News Forum - Charges filed against Thai factory used by Tesco

[Thaiger]

After catching heat for what critics considered a half-assed investigation, Thai police have now filed criminal charges against a factory used by Tesco. VK Garment Factory, a clothing factory in Mae Sot used to produce F&F clothes has been charged over its treatment of workers. The charges for fraud claim that the factory used workers’ …

The story Charges filed against Thai factory used by Tesco as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[Shade_Wilder]

2 hours ago, Thaiger said:

After catching heat for what critics considered a half-assed investigation, Thai police have now filed criminal charges against a factory used by Tesco. VK Garment Factory, a clothing factory in Mae Sot used to produce F&F clothes has been charged over its treatment of workers.

This is great news, and shows the truly wonderful power of a free press when it is allowed to function; anyone think charges would have been filed without the media attention? Moreover, those Burmese workers are some of the least powerful people on the planet; wouldn't it be nice if the Little Guy won a round or two in Thailand? Finally, if (its a big if) they manage to be compensated, then imagine what that money might do for their friends and family suffering in Burma under the Bastard Junta there.

However, I think it is a reach to include Tesco and/or sue in the UK; sorry, but I don't think there is a case for that. Tesco will argue, I hope correctly and sincerely, that they acted in good faith when doing business with the factory owners, but that they weren't responsible for the abuses. And, I don't think they were; are private companies also Human Rights Monitors? No. I think it is a good thing for private companies operating in overseas locations to do what they can to improve the lot of the local worker and community, but there are limits, and this is one of them; they ain't cops or the (sovereign) local government.

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Sad for the factory workers, but I don't think they have a case.

[Grumpish]

2 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

This is great news, and shows the truly wonderful power of a free press when it is allowed to function; anyone think charges would have been filed without the media attention? Moreover, those Burmese workers are some of the least powerful people on the planet; wouldn't it be nice if the Little Guy won a round or two in Thailand? Finally, if (its a big if) they manage to be compensated, then imagine what that money might do for their friends and family suffering in Burma under the Bastard Junta there.

However, I think it is a reach to include Tesco and/or sue in the UK; sorry, but I don't think there is a case for that. Tesco will argue, I hope correctly and sincerely, that they acted in good faith when doing business with the factory owners, but that they weren't responsible for the abuses. And, I don't think they were; are private companies also Human Rights Monitors? No. I think it is a good thing for private companies operating in overseas locations to do what they can to improve the lot of the local worker and community, but there are limits, and this is one of them; they ain't cops or the (sovereign) local government.

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Sad for the factory workers, but I don't think they have a case.

Yes, including Tesco's in the UK is just hoping that Tesco will cave into the snowflakes and settle out of court. It is debatable that they are even liable, and if the police didn't find anything amiss until they were forced to stop turning a blind eye then how could Tesco's be expected to find anything wrong. 

[ChrisS]

"After catching heat for what critics considered a half-assed investigation, Thai police have now filed criminal charges against a factory used by Tesco."

I presume then that ALL the police involved in the original cover up investigation will now be charged under anti corruption legislation as it would seem obvious that they were paid off.

[JohninDublin]

"Although Tesco had no role in the daily operations of the factory, the workers made F&F jeans for the Thai branch of Tesco’s business between 2017 and 2020. The company has stated that it would have severed ties with the supplier had it been aware of any issues of this nature at the time."

I am fed up with the likes of Tesco making the same mealy-mouthed statements every time these cases emerge. Tesco are not the only business to make such claims, and I can think of others such as The Gap, Levi Strauss, Adidas and Nike have all appeared on the list of accomplices, and each time we get the same response as Inspector Reynaud in Casablanca, who is, "Shocked! Shocked! Shocked to discover that there is gambling going on at Rick's" just as he pockets his winnings. 

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case where the High St name has discovered what their sub-contractors are doing, and it is only when the media expose this, that they take action, always pleading ignorance. 

