exploitation – UAB Institute for Human Rights Blog

Griefbots: Blurring the Reality of Death and the Illusion of Life

Griefbots are an emerging technological phenomenon designed to mimic deceased individuals’ speech, behaviors, and even personalities. These digital entities are often powered by artificial intelligence, trained on data such as text messages, social media posts, and recorded conversations of the deceased. The concept of griefbots gained traction in the popular imagination through portrayals in television and film, such as the episode “Be Right Back” from the TV series Black Mirror. As advancements in AI continue to accelerate, griefbots have shifted from speculative fiction to a budding reality, raising profound ethical and human rights questions.

Griefbots are marketed as tools to comfort the grieving, offering an opportunity to maintain a sense of connection with lost loved ones. However, their implementation brings complex challenges that transcend technology and delve into the realms of morality, autonomy, and exploitation. While the intentions behind griefbots might seem compassionate, their broader implications require careful consideration. With the rising intricacy of the morality of AI, I want to explore some of the ethical aspects of griefbots and ask questions to push the conversation along. My goal is not to strongly advocate for or against their usage but to engage in philosophical debate.

Ethical and Human Rights Ramifications of Grief Bots

Commercial Exploitation of Grief

The commercialization of griefbots raises significant concerns about exploitation. Grieving individuals, in their emotional vulnerability, may be susceptible to expensive services marketed as tools for solace. This commodification of mourning could be seen as taking advantage of grief for profit. Additionally, if griefbots are exploitative, it prompts us to reconsider the ethicality of other death-related industries, such as funeral services and memorialization practices, which also operate within a profit-driven framework.

However, the difference between how companies currently capitalize on griefbots and how the death industry generates profit is easier to tackle than the other implications of this service. Most companies producing and selling griefbots charge for their services through subscriptions or minute-by-minute payments, distinguishing them from other death-related industries. Companies may have financial incentives to keep grieving individuals engaged with their services. To achieve this, algorithms could be designed to optimize interactions, maximizing the time a grieving person spends with the chatbot and ensuring long-term subscriptions. These algorithms might even subtly adjust the bot’s personality to make it more appealing over time, creating a pleasing caricature rather than an accurate reflection of the deceased.

As these interactions become increasingly tailored to highlight what users most liked about their loved ones, the griefbot may unintentionally alter or oversimplify memories of the deceased, fostering emotional dependency. This optimization could transform genuine mourning into a form of addiction. In contrast, if companies opted to charge a one-time activation fee rather than ongoing payments, would this shift the ethical implications? In such a case, could griefbots be equated to services like cremation—a one-time fee for closure—or would the potential for misuse still pose moral concerns?

Posthumous Harm and Dignity

Epicurus, an ancient Greek philosopher, famously argued that death is not harmful to the deceased because, once dead, they no longer exist to experience harm. Griefbots challenge the assumption that deceased individuals are beyond harm. From Epicurus’s perspective, griefbots would not harm the dead, as there is no conscious subject to be wronged. However, the contemporary philosopher Joel Feinberg contests this view by suggesting that posthumous harm is possible when an individual’s reputation, wishes, or legacy are violated. Misrepresentation or misuse of a griefbot could distort a person’s memory or values, altering how loved ones and society remember them. These distortions may result from incomplete or biased data, creating an inaccurate portrayal of the deceased. Such inaccuracies could harm the deceased’s dignity and legacy, raising concerns about how we ethically represent and honor the dead.

a version of Michelangelo's famous painting "The Creation of Adam" but with a robot hand instead of Adam's — Image 2: A robot version of Michelangelo’s painting “the Creation of Adam” Source: Yahoo Images

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” Because griefbots are supposed to represent a deceased person, they have the potential to disrespect people’s dignity by falsifying that person’s reason and consciousness. By creating an artificial version of someone’s reasoning or personality that may not align with their true self, griefbots risk distorting their essence and reducing the person’s memory to a fabrication.

But imagine a case in which an expert programmer develops a chatbot to represent himself. He perfectly understands every line of coding and can predict how the griefbot will honor his legacy. If there is no risk to the harm of his dignity, is there still an ethical issue at hand?

Consent and Autonomy

Various companies allow people to commission an AI ghost before their death by answering a set of questions and uploading their information. If individuals consent to create a griefbot during their lifetime, it might seem to address questions of autonomy. However, consent provided before death cannot account for unforeseen uses or misuse of the technology. How informed can consent truly be when the long-term implications and potential misuse of the technology are not fully understood when consent is given? Someone agreeing to create a griefbot may envision it as a comforting tool for loved ones. Yet, they cannot anticipate future technological advancements that could repurpose their digital likeness in ways they never intended.

