Do not buy food raised by slaves- it is always nutrient-poor!

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3039046/Read-never-buy-bag-supermarket-salad-farmworkers-treated-like-slaves-live-filthy-conditions-major-stores-promise-inquiry.html

[dariorpl]

Unless someone puts a gun to their head or a chain around their ankle, or there is a threat of such if they refuse to comply, they are NOT slaves. To say that they are negates the evil of real slavery. If someone wants to hire them and they want to work, it's a mutual agreement. If they then complain that their work conditions are too bad... Well guess what, quit!

But they're not interested in quitting, what they want is to shock the media and then use the gun of the State to point it against their employers and extort money from them.

[JeuneKoq]

They are not slaves in the literal sense of the word, but they are definitely not granted their basic worker's rights and human rights!

If someone wants to hire them and they want to work, it's a mutual agreement. If they then complain that their work conditions are too bad... Well guess what, quit!

It's not that simple when you're a migrant that doesn't have any other option than to either stick to the only available shitty job, or pay some more money -that they usually don't have- to go back to their country of origin. They are pretty much stuck here, and their employers know it very well.

What other word than "slave" would you use to describe them? "exploited laborer" is perhaps more accurate...

But they're not interested in quitting, what they want is to shock the media and then use the gun of the State to point it against their employers and extort money from them.

Well that's a very lousy strategy then since a simple investigation will show that the workers lied. And I think it's safe to say that Spanish field owners have more influence on the state's opinion than a bunch of non-native salad pickers.

[dariorpl]

They are not slaves in the literal sense of the word, but they are definitely not granted their basic worker's rights and human rights!

There's no such thing as worker's rights. You don't get special rights just for being a worker. There are only human rights, and they are the rights to own property, including one's own bodies, and to not have their property aggressed upon by others. And these rights haven't been breached here. Nobody has a right to good working conditions, or to have a job in the first place. If they don't like their jobs, they shouldn't take them, or they should quit.

It's not that simple when you're a migrant that doesn't have any other option than to either stick to the only available shitty job, or pay some more money -that they usually don't have- to go back to their country of origin. They are pretty much stuck here, and their employers know it very well.

Nobody forced them to be migrant workers. They chose to do that out of their own wills. And what's more, that's not the employer's problem or their responsibility to fix. If someone would starve if you don't give them a job, does that make you responsible for hiring them? No. It's their responsiblity to find their own means of subsistence that don't involve committing crimes against others. If you still want to help them, that's perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be compelled to by law.

What other word than "slave" would you use to describe them? "exploited laborer" is perhaps more accurate...

Workers.

And what do you mean by exploited? Everybody is exploited. Exploitation means putting some resource to use. You are exploiting me by reading my posts, and I'm exploiting you. The workers are exploiting the employers to get jobs that will pay them, in their view, better money and with better working conditions than they were able to get in their own countries. We know this because they chose to move there and stay there with all the complications that implies, just so that they could have those jobs.

Well that's a very lousy strategy then since a simple investigation will show that the workers lied.

I didn't say they lied. It could all be true and it would still be extortion. And of course, if they don't want the jobs anymore, it doesn't cost them anything to make up lies. The only valid complain is the one where they said they're only being paid for 16 days even though they worked 26, which I doubt. And the part about pesticides would only be valid if they were told they wouldn't be sprayed with them. If they were aware of what was going on and they chose to keep the job, it's their responsibility if they got sick.

And I think it's safe to say that Spanish field owners have more influence on the state's opinion than a bunch of non-native salad pickers.

That could very well be true, but that's not the point.

[JeuneKoq]

There's no such thing as worker's rights. You don't get special rights just for being a worker.

Well in Belgium there is, and I'm pretty sure these worker's rights can be found all throughout the European union, including Spain.

Belgium: https://www.socialsecurity.be/foreign/en/employer_limosa/infos/otherobligations/labour.html

Spain: http://www.foreignstaffing.com/about/international-labor-law/spain-labor-laws/

There are only human rights, and they are the rights to own property, including one's own bodies, and to not have their property aggressed upon by others. And these rights haven't been breached here.

If they are being harmed with pesticides because they are not provided the necessary protection (protective suit, masks...), then their right to good health is being violated. Among other things. Right to hygiene must be written somewhere there too.

Nobody forced them to be migrant workers.

Well we could discuss history of colonization and its impact on various native societies, but that's not what we're about today.

Nobody forced them to be migrant workers. They chose to do that out of their own wills. And what's more, that's not the employer's problem or their responsibility to fix. If someone would starve if you don't give them a job, does that make you responsible for hiring them? No. It's their responsiblity to find their own means of subsistence that don't involve committing crimes against others. If you still want to help them, that's perfectly fine. But you shouldn't be compelled to by law.

