral to turn your back on them. I can understand to a degree people not being to relate to sweatshop workers in china, or somewhere far away. But this is a buisness in his country, in his community, he interacts with these people, the question isn't even how can he act for the good of these people, it's how can't he act for their good? And if he really doesn't care, what does that say about society? It honestly scares me a little bit. Are we that desensitized?
I understand where your
I understand where your getting at and I personally agree but no where in this plot or situation is there any talk of beatings or rapes happening in it. and honestly No living Creature deserves the treatment that you have described and there should always be at least one person to stick up for them but still what you are saying on this topic isn't on that nor is completely following the premise.
Analogies
I didn't mean that any of these people were being beaten or raped. I was simply using it as an analogy to demonstrate that just because your situation has improved somewhat doesn't mean that it's 'good enough' or humane. These people are living with just enough food to keep them from starving, and that is not okay, whether or not it's better then what they would have faced in Africa is not even relevant. People hvae a right to proper portions of food, to get fair pay for their labour, to be able to make a good life for themselves, and these people aren't getting a chance to do that. Better by comparison has nothing to do with what's humane, which is the point I was demonstrating. If Canadians, or likely any white people were being somehow scared into these working and living conditions do you think Eric would stand by? I think people would be outraged. Why should African people have a lower standard of living? Why is it okay for them to be treated so poorly?
The African employees do not
The African employees do not seem unhappy about there life style. Would you want to be the one to ruin that?
Ignorance is Bliss
So, Ignorance is Bliss, so what? I'ts got to do with choice and knowledge. I believe people deserve to be informed, and to make their own choices. Just because they don't realize their being unfairly treated doesn't mean it's okay to treat them unfairly.
Plus, it doesn't say in the scenario that they're happy.
In an ideal world...
In an ideal world, Eric would boycot and expose the buisiness and the workers would be given proper wages and fair treatment as human rights demand, however, the sad truth - that I have some difficulty dealing with - is that what is more likely to happen would be that the workers would lose their home and jobs, no matter how low-stadard they were, and would quite probably be deported back to Africa (as it implies that they are illegal immigrants by saying that they couldn't get any other jobs and don't know their rights).
HOWEVER, if it were I in that situation, I could not find it in my heart to let that stay the way it was. I would probaby talk to the workers and tell them that they were being unfairl treated, try to convince them to become legal, even if they had to jump through hoops, and then demand their rights as human beings. I would find it morally wrong to keep doing the same old thing and just turn a blind eye; I couldn't do that.
~Sorcha
Well look at most things
Well look at most things people own and almost all of it says 'Made in China'. That would imply that those Chinese people are probably working for around less than 5 pennies a day. So, most people could morally object to the Nest Cafe scenario, but they are being hypocritical because most things that one owns are made at extremely low wages.
And honestly, those African immigrants are making more at the Cafe than they would in their home land. I don't feel any problems with going to this cafe, it does benefit everyone. Plus, the guy owning it would eventually get charged because those wages are against the law and he would have to pay them more anyway.
Living Standards
So it's okay as long as it's not as bad as the conditions they'd face at home? What happened to human rights? Everyone deserves a certain standard of living conditions, no matter where they're living? Just because they could be worse off doesn't mean their well off. What if they were Canadians or Americans? Would you say it's okay for them to work under those conditions. Would that situation benefit everyone or do they deserve better? Equality is a central idea in human rights, it shouldn't matter where you're born, we're all just people.
Is it worse to be hypocritical, or to be consistantly apathetic. What would you say to someone who said, "oh, I can't recylce or compost anything, I drive to work every day and I don't want to be a hypocrite about my stand on the environemnt"? It's the same thing, just because you don't completely devote your life to human rights doesn't mean that some positive action towards it is hypocritical. Or if it does I'd rather be a hypocrite.
Also, I find it strange that you decide it's better to not protest about Nest Cafe, because you don't protest about workers in China, instead of also protesting about China once you see the situation is so bad at Nest cafe. There are two ways you can prevent yourself from being a hypocrite, so taking the 'I don't care about anything' route is just rationalization about why it's okay not to do anything.