This issue also intersects with questions of autonomy after death. While living individuals are afforded the right to make decisions about their posthumous digital presence, their inability to adapt or revoke these decisions as circumstances change raises ethical concerns. In HI-PHI Nation’s Podcast, The Wishes of the Dead, they explore how the wishes of deceased individuals, particularly wealthy ones, continue to shape the world long after their death. The episode uses Milton Hershey, founder of Hershey Chocolate, as a case study. Hershey created a charitable trust to fund a school for orphaned boys and endowed it with his company’s profits. Despite changes in societal norms and the needs of the community, the trust still operates according to Hershey’s original stipulations. Critics questioned whether continuing to operate according to Hershey’s 20th-century ideals was still relevant in the modern era, where gender equality and broader educational access have become more central concerns.

Chatbots do not have the ability to evolve and grow the way that humans do. Barry explains the foundation of this concept by saying, “One problem with executing deeds in perpetuity is that dead people are products of their own times. They don’t change what they want when the world changes.” And even if growth was implemented into the algorithm, there is no guarantee it would be reflective of how a person changes. Griefbots might preserve a deceased person’s digital presence in ways that could become problematic or irrelevant over time. Although griefbots do not have the legal status of an estate or will, they still preserve a person’s legacy in a similar fashion. If Hershey was alive today, would he modify his estate to reflect his legacy?

It could be argued that the difference between Hershey’s case and Chatbots is that wills and estates are designed to execute a person’s final wishes, but they are inherently limited in scope and duration. Griefbots, by contrast, have the potential to persist indefinitely, amplifying the damage to one’s reputation. Does this difference encompass the true scope of the issue at hand, or would it be viable to argue that if chatbots are unethical, then persisting estates would be equally unethical as well?

A picture of someone having a conversation with a chatbot — Image 3: A person having a conversation with a chatbot. Source: Yahoo Images

Impact on Mourning and Healing

Griefbots have the potential to fundamentally alter the mourning process by offering an illusion of continued presence. Traditionally, grieving involves accepting the absence of a loved one, allowing individuals to process their emotions and move toward healing. However, interacting with a griefbot may disrupt or delay this natural progression. By creating a sense of ongoing connection with the deceased, these digital avatars could prevent individuals from fully confronting the reality of the loss, potentially prolonging the pain of bereavement.

At the same time, griefbots could serve as a therapeutic tool for some individuals, providing comfort during difficult times. Grief is a deeply personal experience and for certain people, using chatbots as a means of processing loss might offer a temporary coping mechanism. In some cases, they might help people navigate the early, overwhelming stages of grief by allowing them to “speak” with a version of their loved one, helping them feel less isolated. Given the personal nature of mourning, it is essential to acknowledge that each individual has the right to determine the most effective way for them to manage their grief, including whether or not they choose to use this technology.

However, the decision to engage with griefbots is not always straightforward. It is unclear whether individuals in the throes of grief can make fully autonomous decisions, as emotions can cloud judgment during such a vulnerable time. Grief may impair an individual’s ability to think clearly, and thus, the use of griefbots might not always be a conscious, rational choice but rather one driven by overwhelming emotion.

Nora Freya Lindemann, a doctoral student researching the ethics of AI, proposes that griefbots could be classified as medical devices designed to assist in managing prolonged grief disorder (PGD). PGD is characterized by intense, persistent sorrow and difficulty accepting the death of a loved one. Symptoms of this disorder could potentially be alleviated with the use of griefbots, provided they are carefully regulated. Lindemann suggests that in this context, griefbots would require stringent guidelines to ensure their safety and effectiveness. This would involve rigorous testing to prove that these digital companions are genuinely beneficial and do not cause harm. Moreover, they should only be made available to individuals diagnosed with PGD rather than to anyone newly bereaved to prevent unhealthy attachments and over-reliance.

Despite the potential benefits, the psychological impact of griefbots remains largely unexplored. It is crucial to consider how these technologies affect emotional healing in the long term. While they may offer short-term comfort, the risk remains that they could hinder the natural grieving process, leading individuals to avoid the painful yet necessary work of acceptance and moving forward. As the technology develops, further research will be essential to determine the full implications of griefbots on the grieving process and to ensure that they are used responsibly and effectively.

Conclusion

Griefbots are at the intersection of cutting-edge technology and age-old human concerns about mortality, memory, and ethics. While they hold potential for comfort and connection, their implementation poses significant ethical and human rights challenges. The concepts I explored only scratch the surface of the iceberg. As society navigates this uncharted territory, we must critically examine its implications and find ways to use AI responsibly. The questions it raises are complex, but they offer an opportunity to redefine how we approach death and the digital legacies we leave behind.