That doesn't give the employers the right to treat them like slaves. Again, it goes against basic human rights. Send them back to their country or treat them like respectable employees.

Workers.

And what do you mean by exploited? Everybody is exploited. Exploitation means putting some resource to use. You are exploiting me by reading my posts, and I'm exploiting you. The workers are exploiting the employers to get jobs that will pay them, in their view, better money and with better working conditions than they were able to get in their own countries. We know this because they chose to move there and stay there with all the complications that implies, just so that they could have those jobs.

Well, in french, the word "exploited" is commonly used in situations where the person is abused, works a lot in often bad conditions, and is given little in return.

I didn't say they lied. It could all be true and it would still be extortion. And of course, if they don't want the jobs anymore, it doesn't cost them anything to make up lies.

Extortion, that's the word.

Yes, it could cost them a (free?) trip back to misery home.

The only valid complain is the one where they said they're only being paid for 16 days even though they worked 26, which I doubt. And the part about pesticides would only be valid if they were told they wouldn't be sprayed with them. If they were aware of what was going on and they chose to keep the job, it's their responsibility if they got sick.

So you do think they're lying. Yeah, maybe they're exaggerating numbers so people actually react. It's understandable.

Like I said, they might have nowhere else to go, having no money for a return ticket or a smuggler, and their job could be the only one accessible to illegal migrants. Too bad for them, had to think twice before taking that boat to a fantasized better life. Can't blame the farm owners for being a tinny bit flexible on some laws...

That could very well be true, but that's not the point.

Point was their complaints probably won't be listened to, as the Spanish state benefits more from export than it does from looking after it's illegal immigrants, so them trying to lie to extort money would be a very desperate move.

[TylerDurden]

If the workers are ill-treated, they have no incentive to provide a decent product.

[dariorpl]

Well in Belgium there is, and I'm pretty sure these worker's rights can be found all throughout the European union, including Spain.

You're not talking about rights, you're talking about laws. Someone doesn't magically gain a new right that they didn't have before (and that others don't have) when a politician writes a new law.

If they are being harmed with pesticides because they are not provided the necessary protection (protective suit, masks...), then their right to good health is being violated.

There is no right to good health, there is a right to not have your property polluted against your will. They have no right to be provided protective suits, masks or whatever. If they want those and the employer doesn't offer them, they can quit. You have a right not to have pesticides pollute the air on your land. You don't have a right not to have the air you breathe sprayed with pesticides when you are on somebody else's land and quite aware that pesticides are being sprayed on top of you, and you are staying in there by choice.

This is very simple. If you go into someone else's house, you don't have a right to demand that they put out their cigarette because the smoke is bad for you. You can ask. If they refuse to put it out, you can leave. Your rights have not been violated if you choose to stay in their house and knowingly breathe in smoke you didn't want. You don't suddenly gain a right that you didn't have before when your reason for being in somebody else's property is for work rather than leisure. Just like they don't suddenly lose a right that they had before if their reason for having you there is for work instead of leisure.

Among other things. Right to hygiene must be written somewhere there too.

Again, there's no such thing as a right to hygiene. Just because some politician wrote somewhere that these things must be provided, doesn't mean they are rights. It also doesn't mean that whoever is not provided with these things is now a slave. If anybody is the slave here, it is the employer who is being forced at gunpoint to provide things to his employees besides that which he contractually agreed to provide for them.

Well, in french, the word "exploited" is commonly used in situations where the person is abused, works a lot in often bad conditions, and is given little in return.

That's a lot of different terms which describe different situations. And again, nobody has a right to work conditions that they deem appropriate or to wages that they deem good. If they don't like what they are being offered, they are the ones who should quit. In the same way that an employer doesn't have a right to employees that provide good quality labor for a low price. If the employer doesn't like what his employees provide, he should fire them.

[dariorpl]

If the workers are ill-treated, they have no incentive to provide a decent product.

That's probably true. But I wasn't talking about the quality of the products. Just the idea that these workers are "slaves"

[cherimoya_kid]

That's probably true. But I wasn't talking about the quality of the products. Just the idea that these workers are "slaves"

You're making an ass of yourself.

[JeuneKoq]

You're not talking about rights, you're talking about laws. Someone doesn't magically gain a new right that they didn't have before (and that others don't have) when a politician writes a new law.

