Ethics of buying Russian & Chinese film & paper

[dslater]

Changing the policies of an oppressive foreign government is not the job of a business - their job is to make money. Political change is the job of governments and international organizations like the UN.
QUOTE]

I lied, I must answer this.

Hungary (after change from communist to "democratic" country) wanted, to preserve their culture and like, wanted to pass a law stating: minimum 51 percent of all TV, cinema programmes must be European origine, and minimum 21 percent must be Hungarian origine.

USA association of producers I belive (MPAA) called World Bank. Then World bank said Hungarian government if government pass that law, World bank will not grant some loans and some contracts between bank and Hungary.

Just one example how (big) business use politics for earning money.

So, yes, business do use politics for their benefit, so business can use beside their money, also political influence for doing something good for people on this planet. They simply don't want to do that.

Regards

I don't think this is really a good example. The USA association of producers may have called the World Bank, but they did not create the rules the World Bank uses to determine loans. These rules are made by the World Bank for good economic reasons - that kind of economic protectionism is not a good way to promote free trade.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Most companies who try to open a factory in an eastern country find that the local company or government must 'own' over 50% of the assets and investment monies. This is true in Japan and China for example.

It makes operation very difficult.

OTOH, the big lift to the local economy that a US company makes in eastern block countries is a benefit until the US company has to close the facility for one reason or another.

This causes a see saw effect whipping the locals back and forth.

We seldom see this effect in the US and it is not often reported by our papers or government.

The ownership, residing with the locals however, does tend to dampen this out and allow the factory to stay open, albeit with less output and support.

PE

 

[Ole]

... These rules are made by the World Bank for good economic reasons - that kind of economic protectionism is not a good way to promote free trade.

That's the problem right there: Most of the world doesn't want free trade, at least not to the extent that USA wants and the World Bank seems to favor.

 

[copake_ham]

Reading the bizarre anti-globalism diatribe here creates a certain irony in that today it was announced that Toyota has now surpassed Ford to take over the number two position in US vehicle sales volume.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBRsFBueiEcI&refer=home

 

[firecracker]

Since this is a photo forum, I must tell you that Canon in Japan has been criticized for its illegal labor contracts among the factory workers. There have been a few cases at at least a few sites. So, there's a slow and quiet movement of boycotting Canon products in this country.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Hungary (after change from communist to "democratic" country) wanted, to preserve their culture and like, wanted to pass a law stating: minimum 51 percent of all TV, cinema programmes must be European origine, and minimum 21 percent must be Hungarian origine.

USA association of producers I belive (MPAA) called World Bank. Then World bank said Hungarian government if government pass that law, World bank will not grant some loans and some contracts between bank and Hungary.

Just one example how (big) business use politics for earning money.

So, yes, business do use politics for their benefit, so business can use beside their money, also political influence for doing something good for people on this planet. They simply don't want to do that.

Regards

Haris, you remind me of certain discussions about the status of French in Québec. When bill 101 was passed, it forced companies doing business in Québec to label their products in French, and to translate everything that was not a trademark. Some companies even went so far as to pick a French name for their organization.

We also have laws regulating content on TV & radio. There has to be a certain ratio of French v. English channels, for instance.

So what's happening these days is that there is some talk in the economic circles to pressure against bill 101, because it would be a "barrier to commerce." However, because the right decisions were made early enough, the French language is ingrained enough in the culture of many enterprises, and the smarter ones actually realized that they would make MORE money by being cool with the dominant language of the province.

France never did anything like that, even though they are the most important French-speaking country. Perhaps that's because they have a stronger position and did not suffer linguistic threats the way we do.

All of this to say that there is a double standard between G8 countries and those who are not part of the club. Hungary deserves as much as Québec does to preserve its own cultural specificity, and demand that foreign companies play fair with their internal regulations. Maybe we should team up with them.

 

[copake_ham]

Haris, you remind me of certain discussions about the status of French in Québec. When bill 101 was passed, it forced companies doing business in Québec to label their products in French, and to translate everything that was not a trademark. Some companies even went so far as to pick a French name for their organization.

We also have laws regulating content on TV & radio. There has to be a certain ratio of French v. English channels, for instance.