The Wine Industry: Years of Exploitation and Human Trafficking

by Caitlin Cerillo

Have you ever had a glass of wine and wondered how it’s made? Or, pondered what it comes from and how long the wine-making process takes? Who is responsible for making it? Surely, the wine industry has been modernized, where mechanical inventions can do most of the handiwork when creating a delicious bottle of wine used for birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and other milestone celebrations.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. The wine industry has had a history of exploiting its workers by forcing them to work in extremely poor conditions and grueling hours. Wine-making follows an intricate process, starting with the harvesting of grapes in vineyards. Mechanical harvesting does exist and is generally quicker than doing so by hand, as the average human can harvest 1-2 tons a day, while a machine can harvest 80-200 tons. However, human harvesting is still favored because it offers a more precise selection and lessens the severity of oxidation getting to the grapes due to damaged skins.

A person picking grapes to harvest for wine. — A worker manually harvesting grapes for wine. Source: Yahoo Images

The amount of grapes needed to produce a standard-size bottle of wine varies depending on the style of wine. However, a general number given by experts is an average of 1.25 to 1.50 kilograms, or 2.75 to 3.3 pounds. With the amount of wine that is produced worldwide within just a year, this adds up to a huge demand for grape pickers to supply the lucrative wine business. In the world, there are two primary countries responsible for the largest number of wine production: Italy and France. Both countries have come under fire for unethical practices in their wine production and human rights violations that include human trafficking, exploitation, and extremely poor working/living conditions for workers.

What is Human Trafficking and Exploitation?

Human trafficking is a huge issue across the world. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) defines human trafficking as the “recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of people through force, fraud or deception, with the aim of exploiting them for profit.” Human trafficking can come in many different forms, like sex trafficking, forced labor, and child sex trafficking. Victims of human trafficking can come from any kind of age group, gender, and background.

However, specific groups may be more vulnerable than others. These groups include people separated from their families or other support systems, refugees or migrant workers, sexual and gender minorities, people with disabilities, and members of lower socio-economic groups. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), human traffickers will use manipulation tactics and exploit the vulnerabilities of their victims, which is why these specific groups are at heightened risk.

Italy

In September 2021, a humanitarian organization by the name of Oxfam released a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) on the Italian wine supply chain to assess their impact on human rights. The HRIA is titled “The Workers Behind Sweden’s Italian Wine” and focuses on the primary Italian wine supply chain in Sweden, Systembolaget. The HRIA’s objectives were to perform a context analysis on Systembolaget in order to “build an understanding of the nature of the Systembolaget supply chains” and then to “identify the actual and potential human rights impacts in Systembolaget supply chains in practice.”

Oxfam’s HRIA does a great job at going more in-depth with the current human rights violations occurring in the Italian wine industry, along with the potential human rights violations that are at high risk of coming to fruition. To summarize, Oxfam found several serious violations: forced labor, low wages, excessive working hours, health and safety risks in vineyards and wineries, lack of access to remedy, restrictions to freedom of association, sexual harassment and gender discrimination, and unsanitary housing. To read more about Oxfam’s findings, follow this link.

France

France’s primary region for wine production is called the Champagne region, located roughly to the east of Paris. In late 2023, a large portion of the region was shut down by French authorities and put under investigation for human rights violations. Wine-makers in the Champagne region are migrants primarily from West African countries. It was discovered that the lodgings that provided housing to the migrant workers were of poor quality, with makeshift beds surrounded by electrical cables and extremely unsanitary bathroom facilities.

Workers picking grapes in a French vineyard. Source: Yahoo Images

The investigation also found that the contractors responsible for hiring the migrant workers exploited their vulnerabilities, as they were willing to work, even without proper contracts and for extremely low wages. At the end of the 2023 harvest season, another trafficking investigation was opened by authorities, which involved 160 laborers from Ukraine living in poor conditions in another area of the Champagne region.

South Africa

Although South Africa isn’t at the very top of the list of wine-producing countries, it has been accused of violating several human rights for years. In 2011, Human Rights Watch released a report titled “Ripe with Abuse: Human Rights Conditions in South Africa’s Fruit and Wine Industries,” detailing the problems surrounding the country’s industries. For over a decade, numerous attempts have been made to improve them, as well as conditions on farms. For instance, the Wine Industry Ethical Trade Association was created in 2002. Unfortunately, significant improvements have yet to be made to rectify the issues at hand.

South African farmworkers who supply the grapes needed for wine are vulnerable to some of the following human rights violations: exposure to pesticides and harmful chemicals, working long hours, and being forced to work in extreme weather conditions. Many farmworkers don’t even have access to safe drinking water, toilets, or livable housing. They face difficulty in forming a union to bring attention to the injustices they face. Like Italy and France, South African farmworkers receive low wages and little to no protection from the government.