Yes I am:

https://www.socialsecurity.be/foreign/en/employer_limosa/infos/otherobligations/labour.html

Applicable labour right

The employer who employs posted workers in Belgium is, in respect of the work performed there, obliged to comply with the terms and conditions of employment, of work and pay laid down in legal, regulatory or collective provisions carrying a criminal law punishment. It establishes a core of mandatory regulations aimed at ensuring the protection of the rights of workers posted in Belgium.

Those essential regulations relate to:

working hours and rest periods: the labour organisation, that is to say the normal limits of working hours, overtime, work on Sundays, nightwork, work on public holiday;
minimum rates of pay: minimum wages fixed by collective agreements made mandatory by Royal Decrees;
temporary work: the set of rules that determines cases where temporary work is authorized and rules framing this type of work;
provision of labour force: rules that determine the conditions of the supply of workers for a user;
equality of treatment: non-discrimination principles, especially between men and women
health, safety and hygiene at work;
protective measures with regard to pregnant women;
social documents enabling the control by the inspection services of matters with relation to the directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers.

http://www.foreignstaffing.com/about/international-labor-law/spain-labor-laws/
Spain Labor laws - Employee Rights

Female employees can take as many as 16 weeks of maternity leave and are required to take at least six weeks immediately after birth.
The amount of time permitted for maternity leave is increased with:
Medical complications
More than one child born (two weeks for every child after first)
Child born with disability
Should there be maternal death during the leave, the remaining leave is transferred to the father.
Provided there is fulfillment of a qualifying period of paid employment benefits, social security benefits are paid to employees on maternity leave.
Until the child is eight years old, female employees are permitted to decrease workdays and take a proportional reduction of salaries.
Female workers are permitted a maximum of three years maternity leave of absence through contract suspension and receive no salary during this absence.
Immediately after birth, the child’s father may take two days of leave.  After these days, the father is entitled to a 13 day paternity leave, which is extended by two weeks for every additional child born.
Regulations protect the privacy of employee emails sent over the system of the employer.  In light of this, it is recommended that employers create procedures to prevent personal use of company email.
In the event of illness or injury, an employee is entitled to a maximum of 18 months for sick leave.  During this time, the employee is paid 75% of the normal salary.
“If the sickness or injuries are due to an accident at work, Social Security will pay from the first day, but if it is due to a common illness or accident, the employer can only recover payments from Spanish Social Security after the 16th day of absence”.  (James)
In the event that an employee is deemed permanently ill by Social Security, the employment contract will terminate and the worker will receive social security pension.
 

There is no right to good health, there is a right to not have your property polluted against your will. They have no right to be provided protective suits, masks or whatever. If they want those and the employer doesn't offer them, they can quit. You have a right not to have pesticides pollute the air on your land. You don't have a right not to have the air you breathe sprayed with pesticides when you are on somebody else's land and quite aware that pesticides are being sprayed on top of you, and you are staying in there by choice.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a1

The Universal declaration of human rights:


Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

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.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

It seems to me that these basic human rights are being violated in this case.

Also you are right, nothing about hygiene. But hygiene goes hand in hand with the right to a "standard of living adequate for health".

So they have the right to quit their job. Fine... In theory. But as I've now explained for the 3rd time, it is really not that simple for illegal immigrants. If they quit their job, they are likely to end up in the streets, as there are no other realistic options available to them. And their employers know it so very well.

They don't have the money to go back to their country, and there are no other jobs available to them. So employers can basically treat them however they like, as long as nobody comes to investigate.

[dariorpl]

Jeune, you have no idea what rights are.

[dariorpl]

You're making an ass of yourself.

No, but you are.

[JeuneKoq]

Jeune, you have no idea what rights are.

What are rights according to you? Maybe the meaning is different in Argentina.

[cherimoya_kid]

No, but you are.

Really? Dude, we've all heard this hyper-libertarian Randian stuff before. Many times. Stop acting like it's so special. Just shut up about it.  It's irrelevant to the purpose of the board, and that's that.

[dariorpl]

Really? Dude, we've all heard this hyper-libertarian Randian stuff before. Many times. Stop acting like it's so special. Just shut up about it.  It's irrelevant to the purpose of the board, and that's that.

We'll see if it is irrelevant when all the things that make you healthy are made illegal because your lifestyle is deemed to not be in tune with the "common good".

[TylerDurden]

I am not sure why  the term "slave" was criticised. Never mind. All  I was trying to point out was that if we want food(or any other product)  to be as cheap as humanly possible(via globalisation etc.) , then the quality of the product will inevitably be much less. I would far rather eat much less of  very expensive, very high quality raw food than to buy lots of  very cheap, very low quality raw foods.