So what's happening these days is that there is some talk in the economic circles to pressure against bill 101, because it would be a "barrier to commerce." However, because the right decisions were made early enough, the French language is ingrained enough in the culture of many enterprises, and the smarter ones actually realized that they would make MORE money by being cool with the dominant language of the province.

France never did anything like that, even though they are the most important French-speaking country. Perhaps that's because they have a stronger position and did not suffer linguistic threats the way we do.

All of this to say that there is a double standard between G8 countries and those who are not part of the club. Hungary deserves as much as Québec does to preserve its own cultural specificity, and demand that foreign companies play fair with their internal regulations. Maybe we should team up with them.

Michel,

Ah, but do you not realize that the very venue which you use to post the above proves the irrelevancy of Bill 101?

We now live in a world where anyone with a broadband internet connection (of which Canada has amongst the highest level of "saturation") can listen to, see or read media content from anywhere in any language one chooses! This isn't the 1960's when Canada first started with "content laws"; nor the following decade when the Francophonie revolution in Quebec began.

Who cares about controlling broadcast-media language content in a digital narrowcast world?

And that's just the Internet. Think about satellite TV. Go to Saudi Arabia and look at all those dishes on the houses. Do you really think they're tuning into the Imam, or the Disney Channel? Perhaps it's "Sex in the City"?

The language police in Quebec, and the content police in Canada, generally - have lost the war despite winning the battle with those old laws.

So, what will you do now? Shut down access to broadband internet to prevent someone in Ste. Jovite from listening to fundamentalist Christian preachers in Alabama rant and rave about Latino illegal immigrants to America?

Bill 101; "cultural content laws" etc. are irrelevant - the Internet changes all!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Michel,

Ah, but do you not realize that the very venue which you use to post the above proves the irrelevancy of Bill 101?

We now live in a world where anyone with a broadband internet connection (of which Canada has amongst the highest level of "saturation") can listen to, see or read media content from anywhere in any language one chooses! This isn't the 1960's when Canada first started with "content laws"; nor the following decade when the Francophonie revolution in Quebec began.

Who cares about controlling broadcast-media language content in a digital narrowcast world?

And that's just the Internet. Think about satellite TV. Go to Saudi Arabia and look at all those dishes on the houses. Do you really think they're tuning into the Imam, or the Disney Channel? Perhaps it's "Sex in the City"?

The language police in Quebec, and the content police in Canada, generally - have lost the war despite winning the battle with those old laws.

So, what will you do now? Shut down access to broadband internet to prevent someone in Ste. Jovite from listening to fundamentalist Christian preachers in Alabama rant and rave about Latino illegal immigrants to America?

Bill 101; "cultural content laws" etc. are irrelevant - the Internet changes all!

There's a difference between the Internet and the TV waves. Offerings on the airwaves are fundamentally limited by the technology. Same thing with public space: it's the environment in which you live. The Internet is "infinite" in a certain way. It's like the postal system. Or the series of tubes that used to be common in New York: you don't have to monitor content in there.

It's also about offering services in French: telling "Speak White" to your customers doesn't cut it anymore.

Where have I said that bill 101 should apply to the Internet? Juste quote me the passage from my previous post that says so, s'il vous plaît. And how would the Internet invalidate the need to keep the public space in French, French advertising on the streets, French schools, or any other thing we've won over the last decades?

Oh, and by the way, you should stop taking film pictures: digital just invalidated that, and you're using the very tool that makes it irrelevant, the computer.

 

[copake_ham]

There's a difference between the Internet and the TV waves. Offerings on the airwaves are fundamentally limited by the technology. Same thing with public space: it's the environment in which you live. The Internet is "infinite" in a certain way. It's like the postal system. Or the series of tubes that used to be common in New York: you don't have to monitor content in there.

It's also about offering services in French: telling "Speak White" to your customers doesn't cut it anymore.

Where have I said that bill 101 should apply to the Internet? Juste quote me the passage from my previous post that says so, s'il vous plaît. And how would the Internet invalidate the need to keep the public space in French, French advertising on the streets, French schools, or any other thing we've won over the last decades?

Oh, and by the way, you should stop taking film pictures: digital just invalidated that, and you're using the very tool that makes it irrelevant, the computer.

What you've won is an enclave.

Montreal was once a world city. Now it is a provincial one. It holds little relevance anymore on the world stage.

