DethKnot (PRO)I completely think companies should monitor all human rights abuses and completely eliminate it or find alternatives. If anything, companies should be able to find ways to slowly but surely eliminate it in general. It may be a very hard thing to do, but it is completely possible. If human rights abuses are found anywhere in a company including supply chains and the like, any of those abuses can make the company at least partially liable. Sometimes it's not possible to find all abuses so easily, but all that can be done needs to be done. Anything that the company can do to help should be forced. Human rights are in fact human rights whether its between several
Return To Top | Posted:
TheFuror Juror (CON)That MNCs should be liable for human rights abuses anywhere in their supply chain
Warm greetings to my “worthy” opponent and all potential judges.
Since the dawn of civilization , man’s progress has been inexorable . He progressed from stone caves to agriculture .Then the 1800s arrived with the “ gift “of Industrialization . Man was not prepared to stop yet. He moved on from small scale industries to large scale ones . Well today a multinational company is just another household term.Truly the miracle of God leaves one spellbound.
Well I’m sorry if you are in the delusion that “What is he writing?” You know “startings can be such a jiffy “ as P.G.Wodehouse would put it.
Till now everything was going on fine. But you know Intellectuals around the world just can’t stop their long noses from smelling out yet another potential debate topic(howsoever gross). One of the reasons why we are here with this topic which is clearly a con situation but has been a hot debate since it was first coined!!
I have a pretty clear agenda for my three rounds so now I’ll quickly start with my plan for the first round which is to clear all misconceptions that just like heavy weights have been braced to the free thought process of my readers.
worldwide are victims of forced labor, with almost 19 million of those victims being
exploited by business enterprises or private individuals in domestic settings.”
“In January, the ITUC published its Scandal report, exposing that 50 leading multinational corporations employ only 6 per cent of the workers who manufacture their products directly. Suppliers and subcontractors employ the remaining 94 per cent, or 116 million-strong hidden workforce.”
Well I’ll leave the calculations to you .This is enough to prove that” suppliers and subcontractors” are more almost 16 times more liable for the ubiquitous human rights abuse in global supply chains.
“Contrary to popular belief, forced labor conditions are primarily experienced not by migrant workers but by local residents. In the private economy, over 66% of forced laborers are originally from the same area where they work, with an additional 15% coming from another location within the same country (internal migration). Only 18.5% of forced laborers originate from a country other than the one where they work (cross-border migration).”
This is what a recent joint study by ILO and UL has to say. Now I would like to pose this question to my opponent that where is the state’s administration when human rights are not being dispensed to its citizens. When a man’s own country can’t promise him human rights how dare he hold a company from some distant foreign land liable for them .
Another fact is that CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) has been made mandatory in most of the countries around this world. Companies especially MNC’s are bound to pay a percentage of their profits to the state. So where does all this go when the state can’t even guarantee basic human rights to its own citizens and taxpayers.
Well this is just the starting . I’ll be more elaborate in the second round .By the way I’m sure that after reading this you will spend some time pondering about who is the real culprit. In the meanwhile keep your fingers crossed for the second round.
Return To Top | Posted:
TheFuror Juror: So you already believe that companies are only"partially liable" for the human rights abuses. Well to be more precise and if figures do not scare you they are 0.06382978723 times as liable as the state itself is. So do you have any say for this.TheFuror Juror: well if you already believe that companies are not fully liable then I see no point in carrying on this debate.Right??Return To Top | Speak Round
DethKnot (PRO)I want to first mention how I got cut off mid sentence by accident in the first round. The proper correction should be "Human rights are in fact human rights whether its between several countries or just one. I also want to mention before I move on that my opponent took a very long time to get to the point. It should be noted not as part of this debate, but all debates in general, that intimidation should not be allowed and in court of law would be laughed at. It is a waste of time and should have been left behind in fifth grade. Also, it seems my opponent doesn't really want to debate in general. Just to easily win. My opponent has stated this debate as "gross" and in the cross examination, I made the mistake of trying to respond to the questions too late but will address them now. My opponent says I should give up since "I don't think companies should be fully liable." That is NOT what I said. And I will say that I am not going to just give in like that. Also, the question is not FULL liability, it's any if at all among the company and supply chain. Of course there should be liability! I am just pointing out that not all liability can be judged right away. Liability and fixing it's wrongs takes time. Also it takes a lot of money as most things made today are labor from human rights abuses. So, to answer the other part of my opponent's debate, it does not matter if the country's government allows human rights abuses. Companies and government aren't one. And that's like saying if a president shoots an innocent person, a CEO of whetever company should too. And government's main goal is to enforce laws to help society meanwhile a companies' goal is to make money. However, the demand these days for companies that treat workers as human beings is on the rise. It's an investment that's more than worthy to make sure no human rights abuses go in all throughout a company. Customers are becoming more aware of it so not only is it the right thing to do as every human deserves to be able to work happily, but also in turn can boost customer trust.
Return To Top | Posted:
TheFuror Juror (CON)Round2
Without losing my way in the woods of prolixity , I will quickly move on to my agenda for the second round.
As I mentioned in the previous round 94% of workers are employed in multinational companies by private contractors. THE COMPANY DOES NOT EMPLOY THEM. The company does not exploit them and neither does it guarantee them any rights in the workplace before they commence work. In reality the company does not even have a record of such labourers . These people are employed by private contractors and these companies pay the appropriate value and worth of the work done to the contractors. Now when these employees do not even exist for the company how can the company be liable for human rights abuses. The private contractors should be held liable as they are the greedy people who exploit these innocent labourers for monetary gains.
My opponent has been banking on the fact that governments and companies have completely different ways and intent. Yes you are right and at no point will I oppose you in this.
I completely agree with my opponent that it is quite easy to tell multinational companies to take liability of the human rights abuses in their supply chain but in reality it is not easy as it seems and I go on to say that practically this idea is not at all feasible.
Now taking liability will mean that the multinational company directly employs its workers all through its global supply chain and does away with all contractors and contract labourers. Else how will it be possible? Again this would mean that the company will have to increase its worker base by 16 times now. That will need immense capital .Well difficulties do not stop here . When a company employs a person it is bound to give all facilities to the employee ranging from housing to medical benefits . If you spare some time and add all these expenses up you will come to know that the bill runs to the tunes of billions of dollars. Again this is not the end. The company is a private undertaking so it won’t compromise with its profit. So who bears the exorbitant price of the manufactured articles and services??
The answer is quite simple –THE CUSTOMER.
Now in this selfish materialistic world which customer will like to shell out exorbitant prices for the same articles ?? My opponent’s debate says that if MNCs become liable for human rights abuses “customer trust will increase” . But I just proved how this step will instead shatter all customer trust and satisfaction .This very idea is completely non feasible.
A word of advice for my opponent- Please answer my questions and tell my mistakes in the cross examination. Please spend quality time for some good arguments during rounds.
Return To Top | Posted:
Return To Top | Speak Round
DethKnot (PRO)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted: