Sunday, September 14, 2014

Here we go again...

So I woke-up this morning to this op-ed written by Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO on twitter):
Let me focus attention on a few things written here:



Because don't we all demand our "moderate, decent" friends of various religions stand on soap boxes and condemn each and every offensive act perpetrated in the name of their religion?

No. No we don't.

I don't feel the need to call my "moderate, decent" Christian friends every single time Westboro Church protests a funeral, to ensure they demonstrate the appropriate level of disgust. Nor did I call them when Terry Jones threatened to and then did burn a Quran. "Why not?" you may ask. Because I consider them decent people and friends and I assume they are disgusted. Maybe they've expressed their agreement about the stupidity of these actions at some point in the past and, frankly, that is enough for me.

And while we are on the topic, who defines "moderate" here? I don't ask my Christian or Jewish friends if they are moderate Christians and Jews. I don't consider myself a "moderate Irish woman" or a "moderate atheist." Why do we feel Muslims must identify as moderate or not moderate, and who sets those guidelines?

Anyway, there's more:

Seriously? Every single Muslim must publicly and loudly express disgust or what? We label them an ISIS-sympathizer? Guilty until proven innocent? There's something in the Bill of Rights about that.



Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Inevitable Failure of Dodd Frank 1502

Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) requires all U.S. publicly traded companies to report sourcing details about conflict minerals in their supply chains to the SEC, if and when they source minerals from eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or neighboring countries. The underlying purpose was to cut off the flow of funds to violent actors in the region.  The unintended consequence was that many U.S. companies chose to stop sourcing from the region, due to the difficulty in meeting these requirements.  But this consequence was not unanticipated, and we began to see the fallout during the last week.

So what happened? Yesterday I began to see a slew of tweets indicating some major disclosures about Dodd-Frank's conflict mineral section were coming soon.  It started with this tweet:

So I started digging and found these tweets:



Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Sheets, Shirts, and Uzbekistan's Slave Labor Economy


In April 2014, the Uzbek government signed a framework agreement with the ILO for a three-year project aimed at improving labor rights to conform with international labor conventions. The Uzbek government recently claimed they have conducted seminars and workshops to educate government employees about these changes, which they say will improve the lives of ordinary citizens.

Evidence from the fields, however, shows these changes have yet to reach ordinary citizens. It appears the harvest is going forward this year as it has gone on in the past, treating farmers, doctors, nurses, teachers, students, and children as slave laborers in an industry that only benefits high-ranking government officials and a select elite. Recent press reports indicate that these ordinary citizens are not aware of these very big policy changes and are, thus, not aware of their newly granted rights.

The annual cotton harvest in Uzbekistan has begun.

Quotas

Government set quotas are strictly enforced and closely monitored at the local level. District khokims (similar to governors) commit to quota levels and use police and courts to enforce the quotas. Many farmers don’t actually own their land, they rent it from the government. These farmers can be kicked off their land for missing quotas too frequently or failure to repay debts incurred to ensure adequate harvest and support their families. Khokims and their enforcers use threats of eviction to intimidate any farmers who dare object to the annual cotton production.

If farmers don’t meet quotas, they can be sued for damages at about 25% of the purchasing price of the shortage These shortages are never officially recorded in the cotton registry, so those who oversee the cotton industry are never aware of actual production. Cotton packers manipulate the books then make money on the side from fines and selling excess cotton. Packers will only purchase 10% excess over quota from any individual farmer, thus farmers sell remaining excess to other farmers who are short of their quota. There are rumors of physical abuse perpetrated by khokims against farmers who don’t meet quotas, but nothing reliably documented.

Farmer Rights: Uzbek law states that farmers can use any unpurchased cotton for personal use. However, most farmers are unaware of this right and many have been accused by local officials of stealing from the government if they keep any cotton for personal use. As a result, anything that cannot be sold or bartered is left in the fields. Uzbek law also states that farmers must pay all workers, yet farmers typically only pay hired workers. All public sector employees and students work without pay, even though they are entitled to pay.

The Future: Farmers expect cotton-picking machines will finally be made available starting in 2016. Up until 2003, farmers had adequate farm equipment but the machines were not maintained properly and, at this point, there are virtually no cotton-picking machines in Uzbekistan. One farmer estimates that hand picking cotton costs five times more than using the machines. Farmers are not using fertilizers, meaning their harvests are a third to half of potential volume. Fertilizers are too expensive, given the prices farmers receive currently. If farmers could use cotton-picking machines, however, they would save enough money to use fertilizer and increase production. Farmers don’t make enough money to live on from the cotton harvest (in fact, many report losing money).

More about cotton production from the farmer's viewpoint here.



Forced Labor