The Future of the Wine Industry

There are many possible routes that can be taken to improve the working conditions for wine-makers. One of the most productive ways includes wineries turning to certifications that can help lay a groundwork for better standards, like environmental sustainability and safe working conditions. These certifications can help ensure that wineries are being held to their promises. Several wineries across the world have turned to certification efforts, like Chile’s Emiliana Organic Vineyards, which is certified under B Corp. B Corp was established in 2006, with the initiative of encouraging accountability, transparency, and environmental performance in business. Similarly, Italy has founded the Equalitas standard in 2015, which is specifically aimed at the wine industry.

Rethinking Museum Exhibitions in America

by Caitlin Cerillo

As an avid lover of visiting museums, it is important to hold them accountable when their exhibitions can have damaging implications. History and science museums can be among the most fascinating places to visit, as the world has such a rich scientific history. However, there is a fine line between preserving a specific piece of history and exploiting groups of people in the name of science. In recent years, several museums have come under fire for capitalizing on the exploitation of ethnic groups and glorifying the world’s hurtful history of colonialism, imperialism, and the oppression of marginalized peoples.

In recent years, attention has been paid to the sources of acquisition that many popular museums in the United States use. One of the most recent is the American Museum of Natural History, located in Manhattan, New York, and its exhibitions contain the remains of indigenous people.

What is Colonialism?

Colonialism is a practice in which domination over a specific area is carried out by another foreign state. Colonialism has been and is used as a way to consolidate political or economic gain and always leads to the complete subjugation, or conquest, of the people in the colonized area. The foundation of America was built on colonialism, dating back to before the nation was even established. While there are records of British colonies existing prior to the 1600s, the 17th century marked the beginning of the first permanent colonies.

An illustration of what colonialism in the New World may have looked like. Depicts a docked ship on land with settlers. — An illustration of colonialism in the New World. Source: Yahoo Images

The Jamestown Colony was created in Virginia in 1607. Long before the establishment of any colonies in the New World, or present-day America, Native Americans were the first to live on American soil. The region in which the Jamestown colony arrived was the same region as the Powhatan people, an Indian tribe. On many occasions, there would be violent encounters between the tribe and colonists. When establishing colonies in the New World, colonists would bring diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox. While they had immunity to these microbes, they would be fatal for the local Native American population.

As the 17th century progressed, the relationship between colonists and Native Americans would significantly weaken. For instance, King Philip’s War occurred in 1675 after the execution of three members of the Wampanoag people by the government of the Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts. This war is known as one of the deadliest conflicts in American history, with the amount of casualties reaching extreme heights throughout the 14-month period of the war.

Even after America was established as a country, harmful practices against Indigenous Americans continued to be considered legal. Hundreds of thousands of Indians—particularly Indian youth—were forced to assimilate. Cultural assimilation is extremely damaging for multiple reasons. It normalizes public stigmatization of the affected groups and erases their cultural identity.

The American Museum of Natural History

Upon facing public scrutiny, New York’s American Museum of Natural History has created a policy calling for the removal of all exhibits containing human bones. The museum has promised the use of anthropologists to carry out comprehensive analytical processes to determine these remains’ origins and source of acquisition.

Not only has the American Museum of Natural History come under fire for exhibiting the remains of thousands of Native Americans, but also for acquiring the bones of five Black adults who were buried in a cemetery for enslaved people. This brings an important conversation of eugenics, where bodies were exploited and used as “scientific property” against their will. The presence of eugenics and other scientific thoughts entrenched in racism and white supremacy have allowed for other forms of oppression against marginalized groups—specifically Black Americans—like medical racism and healthcare bias. These connections make the museum’s acquisition of these remains even more problematic.

The Smithsonian

Another museum that has come under fire for its exhibitions is the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in D.C. While this exhibition does not involve human remains, the exploitation of a group of marginalized people under colonialism remains present. The museum held 29 bronze sculptures that originally belonged to the Kingdom of Benin. The Kingdom of Benin was established during the pre-colonial period of what is now southern Nigeria. The sculptures were seized by British military and colonial forces during a raid in 1897. This raid also resulted in the burning of the city and the deaths of the people who inhabited it

Real estate developers Paul and Ruth Tishman collected the Benin sculptures and sold them to the Walt Disney Company in 1984. In 2007, they were donated to the Smithsonian. Without thinking about the implications the sources of acquisition of their exhibition pieces have, the Smithsonian turned a blind eye to their hurtful histories. Fortunately, the Smithsonian recognized this problem and removed the sculptures from public display in late 2021. Museum director Ngaire Blankenberg also enlisted the help of curators to find the places of origin for all pieces that had potential ties to the Kingdom of Benin raid.

Harvard’s Peabody Museum and Warren Anatomical Museum

The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology and the Warren Anatomical Museum, both owned by Harvard University, recently repatriated the remains of over 300 Indigenous people back to the Wampanoag communities. The university completed the repatriation process in January of this year. Harvard has since aimed to create efforts to better understand and rethink the implications of sources of acquisition. For instance, the Peabody Museum created a virtual exhibit titled “Listening to Wampanoag Voices: Beyond 1620.” The exhibit includes oral histories given by various members of the Wampanoag community.