Regarding the pending High Court Case in the UK, I hope that the judges awards punitive damages against Tesco, and maybe this will make the other big names carry out the occasional due diligence that will put an end to such abuses.

[JohninDublin]

4 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

This is great news, and shows the truly wonderful power of a free press when it is allowed to function; anyone think charges would have been filed without the media attention? Moreover, those Burmese workers are some of the least powerful people on the planet; wouldn't it be nice if the Little Guy won a round or two in Thailand? Finally, if (its a big if) they manage to be compensated, then imagine what that money might do for their friends and family suffering in Burma under the Bastard Junta there.

However, I think it is a reach to include Tesco and/or sue in the UK; sorry, but I don't think there is a case for that. Tesco will argue, I hope correctly and sincerely, that they acted in good faith when doing business with the factory owners, but that they weren't responsible for the abuses. And, I don't think they were; are private companies also Human Rights Monitors? No. I think it is a good thing for private companies operating in overseas locations to do what they can to improve the lot of the local worker and community, but there are limits, and this is one of them; they ain't cops or the (sovereign) local government.

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Sad for the factory workers, but I don't think they have a case.

I am no legal scholar, but I think the claim against Tesco will be similar to the Liebeck case (MacDonalds coffee cup scald). In that case, the jury made a huge award on the basis of there had been numerous similar incidents, and MacD's did nothing to resolve the issue, so the bulk of the award was for "punitive" damages. In this case, we have Tesco's who have had the same issue on numerous occasions with various suppliers, and were always "ignorant" as to what was taking place.

Why would you keep assuming "good faith" with every new supplier, especially in view of the fact that good faith has failed repeatedly? Why is there never any due diligence? I am not sure they can win their case, but win or lose, expect a lot of Tesco's dirty laundry to be washed in public. I would not be surprised if Tesco try to settle this out of court with an "undisclosed sum while not accepting liability".

[JohninDublin]

2 hours ago, Grumpish said:

Yes, including Tesco's in the UK is just hoping that Tesco will cave into the snowflakes and settle out of court. It is debatable that they are even liable, and if the police didn't find anything amiss until they were forced to stop turning a blind eye then how could Tesco's be expected to find anything wrong. 

I think the answer to your question, is that Tesco never wanted to look. Ignorance is bliss. It is one thing, not knowing, and another, not wanting to know. Plausable deniability starts to wear thin when the same event keeps repeating itself.

[Vigo]

6 hours ago, JohninDublin said:

"Although Tesco had no role in the daily operations of the factory, the workers made F&F jeans for the Thai branch of Tesco’s business between 2017 and 2020. The company has stated that it would have severed ties with the supplier had it been aware of any issues of this nature at the time."

I am fed up with the likes of Tesco making the same mealy-mouthed statements every time these cases emerge. Tesco are not the only business to make such claims, and I can think of others such as The Gap, Levi Strauss, Adidas and Nike have all appeared on the list of accomplices, and each time we get the same response as Inspector Reynaud in Casablanca, who is, "Shocked! Shocked! Shocked to discover that there is gambling going on at Rick's" just as he pockets his winnings. 

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a case where the High St name has discovered what their sub-contractors are doing, and it is only when the media expose this, that they take action, always pleading ignorance. 

Regarding the pending High Court Case in the UK, I hope that the judges awards punitive damages against Tesco, and maybe this will make the other big names carry out the occasional due diligence that will put an end to such abuses.

You are "fed up" with Tesco's position. Well, I am  annoyed by those who are quick to condemn without knowing the facts.  Tesco is just as much a victim here  as the workers. What you have ignored are multiple key facts;

1. Tesco has a businesss code of conduct. https://www.tescoplc.com/media/1239/tesco-code-of-business-conduct-2018.pdf  It has teeth and it is enforced.