Ayn Rand was  somewhat deranged. A far healthier, more, ah, emotionally  stable person who advocated a gentler, more workable version than Ayn Rand's  philosophy,  was Max Stirner.

[cherimoya_kid]

We'll see if it is irrelevant when all the things that make you healthy are made illegal because your lifestyle is deemed to not be in tune with the "common good".

There is a middle ground between extreme libertarianism and extreme fascism.  I promise.

[dariorpl]

There is a middle ground between extreme libertarianism and extreme fascism.  I promise.

Well in countries like Spain, they're already past extreme fascism and into mild socialism. In the US you can still enjoy extreme fascism, but it won't be long until the US is past that also. And yes, there is a middle ground. China would be mild fascism, and places like Liechtenstein, Singapore, Qatar or the Isle of Man would be mild libertarianism. Of course if you want to be healthy, happy and prosperous, you don't want the middle ground. What you want is the highest degree of freedom that you can get.

[sabertooth]

If the workers are ill-treated, they have no incentive to provide a decent product.

The grass fed facility where I worked would only pay $9 per hour for meat cutters...a trade that averaged twice that 20 years ago.

And although they used the cheapest labor and had a poor quality product, they still sold the meat for nearly double of what conventional beef went for.

When the production of food is completely dominated by profit driven corporate interest, then quality is almost always sacrificed for the bottom line. Its nearly impossible to attain the quality of food one would like to have when buying from the markets in the west.

Even if you have the money and would be willing to pay top dollar, the market still in many cases fails to deliver. I cant find the quality of meat I get directly from a family farm, nor can I find the quality of produce that is equal to what I can grow in my own back yard.

The only real solution to the problem of slavery is that if you dont want to eat food produced by wage slaves who work for greedy corporations, then you must be willing to practically work as hard as a slave in order to procure your own food.

 This is what I am attempting to do, and it is damn hard, having to build your own garden beds, and hand till in your own compost.  Then to harvest your own meat you may have to travel far and wide and buy whole animals, learn how to kill them and put them away so as to not waste any.

Say what you will, but most people if given a choice would rather have wage slaves do all the dirty work for them, and unless that changes anytime soon, my only advise for people is if you dont like whats going on in the world, then quit your bitchin and use your own two hands to build a better one, and let your own efforts go toward emancipating those who remain in bondage.

[JeuneKoq]

What are rights according to you? Maybe the meaning is different in Argentina.

I'm still waiting for that answer...

Non-working citizens do not have access to the same rights as their working counterpart, simply because the former are not part of an institution (the workplace) that provides a context, a setting to the practice of these rights. Example: the right to a paid sick leave. The right to rest periods.

Where there are new rules, there are new rights.

So, in absolute, a worker actually has access to more rights (and rules) than a non-worker, until the non-worker changes status.

[TylerDurden]

I heavily disagree.  I myself have come across plenty of cheap, high quality foods.The trick is to find small-time farmers/producers who care about their product.  I once knew a fishmonger at a  London  farmers' market who sold me raw scallops, raw mussels and raw oysters at very cheap prices. He would deliberately avoid fishing for seafood that was out of season. Similiarly, I have been always able to buy raw wild game that was much cheaper than raw, 100% grassfed meat. You just have to make an effort to find the right source. The best  idea would be to simply ban big companies from getting involved in the food business, but that would never happen.

[dariorpl]

The best  idea would be to simply ban big companies from getting involved in the food business, but that would never happen.

They did that in the USSR. 10 million people starved to death. They did it in Maoist China. 45 million people starved to death. It's not a good idea.

[JeuneKoq]

They did that in the USSR. 10 million people starved to death. They did it in Maoist China. 45 million people starved to death. It's not a good idea.

Replacing big companies with state companies is not the idea here. Seems to me that Tyler is talking about encouraging the development of small, independent companies. It may give people a broader choice of products, and quality. Since these small companies would have to rely on fair competition, unlike Unilever and such, the chances of getting quality food at low prices might be greater. But IMO there will always be bigger, hungrier, sneakier fishes in the sea.

[TylerDurden]

One just needs to pass laws which forbid companies from growing past a certain size.

[dariorpl]

Then all that will happen is that once a company reaches that size, it will split into two different companies, and it'll be the same thing, but more costly for the consumer because of the additional costs associated with running two companies instead of one. What you will get is lower quality products, and for a higher price.

The problem is not big companies. The problem is the State which has power to sell, and big companies buy protection. And with protection, comes the thinning out of their competition. If you want to solve this problem, the way is not to attack big companies, but to remove the State, and in particular the democratic republican State, which is the most dangerous of all. Your proposal gives more power to the State, not less. So it is the very cause of the problems you are troubled with.