Photo of the seven people in the Wampanoag exhibit created by Harvard's Peabody Museum. — These are some of the faces of the Peabody Museum’s “Listening to Wampanoag Voices: Beyond 1620.” The exhibit includes oral histories from Jonathan James-Perry, Elizabeth James-Perry, Phillip Wynne, Zoë Harris, Linda Jeffers, and Alyssa Harris. Source: Yahoo Images

Why are Sources of Acquisition Important?

The term ‘acquisition‘ refers to an object purchased or given to an institution, such as a museum or library. ‘Sources of acquisition’ deals with the background of these objects, like their historical context and location of origin. If not taken into careful consideration, ignoring sources of acquisition can be harmful to the affected communities. It normalizes the idea that the oppression of people is something that can be glossed over in the name of science or a glorified museum exhibit. In the case of many museums collecting the remains of marginalized communities, it pushes the notion that the subjugation and exploitation of people are acceptable. As reflected earlier in this post, America was built on the institution of white supremacy and colonialism, which makes the sources of acquisition of exhibition pieces even more important to note

So, what can be done to right the wrongs of these museums? Taking the initiative to go through the repatriation process should always be considered. While this process entails a number of legal procedures that may not be completed within a specific timeframe, it is always worth the exhibition pieces being returned to the rightful institutions and people. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) was instated in 1990 and is a US federal law that facilitates the repatriation process. As of 2022, there have been many changes made to the NAGPRA. These changes include defining how objects are defined to better accommodate the cultural traditions and customs of the rightful descendants.

Similarly, hiring curators and anthropologists to analyze the origins of exhibitions can be helpful. Next, understanding shortcomings within the pieces a museum inherits through efforts like opening conversations about America’s history of colonialism, racism, and oppression of marginalized people. Giving a voice to those who have been affected by these harmful practices, like the Peabody Museum’s Wampanoag exhibit, is another way of allowing them to reclaim the hurt that has been done.

Unionization in America

With the flick of a finger the dominoes fall, an endless chain reaction until the last domino falls. The biggest domino chain set up in the United States is the wave of unionization. While the first few dominoes have fallen, it remains unclear as to if this chain reaction will run a full course.

Taught to many school children as something akin to a collective effort to get have a test date shifted, unionization is a topic quickly brushed over in K-12 education.

Dominoes falling in a chain reaction. Source: Yahoo Images

Unionization is the process of organizing workers into labor unions. Labor unions are groups of laborers who form a collective that advocates for the protection of laborer interests in negotiations. Largely viewed as positive in international conversations regarding workers’ rights, labor unions are considered to be structures that have proven themselves to adequately support worker interests ensuring greater quality of life and quality of work support time and again.

Unionization in America Now

From Amazon to Starbucks, unionization efforts since the beginning of the pandemic have slowly but surely begun to gain steam. Though efforts in Bessemer, Alabama have yet to lead to unionization, despite a re-vote, an Amazon warehouse in Staten Island created the first Amazon worker-led union.

The efforts to revitalize the unionization movement are courtesy to the pandemic’s Great Resignation as much as they are to the increased waves of college educated people taking on more atypical middle-class jobs that often fail to align to their formal educational background and skill set. This change has brought upon waves of fair treatment demands bringing in the biggest labor movement in decades. This is reflected by the striking 60% increase in petitions received by the National Labor Relations Board filing for union elections.

Four hands rest on a tbale. The hands are different skin tones. The hands lie with palms flat on the table. — Four hands lie on a table, close together. Source: Unsplash.

This trend is promising, but may die out, a problem attributed to the particularly volatile relationship between companies and unions—something considered unique to the US.

American Unionization History

Strongly emerging in the 1930s with 10% participation to the stronghold of the 1950s with nearly a third of eligible workers taking part in unions, with companies able to hold court-backed claims of private property and profit along with an emphasis on maximizing shareholder value, the presence of unions has dramatically decreased since the 1970s and 80s. Rather than a redistribution of wealth, the gap between the rich and the poor has increased substantially.

The main issue for the source of animosity between unions and companies boils down to a bottom line—literally. America’s capitalist economic structure has been set up to nicely meld with the strong Constitutional focus on privatization of property and profit. With court-backed rulings in favor of these Constitutional rights, labor unions can be easily portrayed as company enemies and something even worse: un-American.

Unionization Globally

The twist lies in that in international human rights documents and organizations that the United States has taken part in the ratification of or agreed to be a part of strongly support unions and a culture behind worker well-being.

There is ample groundwork laid out in Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 8 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and Convention No. 87 and 98 of the Internal Labour Organization that speaks to a significantly stronger culture of protection and even support of unions. In the way that labor unions are portrayed at an international level, it becomes clear that prioritization of workers’ rights and support is paramount.