It advertises itself down here (NYC) now as a closer version of Quebec City for those looking for a little "foreign fling".

Consider this: the Bank of Montreal is a world class bank. It is now headquartered in Toronto. McGill University, once considered the "Canadian Harvard" is now an afterthought (if anything) to most high school seniors in North America.

There's nothing wrong with choosing to be a provincial backwater. Just remember, though; it has its downside.

Quebec's importance in Canada is that it is a geographic linchpin b/w ON and the Eastern Provinces. Hence, ON will always pay a fortune to keep you in Canada.

If Quebec were as geographically isolated as NF - Canada (espescially ON) would have cast you off decades ago.

I can remember vividly a trip up there in 1998 to do business that included (surprise) a representative of the Quebec's economic development agency. He rhapsodized about how much better Montreal was because it had become a "big provincial city" rather than a "small world city"!

WTF!

We can keep this conversation going as long as you like, but I will warn you that with regards to Canada - I am NOT the naive American you usually encounter.

You tell me where you want to start the debate - although perhaps we should take it to a PM.

Oh, BTW, please don't give me the old "Speak White" crap. That harks back to the long ago, and well dismissed diatribe, that the Quebecois were North America's "white niggers".

It was both b.s. and intensely offensive back in the 1960's when it was first promulgated and is so retro weird now as to be bizarre for you to even mention it!

 

[MattKing]

Sorry George, there are many reasons why Montreal as an enclave is much more valuable than Montreal as a "world city".

Choosing to uphold strong values (including values relating to culture and language) is not without cost, but certainly has value.

Many people here on the left coast have an easier time identifying with Quebec, and its aspirations, than with the centre of the universe known as Toronto.

Not that we don't complain about people sometimes expecting us to speak french .

Michel - comment dit on "Vive le Quebec as part of Canada"?

(Sorry about the Franglais)

Matt

 

[markbb]

Reading the bizarre anti-globalism diatribe here creates a certain irony in that today it was announced that Toyota has now surpassed Ford to take over the number two position in US vehicle sales volume.

I don't see this as an 'anti-globalism' diatribe and fail to see the relevance of who sells more cars in the USA. It's a simple question: given items of similiar quality, should one make one's purchase choices solely on cost?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

There's nothing wrong with choosing to be a provincial backwater. Just remember, though; it has its downside.

If you want to go that road, I'll let you do that alone. There are many problems in Québec, yes it is parochial, but bill 101 is not part of the problem.

Ever since there has been a slight sense of autonomy in Québec, the Americans have been prophesizing doom on us. Perhaps they did not digest the fact that they stopped controlling our natural resources and all the electricity production anymore after the sixties.

Given your analysis of the Internet making bill 101 irrelevant, I won't even bother listening to your brilliant economical analysis of Québec. We're getting near the Soap Box anyway.

 

[haris]

I can't resist

It is interesting how biggest promoters of globalism are people, countries, istitutions, who try to force rest of the world to accept theire values.

I don't want to look at Paris Hilton every now and then on cover. I don't want to see Larry King interview "Survivor" winner every week. I don't think that boob which fell out during Super bowl finale few years ago made chidren frustrated and sexualy perverted.

Time TV stations used to talk about that boob would be much better spent if they talk about workers rights, uninploiment, health institution access, education access, and other important things.

If you don't want people to think, best way is to give them to eat, and entertain them. Well, I don't want to accept that as my value of life. I do want to think, and to criticize, and to fight against what I see as wrong. I don't want to live in world which say "You are OK so don't think about others"

I do want to listen sevdalinka (traditional music of urban muslims in Bosnia) and don't want to let big international producing companies to force me to listen what they release. And if those companies start release sevdalinka CDs, I don't want to let them to tell me which version of sevdalinka is OK to listen and which is not.

I think political correctness is a way to prevent discussion about important things. I do want to know if someone think that I am less man because I am invalid. I prefer that instead of talking with someone who will lie in my face.

If someone (individual or institution, including government) treat people in underdevelop countries as slavery, and if they use excuses like "that treatment is important to our economy", I don't give a damn what they say. They are simply slave owners.

I don't think monmey is everything. Like my female colleague said once: "F... the higher sallary if I am not able to see my children during the week".

I don't think what is considered as western demokracy is suitable for everyone.

So, yes, antiglobalism is just fine with me.

