The Slave-Made Prius and the Future of Green, Fair Labor

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 15, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT

This post is part of Blog Action Day, which is uniting over 8300 blogs in 147 countries to talk about how climate change affects all our lives.

The creation of "green collar" jobs and "greenification" of production is a scorching hot topic these days, especially as climate change rises to the top of the international agenda. Reducing the environmental impact of production needs to happen in the U.S., China, and everywhere in between. But can we make production greener while protecting the rights of those humans who are doing the producing?

Conrad MacKerron, the Director of the Corporate Social Responsibility Program at the As You Sow Foundation based in San Francisco, CA, asked that question when a recent report from the National Labor Committee alleged abusive working conditions in Japanese factories assembling the Prius. According to the report, a full third of assembly line workers are very low-wage temporary employees and the supply chain that leads to the Prius is riddled with sweatshop abuse and human trafficking. The report also found that two years ago, Toyota, GM and Ford were all linked to human trafficking in making the pig iron for the steel that ends up in their vehicles. Even that staple of the the new, more conscious consumer -- the Toyota Prius -- may have been tainted by slavery.

To me, slave labor being used to make Priuses -- arguably one of the most visible symbols of consumers working to reduce climate change -- is the ultimate sad irony.  That purchasers of the Prius who are making a conscious effort to be greener could be inadvertently supporting slavery is ironic and sad.  And that a car which aims to protect the environment could ultimately harm the people who build it is also terrible.  But it's an important moment for us to remember that just because a product is "greener", doesn't mean the company making it always puts the employees' rights first.  "Green" and "fair" should never be strange bedfellows, but too often they are.

We cannot choose between green supply chains and fair supply chains, nor should we have to. We shouldn't have to live in a world where what we buy destroys the environment or the lives of the people who make it. But to continue to build a progressive vision of the future, we don't just need better environmental and better labor practices around the world, we need an overhaul of the system. We need to change the bottom line and change corporate incentives, so that the many companies who now to rely on fossil fuel and slave labor to create the cheapest possible product have a different aim. But perhaps most importantly, we need the green labor movement and the fair labor movement to focus more energy on working together, and confirm that they need each other to be part of a bigger, better picture: a fairer, greener world.

Photo credit: greenforall.org

Is Fossil Fuel the New Slavery?

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 15, 2009 @ 06:51AM PT

This post is part of Blog Action Day, which is uniting over 8300 blogs in 147 countries to talk about how climate change affects all our lives.

Robin Chase poses this interesting question on Huffington Post. Her theory: The U.S. economy has always been based on some under-valued energy source, which is how it has grown so fast and large. That energy source used to be slavery, and now it's fossil fuel. In general, I steer away from "blank is the new blank" statements because they practically drop to their knees and beg for criticism as imperfect analogies. In this case, the comparison holds some water, but it over-simplifies the historical and current connection between fossil fuels and slavery.

First of all, let's stop talking about slavery like is disappeared at the end of the U.S. civil war. The legal institution of slavery may have been shot down, but what we now call human trafficking, or modern-day slavery, has existed a long, long time and continues to thrive. And secondly, if we're going to talk about either slavery or fossil fuels today, we need to do so in a global context. Neither environmental damage from fossil fuels nor slavery stop at international borders, so why should out thinking?

These few criticisms aside, Ms. Chase is very right about one thing: the American economy is built on under-valued resources. Here's your 10 second American economics lesson: in a capitalist system, a business hoping to make a profit must make sure that the cost of labor plus the cost of production is less than the market value of what he's producing. Easy peasy, huh? For the plantation owners in the American South, the answer to reducing labor costs was chattel slavery. Today, some business traffic or exploit workers and cut back on benefits like health care to reduce labor costs. Others, and arguably a whole lot more, use dirty, non-sustainable, cheap energy to reduce production costs.

The problem with this thinking is that fossil fuels, like slavery, have an actual cost that is higher than the perceived cost. Trafficking appears to be an easy way to save money on workers to the business owner, but it incurs high social costs when you factor in the cost of rehabilitation for survivors, prosecution of traffickers, and the social disorder which human trafficking and other forms of exploitation create. Similarly, using fossil fuels to power a factory may seem like a bargain when compared to more sustainable choices, but the high environmental costs of fossil fuels includes global warming, natural disasters, increase public health problems and more. They are both short-term, lazy ways to produce increased profit at a high cost to society and to the future.

