Usually your work contract is only valid while within working hours, what you do outside that is your choice

Read up on Free Trade Zones / Export Processing Zones /Special Economic Zones. They are quite common in developing countries and where most of our mass-market goods are produced. Basically - countries that are underdeveloped attempt to attract factories by opening zones where tax regulations are lowered or absent, and often many of the laws protecting workers (and the environment) loosened. Most of the factories in zones like that are dependent upon contracts with multi-nationals; those multi-nationals shop around which means the various EPZ's in various countries compete against each other; which means laws and regulations are further loosened to reduce production costs even further,etc.

I.e. basically - these are tax free zones not under the jurisdiction of the hosting country, but policed by the factories contained within. As they open up in already impoverished areas ... if there's 60-80% plus unemployment outside those zones people WILL take whatever job at whatever conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_zone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Economic_Zone

It's called human rights abuse and isn't globally policed. Who would? These are independent nations that are giving away these incentives "willingly" to business. There's no authority that could prevent them from doing so.

I always think it's so incredibly frustrating when people in developed nations come up with that argument that we have to compete with such and such underdeveloped nation or we will loose jobs to them. It's impossible to compete with them. It's utterly wrong to attempt to, as well - as the only way to do so is to follow them down to the bottom of no worker's rights.

The UN is the UN - it's not a global government. And as to why nothing's done? It's big business. Really big business. It's why you can buy T-Shirts for $1. ANY big brand, ANY major supermarket very, very likely benefits from this.

From Naomi Klein's (outdated) No Logo a few factory profiles [that indicate who they work for]

Name: Yue Yuen Factory
Works for: Nike and Addidas
Hourly wages: $0.16
Hours per week: 77 - 84, 11 -12 hour shifts, 7 days a week.
Conditions: Forced overtime, no overtime premium paid; excessive noise pollution fumes in the factory; no worker ever heard / seen Nike or Addidas Code of Conduct.

Name: Ya Li Handbag, ltd.
Works for: Walk Mart & Kathie Lee Handbags
Hourly wages: $0.18 to $0.23
Hours per week: 60 plus overtime. Up to 16 hour shifts.
Conditions: Forced overtime - fines for refusing to work overtime, overtime premiums two and a half cents per hour; some workers not paid for 3-4 months, 12 to a dorm room, no benefits, no work contract; never heard of Code of Conduct.

and so on.

These companies are making profits in the 1000 plus % range on the production costs. Nike / Addidas shoes produced for less than 1$ are sold for £100 plus for some models.

Answer is to buy ethical. But that's a shit load of work for the individual consumer. But yeah. Consumer pressure would be a way to solve this - in theory. Expensive things aren't necessarily ethical. And things that claim to be ethical aren't necessarily in fact ethical.

It's way way more expensive, too, of course. If you don't have the money to buy ethical you either have to abstain or support exploitation.

Don't know about US. But there's pound stores here in the UK - where nothing costs more than a pound? Nothing in there's branded.

I understand your frustration, but what would you have the UN do? About all they have is economic sanctions, and nations can simply choose to ignore them. I suppose they could put up some sort of trade embargo, but that really isn't going to work against a nation that produces products vital to the daily activities of people in so many nations throughout the world. "Embargo us? Okay, go get your cheap xyz somewhere else." And then we realize there's no 'somewhere else' ready-to-go to handle the specific product at the capacities needed; Foxconn being a good example.

Thank you for clarification. Yes, I was wrong first to think that U.S. law is applicable in this case.

This agreement is not to stop the workers from comitting suicides, but to threat them their families will not receive any financial help if you do so... It's even more cruel. It is , by United Nations. But China in United Nations has a very strong position. Nobody f***s with China...

You know, there are concentration camps in North Korea and the world is crying out loud how WRONG this is, but the same thing in China is kept concealed.

You know, we can't pretty much threaten economically China. It's the biggest economy in the world. They could threaten us.

I don't know how much things are produced only in China, but i think MOST OF THEM

We don't live in a world with simple solutions, GR. Firstly - the UN almost certainly couldn't do that, secondly - even if it could, probably no one would vote for it, lastly - even IF some drastic measures were undertaken... exactly what would it accomplish ?
There would either be marginal changes, enough to lift the ban (or whatever) or (more likely) the factories would close, the people would end up jobless and penniless while a different country would use the opportunity to house similar operations.

As a rule of thumb - if you have to ask "Why not x ?" where x is a really simple solution, there's usually a damn good reason not to do x, because if there wasn't, there probably IS enough good-hearted men out there to at least pitch the idea.

On a positive note - now you have something to keep in mind whenever you hear fellow Americans whine about "those damn Unions" ;P.

No, it's not. You know why ? Because the alternative would be to admit that the families of those who commit suicide will receive quite a bit of cash... and you can probably guess how that could affect the actions of those who are already on the edge. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, huh ?

Yep. And the optimistic thoughts are located in China :P

China is able to destroy any country just by making economic moves. They don't need to throw any missle at you :-P Since most of "our" business is located there...

Oh, I would know. The thing is - if you want to use normative statements, it would be wise to have the ontological and pragmatic side covered; i.e.: "IS it possible ?" and "HOW can we go about doing so ?".

To India? Or to have everything 5 times more expensive...? It's not an easy choice. Emm... it is, because U.S. companies at least do not abuse U.S. citizens, and nobody truly care about chinese workers... because they are far away...

Well... I'd rather be depressed than ignorant. It comes with the territory, I guess...

Sure. By "ignorant", BTW, I once again mean "not knowing".

Call me a Sartre fanboy but that's "bad faith" ><. If you prefer Freud, that's something you're supposed to do unconsciously (repressing and all those wonderful mechanisms) and it's ALSO a bad thing.
Man up and face the facts. There's obviously a lot of evil in the world but pretending it doesn't exist won't make it go away, it will only make it stronger.

It comes with being a rational agent and speaker of truth... But I guess not everyone is a phenomenologist.

I think that's taking it a step further - as a rational agent I acquire truth (or the best semblance of it I care to achieve) but I don't have to say it to believe it... unless I'm being too literal minded here (in which case - link / explanation, plz :3)