Various placards with the names of different nations sit atop the the surfaces of many rows of tables. One table is more raised in the back than the other tables up front. — The names of various countries sit atop tables. Source: Unsplash

Looking to the Future

While a culture change is possibly the most important step that must be taken domestically to get the US on par with its global neighbors, the first step in ensuring that unions are treated equitably and given the opportunity to grow is through formal legislation. The Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act of 2021 passed the House, but its movement stopped there. This act would’ve tackled many loopholes in US law that limit organizing and would bring the nation closer to international standards. As of right now, it remains unclear if the PRO Act will make a reappearance in Congress, but with the rise of unions across the nation, from Starbucks to Amazon and beyond, there is the hope for a better future for unions.

Guardians: The Bridge between the Medical and Social Models of Disability

Getting fitted out for a better future Omar (in the middle surrounded by his brother Rasekh, 10 and sister Majan, 8) was born with weak legs and hands since birth. They came to the Red Cross orthopedic clinic in Kabul with their father to get Omar fitted up for a wheelchair. Rasekh is in grade 4 and love Dari classes – he would like to be an engineer. Omar will have to be pushed around for the rest of his life, but his siblings are happy to support him to have a normal life – he hopes to start school soon. Aid from the UK is supporting the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to run a network of seven orthopaedic centres across Afghanistan to assist those affected by mobility disabilities, including hundreds of mine victims. The UK is to help provide 3,800 new artificial limbs and 10,000 crutches for Afghan children and adults disabled during 30 years of conflict and extreme poverty. UK Dept of Intl Development — Omar (in the middle surrounded by his brother Rasekh, 10 and sister Majan, 8) was born with weak legs and hands since birth. They came to the Red Cross orthopedic clinic in Kabul with their father to get Omar fitted up for a wheelchair. Rasekh is in grade 4 and loves Dari classes, he would like to be an engineer. Omar will have to be pushed around for the rest of his life, but his siblings are happy to support him to have a normal life, he hopes to start school soon. Aid from the UK is supporting the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to run a network of seven orthopaedic centres across Afghanistan to assist those affected by mobility disabilities, including hundreds of mine victims. The UK is to help provide 3,800 new artificial limbs and 10,000 crutches for Afghan children and adults disabled during 30 years of conflict and extreme poverty. Source: UK Department of International Development, Creative Commons

I am currently binge-watching Law & Order: SVU. In one episode, “Competence,” the rape survivor has Downs Syndrome (DS). Her mother, who is also her legal guardian, feels DS limits her ability to function “normally” in the world. The main concern of the mother is her daughter’s ability to care for the baby she is carrying as a result of the repeated rapes. The mother’s protection of her daughter extended only as far as she could be with her. Throughout the show, the revelation is that the store owner, where the daughter worked part-time as a stocker, exploited her disadvantage for his advantage. To limit the risk of the baby having DS and added to her belief in her daughter’s inability to care for the baby, the mother arranged an abortion of her daughter’s behalf. The courts stepped in and conducted a competency trial. Placed on the stand, the pregnant rape survivor acknowledged that once she did set fire to the kitchen but that she could now make soup because her boyfriend showed her. She also explained that even though she did not know how to care for a baby yet, she could learn if someone taught her.

As persons with disabilities (PWDs) move from the medical model into the social model in pursuit of independence, often overlooked are the role and needs of the caregiver. Society must begin to acknowledge and identify the paradigm shift occurring across the board. The purpose of this blog is to reflect on the role of parents and caretakers (also referred to as guardians) who attempt to bridge the gap between the medical and social models of disability while encouraging self-determination and protecting their loved ones in a created world that does not have them in mind.

The societal solution to PWDs was eugenics, institutionalization, or isolation–out of sight and out of mind for centuries. The employment of this solution allowed and continues to allow some guardians to abuse the system and take advantage of those in their care, and the pursuit of swift legal action is necessary. However, as societies move towards inclusivity, we must give encouragement and praise to those who through their actions look for avenues and solutions that empower. More specifically, we must continue to champion the guardians. With the implementation of the CRPD, standards of ADA, more universal design efforts, and competency hearings, PWDs are becoming productive members within their communities. So, what does this mean for their guardians who have sacrificed to protect their family member from the cruelty of an able-bodied world and the able-bodied world not used to making allowances for Others, particularly PWDs?

Who is a guardian? Persons with intellectual disabilities often have a legal guardian. The legal guardian acts in the “best interest” of their ward or the person in their charge. Much of the present debate regarding guardianship is the abuse of power in the denial of civil and human rights. In a 2007 study, Dorothy Squatrito Millar found that study participants did not recognize the disconnection between self-determination and guardianship or realize that there are several available alternatives to guardianship. Despite the arrival at the age of majority (18), students with intellectual disabilities did not receive the opportunity to self-advocate; rather, in many instances, they are given directions on what to do, or their guardian did the task for them. The inability to self-advocate as an adult is a denial of personhood, a violation of dignity. “We are adults. They need to accept that” and “they need to put themselves in our shoes sometimes” were some of the responses of the students.