Regards

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't think money is everything. Like my female colleague said once: "F... the higher sallary if I am not able to see my children during the week".

This is something I have been thinking hard about for some time. Of course industrialization raises living standards, but almost inevitably at a cost of some quality of life.

Initially, the loss of quality of life is a very good exchange for the better standard of living: leisure time is worthless if it enforced and you have nothing to eat, and you'd cheerfully substitute a good meal for hungry children for beautiful unspoiled scenery and unpolluted rivers. On the other hand, IF you were healthy and IF you had a good harvest -- two big IFs -- the summer, after the harvest was in, could be a delightful time in a peasant economy. There are countless festivals to remind us about 'summertime and the living is easy'.

The first great labour-saving device was the water-mill, which freed countless women and slaves (and women slaves) from the drudgery of grinding flour every day; it was also a magnificent illustration of the substitution of capital for labour (big mills are a lot more expensive than hand mills). Since then, more and more labour-saving devices have become commonplace, such as running water and paraffin (kerosene), gas or electric stoves: when my house was built, water came from the well, and cooking was with wood. The 'rich west' now lives in what Marx called 'material superabundance', and more and more countries are catching up with that.

What puzzles me is how few people are prepared to echo your colleague. How much stuff do you need, and how often do you have to replace it? Two or more cars per family? Just because you need them in some places where people live a long way from where they work, it doesn't mean that everyone needs them, world wide. Nor does it mean that separating housing and work is always a good idea. A TV in every room? How about a TV in no room, the route I've chosen? Fitted kitchens, updated before they're worn out? Fashionable clothes, bought for next to nothing, it's true, but worn once or twice then given to a charity shop?

I'll no doubt be accused of America-bashing, but few if any European employers could get away with the very short holidays (vacations) that are the norm in the United States. I'm not saying either is better: if people want to work all the hours God sends, and earn lots of money, don't let me stop them. But if they want to work hard enough to live comfortably, not luxuriously, and take a bit more time off, don't let anyone stop them either.

This may seem to be some way from the original 'ethical purchase' thread, but it's actually central. I'd rather buy a good pair of boots, made in Britain or the US or Germany, than a cheap pair made in China. Most of my T-shirts are made in the USA. My work blues trousers are made in France. My favourite tripods are made in Italy (Gitzo moved there from France). The best cooking pans I have are French, American and Slovenian. I mostly buy Hungarian and Portuguese towels. Sorry, Haris, I can't think of anything much I buy that's made in Croatia except Efke film (I'm waiting for some IR 820c to dry as I type this), but that's partly out of ignorance: I hope this will change when I get to Croatia, though from what I can see, hotels are surprisingly expensive.

The thing is, I'd rather have something that is made well by honestly-paid workers than something made in a sweat-shop -- and if I have to pay a bit more so that a Chinese factory isn't a sweat-shop, that's fine by me. It is merely whitewashing to say that businesses have to get things as cheaply as possible. They don't. Most things have a fair price -- including labour -- and those Chinese businesses I know who pay quite well, by Chinese standards, are generally doing better than the sweatshops. A sweatshop requires a chain of greed and meanness, beginning with the consumer and working backwards through the distribution chain to the factory. Everyone is trying to screw everyone down to the last penny; and the factory worker, at the end of the chain, is the one who pays most.

 

[haris]

Roger, I will agree with you.

Two things:

1. We talk a lot about China, but China is doing better than some other countries. Look at Bangladesh, Kambodia, etc... China does have larger and larger middle class. But, I would really like to know what percentage of middle class is in China or India. I don't think it is more than 50%.

2. Please, don't apologize to me for not buying anything except EFKE from Croatia. I am in Bosnia, so Croatia is like Germany or USA or any other country for me, that is foreign country Well, not exactly, beacuse of common history, but formally, that is that

But, what you are telling is exactly how I feel: How much material things is enough. I do have TV, it is 12 years old, and I will replace it only when current is dead. I don't care what they tell me about their new 150cm 100Hz plasma extra deluxe. I have room big enough only for small TV set.

For buying that new one I would need bigger house, so I would have to work for that bigger house, and to work for that bigger TV, and finally when I buy them it doesn't matter, because I would be all the time at work earning for those things. So, I would have big house in which I will not be, and will have big TV but no time to wach it because I am at work, and brand new 100.000 Euros worth car which will be driven only from house to work, and no time to drive it anywhere else.

