Letters | Morality and cheaper imports

With reference to the article by Busisiwe Mavuso (The Witness, February19), the statement that underpins her concerns is that industry in SA is declining due to “competition from low-cost imports”. In response, one needs to ask the question: Why can other countries produce goods cheaper than we can? And further, how is this achieved in spite of their transport and our import duty costs?

A possible answer may be that the restrictions placed on how local companies can establish and maintain their registration and adhere to labour law practices, such as minimum wages, may increase their cost of production to a level that is far greater than foreign competitors who may have less restrictive requirements or less legislated protection of their workers. If this is the reason for cheaper imports should we, as the purchasers, care? Is there a moral obligation to consider the plight of workers who are being exploited if we are benefiting from cheaper products?

And is our obligation to express disapproval lessened because they are not “our” workers? Perhaps our personal benefit of access to cheaper products outweighs any moral obligation to be concerned about “their” workers. However, if our manufacturing institutions close and unemployment increases, the fact that certain imported products are cheaper makes little difference to those who are without income and cannot afford such products, regardless of how cheap they may be.

[paywall]

Is there a national moral conscience to refuse to import cheaper goods if the reason for their lower cost is based primarily on the exploitation of their workers? A government which is guided by moral and ethical principles of human rights should provide guidance and execute decisions that are consistent with such principles, failing to do so implies a hypocritical moral stance. I have no knowledge of whether or not these concerns have any basis, perhaps there are other reasons why some imports are cheaper.

[/paywall]