My bottom line is NO child labour

Children are the most vulnerable members of society (followed closely by the elderly, the ill and women -- a collective group that accounts for more than half the world's population and, yet, is subjected to the basest form of deprivation).

As such, over the course of this blog I will be continually revisiting the issue of child labour and exploitation.

As mentioned in a previous posting (Child Labour: It's all relative to me -- http://rkresponsibleliving.blogspot.com/2006/08/child-labour-its-all-relative-to-me.html) I took great exception to the argument that boycotts and calls for increased labour standards in developing nations hurt the economic survival of the poorest familial units (and the children themselves).

While, there is a sharp decline to the number of children forced into labour across the world, the exception to this rule is in sub-Sahara Africa.

In this part of the world (one of the poorest regions on the globe) one in four children below the age of 14 works -- a rate that matches the child labour average of the 1960s. According to the United Nations, there are more than 49 million sub-Saharan children under the age of 14 who are working as either prostitutes, miners, construction workers, pesticide sprayers, haulers, street vendors, and full-time servants.

The sad fact is these tasks demand more than the household chores that are considered a right of passage for most children in developing nations.

In fact, according to a New York Times story, this is "by far the greatest proportion of working children in the world."

Now, a story out of Zambia (a country I have trudged through back in the 90s) proclaims the hardships and atrocities faced by the children of this ravaged nation. While a portion of these children find themselves in forced labour situations -- the result of exploitation by adults -- many in sub-Sahara Africa opt to work because of hard economic realities.

"Overwhelmingly, though, what drives children into work is not greed but privation. Young people here largely work to feed themselves or their parents, or both," states Michael Wines, in the New York Times, August 24, 2006 article.

Of course, as a nation moving towards development, Zambia has laws against child labour and has signed two international conventions to set minimum wage limits for labourers. But the reality is this impoverished nation supports an impoverished population, whose ingenuity and will to survive is surpassed only by the stifling bureaucracy, the grinding poverty and the enormous impact of the AIDS epidemic.

Herein, lies the premise of the argument that child labour is necessary in order to alleviate the overwhelming poverty that is a reality in many developing nations.

However, there is evidence to suggest the possibility of eliminating child labour AND alleviating poverty. For example, Kerala, a southern state in India, was able to eliminate child labour and is considered one of the least wealthy states in a country burdened with overwhelming poverty.

The fact is, "eliminating child labour and getting all children into school are essential steps on the path to social and economic development. Economic development in the countries once commonly known as the "Asian Tigers" only really started after the political decision had been taken to put all children into school, backed up by budgetary allocations from government to build and staff schools...There are some observers who promote the idea of companies (usually subcontractors) employing children and giving them some schooling as well. Evidence shows, however, that such part-time education is no substitute for quality basic education and that anything more than a few hours' work each week has a significant effect on children's learning achievement. Companies should employ adults and allow them to form unions, if they choose, so that they can negotiate decent local wages and conditions. The incomes of families would thus be sufficient to allow them to send their children to school (the evidence we have shows that usually any income from working children makes only a marginal impact on overall household income). [As such] there can be no justification for companies employing children," states the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

If we rely on children -- the most vulnerable members of our society -- to make the greatest economic contribution than we have already bought into a skewed economic system. The fact is, children are intellectually and physically incapable of handling the long, tedious work hours required in manual labour (unskilled jobs). It is not a great leap, then, to see that the exploitation of this proportion of the population artificially keeps wages low -- which perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

There can be no justification for child labour -- forced or not.

If poverty is to be eliminated, we must demand fair and equitable working conditions for ALL workers -- this includes demanding the standards we have set and adhered to in the developed world for those in the developing world. Even if it undermines OUR bottom line.


To read the New York Times article on Africa and child labour go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/world/africa/24zambia.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
To read the Washington Post article on children and sexual exploitation go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/16/AR2006081601402.html?sub=new
To get more information on child labour go to:
http://www.icftu.org/focus.asp?Issue=childlabour&Language=EN