Plus, you say that it's okay because the guy would aventually get arrested? What if he didn't though? What if he got away with it because everyone just turned their back on it, just like you're suggesting Eric should. I don't get it, why wouldn't Eric at least turn the guy in to the cops? An arangement could be made, in that case, where the manager was obligated to keep the employees but give them fair wages.
Reply Reply
But not eating at this cafe would not support human rights. Most human rights activists would likely approve of the cafe owners position because it is supplying impovershied people with a job and a potentially better life. If we begin to discriminate these people out of jobs here, and we are clearly unable to help them at home, then what can we do?
Yes but not going to this cafe, if everyone did the same actions, would put it out of work. Then we have a few African men in our country who don't have a job and not any better off here then they were at home. The whole point of having them here is so they can get a better life. The UN has programs which constantly pull African adults of children out of their countries and into the first world countries so that they can potentially live a better life.
That's what I said, he would get arreserd eventually because someone would report him.
The Universal Decloration of Human Rights
Human rights activisits fight for all humans to get the basic needs and freedoms they should be entitled to. Near starvation and being overworked, with no future prospects, living with many others does not meet these. If you disagree you can go to http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ to look at the standards human rights activisits fight for. Bellow are just a few of the rights that these workers are not getting. I assure you any human activist would be against this situation.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
In regard to your second paragraph, this buisness is unethical and it's opperations need to change or it should be put out of buisness. Welfare is better than what these workers are getting. Also it doesn't specify the age or gender of these workers. They could be teenage girls (I know this is unlike), or some sort of family etc. from what we know. Basically, I'm just saying they're not nesicarily all adult men. It shouldn't matter, because everyone should have equal opportunity, but it seems that this does greatly influence what other believe someone should deserve (see the wages of women vs. the wages of men in comparable jobs, and any number of other examples.)
You touched on one of my points nearly exactly. African people living in our country who don't have a job OR are living in conditions described in this scenario are hardly any better off then they would be at home, if any. The whole point of having them here is so they can get a better life. They aren't getting it. They are being mistreated, misinformed and minipulated which is not right. It's time that we stop using minorities and people of different cultures and colours as cheep labour. We are not superior and shouldn't act so. It makes us hypocrites, just think about how much people in North America go on about freedom, equality and opportunity, and then how we treat forigners.
If you believe she (the manager is female, not male, just for the record) should get arrested, why do you leave it to fate instead of insisting that Eric report her himself? Do you truely believe that we have no responsibility to society, to humanity, to anyone aside from ourselves
The thing is that Eric is one
The thing is that Eric is one small person. This buisness isn't going to change it's ways because of one man not buying coffee. But if they don't have the income it is a possibility that this manager will cut the cost to the "slaves" in the back. I think that Eric should continue to buy coffee if not for any other reason then for charity.
Charity, Numbers and Social Change
1. If it's for charity, why not give the money directly to the workers in some way, instead of buying coffee that they might be getting, what, a fraction of a cent from.
2. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." —Margaret Mead (http://www.feminist.com/resources/quotes/)
Saying that one person can't make a difference is a gigantic copout. Who else would ever make a difference? All there is is singular people if you really get down to it. And groups started by one person's idea. Or a collaberation, whatever, you know what I mean.
Think of the imperatives, human life as an end not a means, and acting as if what you did became a univerasl principal. If everyone bought only from buisnesses that were ethically and socailly responsibility then those who weren't would be forced out of buisness or forced to change their opperations. There's examples of this happening. Big chain grocery stores have started carrying organic food, and chain coffee shops encourage people to purchase reusable cups. Durable, resuable, cloth shopping bags have gained popularity and are available in tons of places for cheep prices (as low as a buck or two in some stores.) It's almost like supply and demand. If people want organic food, or environmentally friendly practices, or fair wages for employees, they support the buisness that offer those things, and other buisnesses slowly follow suit when they see that's what's selling.