Chattel slavery in the U.S. brought about a civil war. The fight against global human trafficking has embatteled millions -- government officials, students, law enforcement, business owners, religious leaders, and more. With one war the bloodiest in American history and another still raging on the global stage, what will the war against fossil fuel look like? And more importantly, which side will you be on when it is waged?

Photo credit: Don Hankin

London Considers Axing Human Trafficking Police Unit

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 08, 2009 @ 01:00PM PT

Here's something to file under Really Bad Ideas Someone's Gonna Lose a Job Over: London, the most populous city in the European Union (with over 250,000 immigrants each year), is considering shutting down the Human Trafficking Unit of the Metropolitan Police due to budget issues. London is a huge destination and transit city for human trafficking victims from all over the world, and shutting down the police force trained to identify and remove victims would be nothing short of catastrophic for the many slaves being held there today.

British and international advocacy groups have expressed everything from concern to outrage at this suggestion. Human trafficking has now been identified as the second or third largest form of organized crime in the world, and diverting resources to any crime less significant is a tough argument to make. And trafficking may even be on this rise when the 2012 Olympics come to London. Even if trafficking doesn't increase in conjunction with the games (as many people fear it will) and remains stagnant, law enforcement will be severely understaffed and unable to properly address it. Furthermore, many advocates fear that without a dedicated unit, the only form of trafficking law enforcement will pay attention to is trafficking into commercial sex industries, leaving no help for slaves in domestic servitude, factories, agriculture, and other industries.

The Met's answer to these concerns is that human trafficking cases will be spread out to other officers. I've got news for you, London. I've trained a lot of cops in my time, and none of them were born understanding human trafficking. I can't tell you how many good, hardworking police officers have missed human trafficking victims standing right in front of them because they didn't know what to look for. This is a hidden crime and the victims are chameleons -- they often look like victims of other crimes or even criminals. How can you expect someone to tease out the intricacies of human trafficking and tell the victims from the perpetrators without any training or support from colleagues who are also experts on the issue?

To me, this move says that London is not nearly as concerned with ending slavery in their city as they are with balancing their budget. The Met Human Trafficking Unit has been lauded as an international example of a highly efficient and effective law enforcement effort. They have brought hundreds of cases against traffickers and freed even more victims. Why would you shut them down? I know money is tight right now, London, but of all the cities in the world to consider this move, you are one of the most dangerous. I hope we never find out how serious this mistake could have been.

Photo credit: JD Mack

Action: Tell the House to Fund Crucial Services for Human Trafficking Survivors Today

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 06, 2009 @ 11:00AM PT

Today, we are at a crucial moment in the fight against human trafficking: the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies is about to decide whether or not to provide $15 million for services for survivors of human trafficking. Please, write to Committee Chairman Mollohan and Ranking Member Wolf to urge them to fund services for victims of human trafficking today!

The upwards of 17,500 people who are trafficked into the United States, plus the tens of thousands of Americans trafficked internally each year, are in desperate need of services like medical care, counseling, legal assistance, shelter, education, and employment in order to recover from horrific abuses and rebuild their lives. Without adequate funds those services in the U.S. will be underfunded and inaccessible for many survivors.  For many trafficking survivors, these services are the key to a new life after the horrible ordeal of slavery.

The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee has already agreed to fund trafficking victims’ services at $15 million. Now, we are asking the House to support the highest possible funding level to provide trafficking survivors the resources they desperately need.  Specifically, we are asking the House conferees to commit to the following:

Please, write to Reps. Mollohan and Wolf and urge them to support the highest possible funding level for Department of Justice grants for programs to end human trafficking and slavery. By doing so, you can help trafficking victims get the resources they need to build a better, freer life.

Photo credit: Jenna Carver

Human Trafficking Charity Sued for Misuse of Funds

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 05, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT

It crushes me to report that not all human trafficking charities may be what they seem. Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General for Connecticut, announced on Friday that he was filing a lawsuit against Raymond Bechard, Founder of Ahava Kids, Inc., claiming he spent over $100,000 in donations intended to help victims of human trafficking and orphaned children living with HIV/AIDS, on himself. Spending donors' money meant to help survivors of slavery and people living with AIDS on yourself? That's so pathetic I can't think of a witty insult.