What is notable about the SVU competency hearing is the assumption that all adults know how to care for a baby or balance a checkbook. The implication is that a person with an intellectual disability needs to have a guardian to avoid making any mistakes. As one non-disabled parent in Millar’s study put it, “We all make mistakes, and we all need help sometime—but that doesn’t mean we need guardians.” Most guardians resist the transition to adulthood and self-determination out of fear of exploitation, lack of information, and concern for their disabled child’s well-being. Millar concludes that while there is a significant need for more research on the transition to adulthood, the inclusion of children with intellectual disabilities into decision making throughout their lives does assist in the collaboration between other institutions in providing care that aligns with goals, imparts knowledge, addresses concerns, and maintains dignity and personhood.

The Plight of China’s Migrant Workers

by Dianna Bai

a photo of a Chinese shoemaker — The shoemaker’s children always go barefoot. Having an issue with one of your shoes? No problem, the old cobbler on the sidewalk corner can help you. There are less and less street workers like that now in China, but is some places of cities, we can easily found plenty of them. They are mainly old people, who I guess has always been doing this, in this place, from winter to summer, even when it is raining. The price is still attractive for clients who prefer deal in the street rather than in shops… but for how long. This is China. Source: Gauthier DELECROIX, Creative Commons

China’s newfound economic prowess since the reform and opening has been shouldered by its massive population of migrant laborers. A significant surplus of unskilled workers and a lax regulatory environment has given Chinese factories, like those in many developing countries, a competitive edge over their counterparts in the Global North. In this troubling “race to the bottom,” a great number of Chinese factories overwork and underpay their rank-and-file employees, at times subjecting them to sordid and dangerous conditions. Although brands such as Nike, Walmart and Apple have been pressured by the international media and human rights organizations to take responsibility for labor rights within their supply chains, it is difficult to separate the profits of these corporations from their habitual exploitation of the weak human rights standards and ineffective enforcement of regulations in countries like China.

For most of China’s 131 million migrant workers, leaving the village and traveling to the city to find gainful employment is the greatest opportunity as well as the most harrowing journey of their lives. The freedom and ability to leave their rural hometown are points of pride for migrant workers, yet the enormous surplus of labor in the urban areas has led to fierce competition in the market, forcing them to accept low wages, no benefits, poor working conditions, strict work regimes, and little job security. In the documentary China Blue, we see employees of the blue jean factory worked for pennies an hour, less than the minimum wage, and are often forced to work overtime – even overnight – to meet shipping deadlines. Some are so exhausted by continuous hours of labor that they fall asleep at their workstations, risking reprimand by their supervisors. Factory workers often do not get paid on time and new workers lose their first month’s paycheck as a “deposit,” a sum of money they never receive if they choose to quit. Furthermore, migrant workers have no access to healthcare or education in the city as a result of the discriminatory hukou system that binds them legally to their rural hometowns. China has a comprehensive set of labor laws including minimum wage, but local and provincial officials rarely enforce them in order to attract foreign businesses and boost their regions’ economic growth. As a result, migrant workers are exploited on dual levels, by the factories that employ them and the state that fails to protect them.

Most migrant workers do not understand their legal rights; they have no organized way to defend them. Workers have some inkling of their rights when it is most obvious. However, they lack knowledge of the comprehensive but unenforced regulations protecting them. In China Blue, the workers at the blue jean factory held a haphazard strike after their pay had been delayed for three months. There have also been some success stories of migrant workers taking legal actions against their employers. Lawyers like Zhou Litai have made triumphant careers from helping injured workers litigate with their employers for rightful compensation. Yet a string of individual cases won by workers has not changed the basic conditions of factories. Because of an authoritarian government that fears the rise of civil society, the Chinese government has not allowed independent labor unions to form in China. In developed countries, these types of organizations undergirded the labor rights movement during the industrialization process. They educated workers, negotiated with factory owners on their behalf, and organized strikes when necessary. If Chinese workers are not empowered to speak up for themselves, then who has the luxury to speak for them?