It does take more than one person, but it also relies on everyone thinking that they CAN make a difference, that if they do little things to help other will as well and that that will add up to big changes. It's the drop in the bucket theory, if everyone contributes a drop, the bucket is filled pretty fast.
By saying "They need to
By saying "They need to survive, but they can’t get regular jobs", it is easy to assume that they are illegal immigrants. If they were to be exposed the two things most likely to occur are that the immigrants would be shipped home, or the shop would be shut down and the immigrants would have nowere to go.
However, there are plenty of jobs out there that offer fair wages, and rooming to illegal immigrants, that pay more than $10/week, such as fruit picking (Not everywhere, but someplaces) So, if Eric does decide to boycott, I'd agree with him. It goes against human rights, no matter where you are from. But Eric must have a plan in place and be prepared for the possible outcome. One example would be to convince the employees to take refuge status so they can live here and work for a proper wage.
Would you or not
What would you do if the boycotting only caused trouble and was unappreciated it may be immoral but if they are completely and willingly choosing this life style then do they not have rights still? Not trying to twist words here but if they are willing and knowingly working here and is able to leave at anytime then really no human rights are being fought against just bent cruelly. how would you deal with this situation? if you knew out come too would you still go with it?
Freedom of Choice
Choice is a tricky buisness, because you can rationalize that anyone living anyway is doing it because they chose to. You can say people choose to be homeless, choose to drop out of school, choose to try one drug or another and then get addicted. All the choices they've made throughout their life have gotten them to where they are. But that's only true to a degree. Being born is a lot like a lottery, there's a chance that you'll be born in to a rich or middle class family in a prospering country, but that chance isn't very big compared to being born somewhere like Africa. There are lots of outside factors and circumstances that affect our choices, there is only so much control we have over our own lives.
When people have hard lives, sometimes they only get choices between hard decisions. So, sure, they are willing to work their, and they have chose to work there, but isn't that because no better choices have been presented to them? If a child had to choose between abuse by their family, or being homeless, no matter what they chose and how dedicated to that choice they were, wouldn't we still call that an infrigement of human rights? If the only options they know of are bad, then they have to pick something, don't they? That doesn't mean the options are humane.
It boils down to the fact that this manager is taking advantage of people in an inhumane manner. In a way it's like a milder version of slavery. Sure they're free to leave whenever they want, but are they really? where else can they go? So they are forced to live in unhealthy, sub-standard living conditions. It is wrong to take advantage of people in this way.
My last point is this, you only have the power to make a good choice once you are informed, and have knowledge about what your choices are. It is unfair to expect someone to make a good decission when they don't have all the information and when they are scared. What are these workers education and skill sets like? What resources are available to them? What opportunities are there? Do they even know the answers to these questions? I'm guessing they don't, but chances are there's something better available to them. But how can they choose it if they don't even know it exists. Not to mention that their lives are at stake, their futures, perhaps their childrens' and families' futures as well. So chances are they aren't thinking particularly rationally even to start with, fear can control people.
I said Boycott with a plan.
I said Boycott with a plan. As long as you know what you are doing, it is acceptable to boycott.
I am guilty of not purchasing fair trade items, or buisnesses, but if I knew of something like this, and the manager was willing to speak so freely about it, then yes I would protest, as long as I had a plan in place for the safety and benifit of the workers.
Sad Truth
In all honesty that is a sad and common situation in many places globally with sweat shops, hard-labor etc and really what they have usually is better then nothing because with food and shelter confirmed and reliable they can think at least they have that but also hope to get past this eventually have enough to leave and start a life somewhere and be proud of it. If he did boycott it there would be one out of two outcomes one that it would be successful and they would either be removed from that situation and put in proper care till they can be on their own with or with out government aid or they would lose what stability they have on getting food and a dry place to stay and be forced to leave that place and basically have no work or pay and nowhere to sleep as well as this also takes away any purpose to their lives at the current time. Sadly I think that the job they have and the shelter/protection and their temporarily purpose is better then not having anything.