The donations Ahava Kids received, donors were told, would go toward operating a hotline for human trafficking victims and safe houses in Connecticut and Georgia, as well as to help women and children in prostitution and their HIV positive children access life-saving AIDS medications. However, according to Blumenthal, Bechard spent the charity's money on himself at restaurants and stores, including authorizing the charity to "loan" $67,000 to for-profit companies Bechard owned.

This news didn't shock me, because I actually heard a rumor that Ahava Kids was not a legitimate organization a few months back from a listerve. I wrote Raymond Bechard an email asking him to address the allegations that were being made against him. He replied promptly. However, all the evidence I could find amounted to his word against the word of the person who leveled the allegations, so I refrained from publishing any of the our interview until I had more concrete information. However, in light of this lawsuit and the Connecticut AG's allegations, I think it appropriate to share my questions and his responses. These are edited for length and to remove the names of specific individuals and organizations who have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Amanda: The allegations against you claim no other reputable organizations that assists child victims of trafficking have ever heard of you, seen a victim you have served, or seen a shelter you run.

Bechard: We have worked with several organizations -- from service providers to law enforcement. In fact, ************* of ************ is quoted on the back of my 2006 book, Unspeakable - The Hidden Truth Behind the World's Fastest Growing Crime. Overall, *************** seems to be implying that we do not work with victims or have 'shelters.' We have worked with several victims here in the United States and have Safe Houses for young adults in Connecticut and Georgia.

Amanda: Another one is that no one answers your hotline.

Bechard: An electronic record is kept of all calls that come in to our Hotline. Our records show that ************ tried the Hotline once, on March 23rd, at 3:02 PM. I have no explanation as to why this one call was not answered, but we did respond immediately in an email.  If ************ is passing judgement on our Hotline system by one attempted phone call, to which we did respond, this seems completely unfair. I apologize for the missed call, however, it should be known that we are now working with a 19 year old victim from Connecticut who called the hotline last week as a result of our Cybervention efforts.

Amanda: It seems no one knows where your shelters are.

Bechard: This is not only untrue, but completely inaccurate. First, the ministries from which we lease the facilities are fully aware of their location and purpose, as are our Board members, our staff and others. Second, they are not 'shelters,' they are Safe Houses for young adult victims of human trafficking and prostitution. As such, yes, their locations are kept in the strictest confidence. This is for the protection of the survivors who may stay there and our staff.

Earlier in the email, he indicates that the accusations that Ahava Kids was not legitimate are unfair and leveled because his organization "has a Hebrew name" and he is a Christian male. In their investigation, the AG's office found that a legitimate safe house does exist, but it was barely used. This finding seems to jive with what Blechard was defending himself against to me -- his organization wasn't a complete sham. And from the facts that have come out so far, it seems that it wasn't. Some of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Bechard accepted in donations trickled down to trafficking victims and AIDS orphans.

But when you're taking people's money and telling them it's going to heal children surviving slavery, trickle-down economics just isn't good enough.

Photo credit: apdk

Buying a Slave's Freedom: What Not to Do

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 03, 2009 @ 09:00AM PT

When I was just out of college, I had a job answering phones for an anti-trafficking NGO, which meant I got a lot of interesting calls. One day a pastor called to say that his church had been conducting fundraisers all year long and had raised just under $1 million to help trafficking victims. He estimated this was enough to buy hundreds of women and children out of prostitution. He was planning to take a team of five to Thailand in two weeks, and wanted to know if someone from my NGO would come along to help them find the best places to buy these women. At this point in the conversation, I had so many red flags going up in my head that my brain felt like it was full of cheerleaders on No-Doz being trained for air traffic control. So I talked him through the reasons why buying a trafficked person's freedom is not a good idea. Here's what I told him:

First and most importantly, what do you think a trafficker will do with the money he gets when you buy a slave from him? He might buy himself a nice car or something else, but chances are he's going to use it to traffic more people and make more money. Like any entrepreneur, he'll invest his returns (which you're giving him) in his business. So if you pay $2000 to free a women who is in prostitution against her will, the trafficker might be able to find two more women for that amount to enslave. Give a trafficker money, and he'll use it to traffic more people.