One might argue that Western consumers have the luxury to speak up for these exploited workers by demanding corporations to “clean up” their supply chains. The anti-sweatshop movement has gained great momentum in the past two decades. Due to negative media attention and pressure from NGOs, many multinational corporations that source overseas have devoted significant resources and efforts to audit the factories in their supply chains, even establishing social compliance divisions solely dedicated to this goal. Brands such as Nike at first defended the conditions in its Indonesian factories, contending that their corporation has created thousands of jobs for people who lack better opportunities. Philip Knight, the founder of Nike, pointed out: “People argued that we were taking advantage of the poor Japanese workers 20 years ago. Now Japan makes no Nikes and imports $100 million of them.” Nevertheless, Nike soon followed cues from other corporations and drafted a code of conduct for its factories.

a portrait of a Chinese farmer — Happy Farmer. Farmer after working in the morning – getting ready to deliver vegetables to town for lunch. Jiashan, China Source: DaiLuo, Creative Commons.

The global movement for labor rights has brought international attention to the plight of workers in developing countries and put the issue on the table for multinational corporations. However, there is a serious inherent problem in letting corporations police themselves: a misalignment of incentives. The primary aims of private corporations are to make profits, satisfy customers, and reward shareholders. They accomplish these goals by constantly trying to improve cost efficiency, which is what attracts them to developing world factories. Apple, for example, produces its products in China because of the huge economies of scales that can be achieved there as opposed to the United States. The speed and flexibility of the Chinese manufacturing sector has drawn in companies like Apple, but it comes at the price of poorer labor conditions. Cost efficiency puts the corporations’ incentives in misalignment with social compliance divisions. Because social compliance divisions do not usually cooperate with buying departments, multinational corporations are essentially asking factories to improve the conditions for their workers while still demanding the same low prices. This disjunction has led to massive falsification of records by factory owners, undermining the integrity of the audit process. The audit profession itself is also plagued with human capital problems and instances of bribery. Corporations, in turn, have little incentive to investigate fraud so long as they can present a picture of compliance to concerned consumers. They can essentially pay lip service to the human rights movement by going along with the records presented to them. In the case of mass falsification, concerned consumers cannot even be certain that a brand which claims to buy from only factories with good labor conditions is, in fact, doing so.

Instead of simply paying attention to better audits of factories from corporations, consumers who are concerned about the labor conditions in China should also demand “responsible prices” at the manufacturing level. Currently, the prices that brands pay to factory owners in China are so low that they face the dilemma of improving labor conditions and losing business or falsifying records to comply with labor standards. Timberland, for example, will pay only $20 per shoe that it buys from a manufacturer, while selling it to the retailer for $50, which then sells it to consumers for $100. In the $80 of revenue gained after the product has been purchased from the manufacturer, there must be some room to offer the manufacturer a better price without passing on the cost to consumers. Consumer groups should scrutinize the profit structure of brands and retailers and buy goods that pay manufacturers better, so that manufacturers can pass on the generosity to their workers. This requires the buying department and the social compliance division to work together to establish an agreeable price for products that takes into account favorable labor conditions. This doesn’t necessarily have to come with a loss of profits for the brands and retailers. Favorable corporations will gain the loyalty and goodwill of a growing number of consumers who are concerned about emerging market labor conditions.

However, a consumer can only do so much on the demand side. Much of the work to be done on labor rights must come from the workers themselves. NGOs working in this field must continue educating workers on labor rights, encouraging them to organize, and advocating for the establishment of true, independent labor unions. China’s official labor union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), functions more as a peacekeeping organ between workers and management rather than a labor union truly representing the interests of workers. Although the ACFTU has considerable political clout at the national level and lobbies for labor protection laws, its chapters at various factories rarely make demands on behalf of workers. ACFTU union leaders are generally chosen by the factory management and remain beholden to the management. Chinese workers need unions with democratically elected leaders who will truly represent their interests rather than serving as a “bridge” between workers and the management. Without autonomous labor unions representing them, workers cannot bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. Their rights enshrined by Chinese law will go unheeded.

From one perspective, multinational corporations that choose to manufacture their products in China are giving thousands of Chinese workers opportunities they would never have had in the countryside. Although migrant workers often face laborious conditions in factories, they are earning far more than their rural counterparts and gaining more consumption power. As China becomes wealthier as a result of the economic growth driven by the export-oriented manufacturing sector, workers will naturally begin to demand more rights and better living standards. This process has taken place during the industrialization process in many former developing countries. In the meantime, however, multinational corporations are keen to exploit – for as long as they can – an inherently broken legal system and a profoundly undemocratic culture that has relegated millions of Chinese migrant workers to second-class citizenry. When China introduced in law in 2006 to give labor unions more concrete power, multinational corporations were the first to protest by implying they would move their factories elsewhere. Rather than relying on a social compliance scheme that often tolerates the falsification of records during audits, consumers should also urge corporations to offer responsible prices for manufacturers so that they can give workers better treatment without losing business. Most importantly, the Chinese and international human rights movement must continue their efforts to educate workers on labor rights and promote a political environment that will allow the formation of independent labor unions.

Dianna Bai is a Birmingham-based writer who currently writes for AL.com. Her writing has been featured on Forbes, TechCrunch, and Medium. You can find her portfolio here.