I think life is more than that.

Don't get me wrong, if I won lottery I would buy new house, but certanly not 10 or 20 bedrooms castle. Just enough for me, familly, to welcome my frends and only luxury it would be there would be photo studio and darkroom

There is another thing: I belive there is no moral excuses for having unimpliment people in country and to force employed people to work long hours.

I live in country which can easilly be country of cheap labour force, in country where laws, especially labour laws aew ignored, so I am talking from experience. I was lucky, my position is much better than Indonesians, Vietnamese, Bangladesi, etc... workers, but I really do understand them.

On the other side, this country once had very good conditions for workers, without charge health care for all, education up to master degree for all, so I do get upset when discuss about these things.

So, (example) my company earn 1 billion dollars this year. Do we really have to buy several 10.000 or 1000, or 500 USD bottles of champaigne and put it into our company jet, or we can pay our workers better and still have champigne in our jet, maybe 50 USD worth champaigne? That is, if we really need that jet in first place

For me, there is no dillema. If we pay our Indonesian workers better than there is no need for people in my country to send humanitarian help to Indonesia. So our workers in Indonesia will be happy with sallary, and people in my country will have money they would othervise sent as humanitarian help. Is that so hard to understand?

Oh, I know I am utopist. I falled inlove with beautifull girl. Problem is, I am atheist, she is religious muslim. I will not become religious, and for sure she will not become atheist, and I would never wanted that. Everything rationally tells there is no way. But, I can't help myself. And I am glad to be as I am, no matter for what "price".

Enjoy life,

Haris

 

[jbj]

I can't resist

It is interesting how biggest promoters of globalism are people, countries, istitutions, who try to force rest of the world to accept theire values.

I don't want to look at Paris Hilton every now and then on cover. I don't want to see Larry King interview "Survivor" winner every week. I don't think that boob which fell out during Super bowl finale few years ago made chidren frustrated and sexualy perverted.

Time TV stations used to talk about that boob would be much better spent if they talk about workers rights, uninploiment, health institution access, education access, and other important things.

If you don't want people to think, best way is to give them to eat, and entertain them. Well, I don't want to accept that as my value of life. I do want to think, and to criticize, and to fight against what I see as wrong. I don't want to live in world which say "You are OK so don't think about others"

I do want to listen sevdalinka (traditional music of urban muslims in Bosnia) and don't want to let big international producing companies to force me to listen what they release. And if those companies start release sevdalinka CDs, I don't want to let them to tell me which version of sevdalinka is OK to listen and which is not.

I think political correctness is a way to prevent discussion about important things. I do want to know if someone think that I am less man because I am invalid. I prefer that instead of talking with someone who will lie in my face.

If someone (individual or institution, including government) treat people in underdevelop countries as slavery, and if they use excuses like "that treatment is important to our economy", I don't give a damn what they say. They are simply slave owners.

I don't think monmey is everything. Like my female colleague said once: "F... the higher sallary if I am not able to see my children during the week".

I don't think what is considered as western demokracy is suitable for everyone.

So, yes, antiglobalism is just fine with me.

Regards

Well said.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Haris,

I am mortified! My only excuse is that as I wrote that, I was looking at a poster that I liberated (un-fly-posted) in Koper/Capodistria: a death metal grind/thrash metal concert with the lead act (from Slovenia) called Dickless Tracy, with the support acts Croatian. That, and of course the Efke film. But to confuse Bosnia with Croatia.... As I say, I am mortified.

One further excuse. My first acquaintance with Yugoslavia was almost 50 years ago, when I was 10 years old. My father was in the Royal Navy. The Yugoslav sail training ship 'Jadran' called in at Malta. The engineer (even sailing ships need small motors for entering harbour, etc.) was called Cirovic Ilya. He invited our family to visit he (we never got there). But I remember his saying, "My father is good communist -- plenty money!" A real late-1950s Yugoslav take on communism...

But yes, if you can live well enough on a modest Bosnian salary, and I need more to live modestly on freelance earnings in France; we are entitled to say, "I will buy good products, made in any country, for a fair price; I will not buy sweatshop products at any price."