Secondly, by buying a person's freedom you're putting a financial value on that human life just as surely as the traffickers do. How do you negotiate a price? Is a man or a woman worth more? An adult or a child? When you buy slaves, even if it's to buy their freedom, you reinforce the human trafficking culture -- that the freedom of any individual has a price tag.

Lastly, when the penalty for trafficking people is more money and no jail time, trafficking becomes a much more attractive industry for criminal entreprenuers. The drug dealer and the arms trader both risk prison if they are found out, but when you buy people back from human traffickers, they profit without the punishment. A practice of buying freedom is a good way to encourage more people to go into the trafficking business.

The pastor who called me that day had the best of intentions and had worked hard to raise money to help trafficking victims. He just didn't understand that flying to Thailand to buy women from traffickers with cash would have all sorts of bad results, not to mention be dangerous for him and his team. Luckily, after a couple longs talks, he changed his plan and instead used to money to fund local Thai NGOs to identify and remove victims to safety and to train law enforcement to find and prosecute traffickers. He ended up helping hold traffickers accountable for their crimes, not encouraging them to commit more.

When people learn about the reality of modern-day slavery they often react passionately and emotionally. They want to ride in on a white horse with a stack of American dollars and free people. It's not bad to have this emotional reaction, but to do the most good, you need a different approach. Making a donation, volunteering, and writing letters to the government may not feels as exciting as as sureptitious trip to Thailand to buy slaves and set them free, but it helps more people out of slavery while maintaining their humanity. And while it may not make you feel like a hero, the survivors who now have their freedom thanks to you might disagree.

Photo credit: amagill

In Recession, 35% of Asians in Prostitution Are Children

by Amanda Kloer

category: Money and Economy

Published October 01, 2009 @ 07:00AM PT

I was heartened to hear today that the IMF says the global recession is over, but they might have a hard time convincing the thousands of children who are now being forced into commercial sex as a result of the recession in Southeast Asia that bluer skies are ahead. UNICEF estimates that now up to 35% of people in prostitution in the Mekong sub-region are between 12 and 17 years old. Sorry, IMF, but the recession's not over for them just yet.

35% is a huge number- just over one third. Statistically speaking, if you went to this part of Asia and had sex with three "women" in prostitution, one of them would be a child. Children are not a small portion of the commercial sex industry, but a major sustainer of it. To those individuals who argue that trafficking victims make up a tiny portion of people in prostitution and that the vast majority are in the industry willingly, I say "not in the Mekong sub-region". But why is it this part of the world that sees so much child exploitation?

A number of factors are contributing to an increase of children sold for sex in the region. Unemployment in Thailand is spiking, and thousands of factories and projects are being shut down. As poverty is increasing, living conditions are deteriorating and children are more likely to leave school and search for work. Even before the global recession, some countries like Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand relied on child sex tourism as a large contributor to GDP -- anywhere from 2% to 14%, according to the ILO. And with other forms of productions down, that percentage may be rising. Then, of course, there's always the reputation -- earned or not -- of lax laws and easily-bribed officials.

But these problems are not unique to Southeast Asia. Unemployment and factory closings are high everywhere, even here in the U.S. More children are becoming homeless and families are unable to pay school fees. Does this mean that perhaps Southeast Asia isn't the only region seeing an increase in child trafficking and child sex tourism? Sure it's the most famous region for child sex tourism, but other parts of the world -- places like Brazil, Costa Rica, and Mexico especially-- are also becoming common destinations for child sex tourists. I wonder if those areas aren't seeing this same increase.

On one hand it's great to have optimistic economic indicators that the recession is now over. But it's another thing to remember that the human reality of the recession will last for years, regardless of what the economists think looks promising. The 12-year-old girl who was forced into a brothel in Cambodia yesterday won't be released today because the IMF has announced the end of the recession. She'll be there for months, maybe years to come. Maybe she'll find a way out and maybe not. In either case, her recession is far from over.

Photo credit: youngsixta