Too much to die, too little to live

In the wake of the Rana Plaza collapse much seems to be on the move in the Bangladeshi textile industry. In particular the workers have been receiving significantly higher wages since late last year. Many of the casualties of the "industrial homicide" – as union workers like to call it – might have been avoided, if workers had not entered the building because they feared their low wages might be further cut. The real motivation, however, seems to have been to counter the bad PR Bangladesh was getting in a time when to report left out how little workers in this million dollar industry actually earn.

The raise too seemed impressive: the minimum wage rose from 2900 to 5000 Taka, a raise of almost 77 percent. But on a second glance things seemed less rosy. The basic pay only rose by 50 percent, meaning that overtime pay – a significant portion of the workers' income – would only rise this much since it is calculated on the basis of the basic pay. In addition the raise mostly brought the wages back to parity with the wages workers had in 2010 when the wages were last raised. Much of the increase was taken up by a rise in rent, the rise of the prices of basic necessities as well as general inflation.

This had been the case in past as well: when wages rose significantly in 2010, they did not even balance out the loss of buying power through inflation. Why is it that the real wages of the workers in this booming industry never rise? Is there a way they could? It seems that the real wages of workers will always remain at that sweet spot capitalists dream of: too much to die, but too little to live. As a result workers demand to be able to do regular overtime to raise their income – a fact that factory owners always like to point out.

The fact is that wage rises in Bangladesh never come about because of regular negotiations. Over the years the rising prices chip away at the buying power of the workers until their lives become unbearable and protests erupt – often violently. This was the case before the hike last year, but also before the rise in 2010. The fact is that when the wages move more towards the death end of the sweet spot, things become dangerous: The fire at Standard Group that is widely attributed to protesting workers caused losses of around 100 million Dollars to the owners, a fortune that is based on the low pay of the workers.

On the other hand, there is little interest in the industry to go beyond bringing wages up to buying power parity. Part of the reason is that the low value, high output industry is always running on the skin of its teeth, with the international fashion brands continuously trying to cut costs: no more is yielded than must be. But the low wage labourers are also useful in other ways for an industry that has hectic production schedules and a country in which the business environment is often erratic. They are easier to control. Give workers too little to live on, but the opportunity for overtime and they will choose that path over protest. The workers become complicit in their own exploitation.

One of the solutions the Clean Clothes Campaign and unions have been suggesting for quite a few years is to directly channel a slight price rise to the workers. Customers in the West would pay a few Cents more for clothing items and this money would be distributed among workers, for whom the rise in income could be significant. There are some obvious problems with this approach: how would clothing and workers be matched without the brands and factories? Who would guarantee that the money is fairly distributed to the right people?

However, a more serious flaw is that the approach assumes that all else would remain equal: The customers would pay little more, the workers earn significantly more and much would be better in the world. However, things do not remain equal. Higher wages would allow the workers to break out of the control of the factory owners, they would no longer necessarily be complicit in their own exploitation, because they would no longer need to work overtime to supplement their income.

Even though they often accept them, factory workers in Bangladesh are quite aware of just how terrible their working conditions are. Their hours are long, often up to 14 hours; they have few off days a month; they are bullied, harassed, insulted and beaten by supervisors and often their wages are calculated unfairly or even held back without reason. Just how bad the conditions are, becomes apparent when absentee numbers go up shortly after pay day or workers disappear during harvest season or come back late during important festivals. Obviously, they are quite rational about how much they want to be exploited.

With a higher income workers might start demanding their wages in other forms: Less overtime, more holidays, medical benefits, childcare and so on. The workforce would become less pliable to the industry's needs and might even use their newly found economic freedom to demand more, causing their cost to rise. To be clear: such freedoms would be terrific for the workers, but would be resisted tooth and nail by the Bangladeshi factory owners and the international brands, who have thus far shown little interest in bettering the conditions of the workers who create their clothes.

There is, obviously, also the possibility of a different scenario. Factory owners could begin slowly moving towards higher wages and better working conditions themselves. One of the cheaper fixes is the creation of less abusive working environments, which improve worker morale. Such a shift towards better working conditions would also mean a shift towards the production of more high value products, because the international companies would never accept higher costs. But so far, little seems to point in that direction and until it does, the workers will be kept at the capitalist's sweet spot, with wages that are too high to die and too low to live.

——————————————

Lalon Sander is a Bangladeshi-German journalist.