The basic problem is the assumption that the only option open to a newly industrializing country is ruthless exploitation. If wages are low, and workers are good, you can make good products at a lower price than better-paid workers. True, this drags wages down in developed countries, but it also drags them up in less developed countries. Where is the fair balance for globalisation? I don't know, but I am sure it does not lie in short-term exploitation of workers, or the environment.

From my (very limited) knowledge, the main strengths of the Bosnian economy are coal and energy production, and agriculture. What others can we support from the outside?

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Photo Engineer]

This is a personal opinion.

Kodak was unable to get film products from China that met its quality specifications at any pay scale. Therefore they closed the plants.

There benefits to the workers and treatment of the workers was good, but the culture did not support the quality that EK was used to. (see the EFKE threads for more on this!)

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear PE,

Perhaps this illustrates the idea of 'appropriate technology'. Film manufacture is a very long way up the technology tree. Camera bags, on the other hand, aren't, and I've met several bag manufacturers with Chinese factories who are, unless they are lying, treating their staff pretty well.

This is one reason why Leica is hesitant about doing the more demanding parts of their business outside the Wetzlar/Solms region -- but why they don't mind having their 'metal-bashing' operations (for CNC milling top plates of M-series Leicas) in Portugal.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Photo Engineer]

Roger, I agree with your comment.

But then I have a problem when everyone seems to think that it is easy to begin coating films and papers. You see that this is a conundrum that is impossible to explain here even though I have tried.

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

You see that this is a conundrum that is impossible to explain here even though I have tried.

PE

Dear PE,

Er... Yes. Couldn't agree more.

The thing is, though, you can get an image with science that is little different from cookery. Getting a good, reliable, consistent, permanent image is a bit more difficult.

Getting a good, reliable, consistent, permanent image that can be enlarged more than 2 diameters is a real bugger.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Lee Shively]

Despite the handwringing, the world in which we live is the world we have created for ourselves. No matter how much we may dislike it, we live and work within a world economy that is so convoluted and co-dependent it is impossible to buy virtually any available product and remain "pure".

 

[temujin]

please, let's boycot all products from the evil empires of china and russia, who are bent on destroying our children with lead paint and industrial waste! we moral americans have no hand in the human rights abuses in these countries, do we? and while we're at it, lets invade china and liberate them with the wonderful gift of democracy! it's certainly worked well in iraq!

let's not mythologize the peoples and governments of these two countries. and let's abandon this obsolete cold-war mentality that western-style democracy is the only ethical form of government. yes, there are many human rights abuses in these countries, but didn't the US just invade a country for no good reason and leave it in shambles? how's that for human rights?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Temujin (the original) was not noted for his human rights either.



PE

 

[firecracker]

I'll no doubt be accused of America-bashing, but few if any European employers could get away with the very short holidays (vacations) that are the norm in the United States. I'm not saying either is better: if people want to work all the hours God sends, and earn lots of money, don't let me stop them. But if they want to work hard enough to live comfortably, not luxuriously, and take a bit more time off, don't let anyone stop them either.

I get accused of Japan-bashing all the time mainly because I have good senses in me that indentify problems in the culture and the society. Anyway, speaking of the living standard and quality life, I must tell you that Japan is nowhere near as being "nice" as what the outsiders ever get to hear. The overall economy seems alright in numbers adn figures, but the employment status in reality certainly is not.

There are many full-time employed but real poor workers at their jobs. They work overtime for no extra salaries, don't have unions to support them or negotiate with their bosses, and the worst part is that because their salaries are so low, below the poverty line, they lose homes and have no place to stay. So, they end up sleeping over at 24hr. internet cafes and comic-book lounges, where you pay 10-30 bucks to stay over night and sleep on a couch in a booth. You take a shower there and have meal at a fastfood restaurant nearby or have instant ramen noodles from a vendor machine.

Well, it is likely that some fancy jobs such as graphic designers and freelance photographers may have that kind of a population but also more common jobs, such as construction jobs, sales jobs, etc have it as well. The cases of the factory workers from Canon are some of the most publically exposed and investigated ones that I'm aware of. We have to keep in mind that they are certainly part of the system, domestically and globally that is based on the state (I mean Japanese state) interpretation of "free trade" and "competition" and that is just bottomless.

No wonder more than 30,000 people over here HAVE TO commit sucide every year.