Let them eat cake! Still?

Qu'ils mangent de la brioche", (let them eat Cake) or Let them eat brioche (bread with eggs and flour, hence cake) has been attributed to Queen Marie Antoinette. During the reign of Louis XVI, the famines were devastating France, the streets were rocked by protest, revolution was in the air, people were dying of starvation but the Queen said, "if there is no bread then let them eat cake"! hmm! That is someone who is totally out of touch with reality and has tin ears tuned to the cries of agony and pain. The price of such arrogance and detachment was the eventual beheadings of the Royal family by the Guillotine.

After two hundred and fifty plus years later we have a perfect example of tin ears, unbridled hubris and a malevolent bet that people have very short memories of things and tragic events. The first anniversary of the tragedy of Rana Plaza where more than a thousand people perished because of shoddy construction, poor working condition and hapless management is on 24th April. And on 14th April, the BGMEA sends out a fresh baked cake to its members pledging safety for the workers and the workplace!

Laudable pledge indeed. But have they really been sincere enough to ensure safety for the workers? Let us talk of the situation as it is:

• A large number victims of Rana Plaza have not yet been compensated. There is talk to some money getting to them before the Anniversary but there has not been concrete and public steps to make sure that all the victim's families are compensated quickly. Shouldn't the BGMEA ensure that every single victim's family gets the blood compensation as early as possible?
• Foreign companies have pledged some $34 million so far. I have not seen any break down of the money and how it is being distributed, who is distributing it and whether or not if the money is going to the right people. The BGMEA should utilise its considerable resources to ensure that the funds are being distributed in a public and coherent manner. This is a great public relations opportunity that cannot be swapped for cake baking. That is one way to bring back some sense and trust to the organisation and its members. Trust will not be regained with just a cake!
• The safety inspectors are not in place. Some 60 new safety inspectors are supposed to be deployed but the bureaucratic meanderings and political turmoil of the last part of 2013 has delayed or put the actual deployment in danger. Shouldn't the BGMEA work with the government making it easier to deploy the safety inspectors as opposed to baking cakes?
• More importantly, there needs to be clear definitions of the powers and procedures of these safety inspectors. What can they do if they see a violation? For that matter, what is a violation? I have not seen an articulated regulatory plan which defines each and every violation. Shouldn't the BGMEA define the violations and remedies in clear terms? This is a way to protect their members as well as the workers. So I say, stop with cake and get on with the actual work of defining what makes a safe working environment and ways to fix the current system which seems to be full of holes and non-compliance.

It is not that I am beating on the BGMEA but, Ah, I guess I am beating on them! This organisation seems inept, full of self-import people and act unencumbered by the thought process. Their knee-jerk reaction is to defend their members (the owners of the factories) regardless of the facts and/or morality of their position. They seem to value the lives of the workers is ever so miniscule that they do not take action to protect those lives and tragedies happen time and time again. This is not because these people are complete idiots but because they have decided to adopt, "see no evil, hear no evil" motto when it comes to the practices and behaviour of their members. This is an age-old problem. In the US at the turn of the 19th century the factory owners hired thugs to beat up the workers and shoot their leaders. The problem was one of maintaining profit margin at any costs. These problems took a strong Union movement, a corrective socially active government plan and a general media exposing the abuses to get resolved.

Nothing short of a paradigm shift is necessary in Bangladesh garments sector. I just used a big word, "paradigm" and I try not to use big words. What paradigm really means is a model, a set of organising principles that govern our actions. The BGMEA has a model in its head(s) which basically says, "factory owners must make profit at any costs. The workers when they complain are just being greedy and that if the input costs go up then the market will shift away from Bangladesh."

I am on the buy side of the things that the members of the BGMEA make. I think yes, the only advantage of Bangladesh is the low labour costs. It is the cheapest place to make garments for mass consumptions. It has displaced China as the King of cheap garments. However, the labour cost differential between China and Bangladesh is huge. On average the Bangladeshi garment worker makes about $40 per month. The same labour in China (say Eastern China) will cost $450/month and in Guangdong province the cost will be close to $1000 per month. This is why Bangladesh exports keep growing despite the tragedies of Rana Plaza. However, there is a pivot point and that is when the consumers will say no. That comes down to having a good outreach programme and well managed safety programme so that there are no flare ups of unnecessary deaths in the factories.

Baking cakes only will not get the BGMEA any brownie point.

————————–
Kayes Ahmed runs a small yet global apparel and design business based in Boulder, USA.