2. Tesco has invested millions of pound sterling in its audit procedures and goes to great lengths to protect worker human rights.    https://www.tescoplc.com/media/755600/10443v21en-human-rights-requirements-for-food-and-grocery-non-food-suppliers.pdf

3. Tesco uses auditors from reputable third party  organizations  approved by international labour unions and human rights groups. It also uses its own employees. It is not occasional, but follows agreed upon  standards.

4. It is obvious here that the contractor used elaborate means to deceive Tesco during this fraud.  Tesco is being pursued because it is the deep pocket, but the reality is that Tesco met the legal and ethical threshold for standards. beating up on Tesco acheives nothing except that it will force the company to go elsewhere, and any measures that were in place to protect workers and to improve wages and benefits will be lost.

The driver of human rights and worker condition protections in countries such as Thailand has always been western European and US based conglomerates. Attacking Tesco for something it had no control over is wrong. It takes a special kind of political blindness to ignore the fact that when Tesco awarded a contract, it priced the contract based upon a set amount of hours worked by a set  number of workers at specified wage and benefit wage rates. The contractor agreed to the higher  remuneration but paid the workers less, pocketing the difference. It is the contractor who deceived Tesco and cheated the workers, and yet here you are blaming the victims of the crime because one of the entities is a big international company.  I will simplify it: The way Tesco and other big conglomerates award their contracts is that they price their supply contracts  to comply with their production and ethical requirements.  It is the contractor that plays around with the inputs to increase the  supplier profit levels. There are hundreds of thousands of such contracts  in place, with most suppliers following the intent of the supply agreements. Not every supplier is a crook.

[Vigo]

11 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

This is great news, and shows the truly wonderful power of a free press when it is allowed to function; anyone think charges would have been filed without the media attention? Moreover, those Burmese workers are some of the least powerful people on the planet; wouldn't it be nice if the Little Guy won a round or two in Thailand? Finally, if (its a big if) they manage to be compensated, then imagine what that money might do for their friends and family suffering in Burma under the Bastard Junta there.

However, I think it is a reach to include Tesco and/or sue in the UK; sorry, but I don't think there is a case for that. Tesco will argue, I hope correctly and sincerely, that they acted in good faith when doing business with the factory owners, but that they weren't responsible for the abuses. And, I don't think they were; are private companies also Human Rights Monitors? No. I think it is a good thing for private companies operating in overseas locations to do what they can to improve the lot of the local worker and community, but there are limits, and this is one of them; they ain't cops or the (sovereign) local government.

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Sad for the factory workers, but I don't think they have a case.

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Yes, you are liable for the actions of an employee, including a contract employee if the employee was acting on your behalf, or in a state of "employ" when the incident occurred. It is a long held international principle that arises from the concept of  "respondeat superior" (The superior must  answer"). If the employee was on her way to shop for food for you, then she was acting on your behalf.  It is the same for commercial operation, if employee was on way to bank to make deposit or to see customer, the company would  be responsible. The responsibility for the third party damage attaches once the underlying Por Ror Bor requirement is exhausted, and then any additional liability limit  that attached to the vehicle owner.

One of the biggest mistakes foreigners make is to assume that if they have a Thai act on their behalf, that they are protected. If the Thai is acting as your agent under your instruction, then the Thai is no more than an instrument and a vicarious liability attaches to the instrument holder. This is why Thai courts will still hold a foreigner responsible in some legal cases.  you can miticgate or avoid the vicarious liability if you can show that the employee behaviour was intentionally wrongful and/or outside scope of employment.

[Shade_Wilder]

4 hours ago, Vigo said:

If my house keeper runs over someone on the way to do my grocery shopping, am I liable for the accident? She is under contract to me, she was working for me at the time, but if she negligently runs over someone on her motorcycle, it ain't my fault.

Yes, you are liable for the actions of an employee, including a contract employee if the employee was acting on your behalf, or in a state of "employ" when the incident occurred. It is a long held international principle that arises from the concept of  "respondeat superior" (The superior must  answer"). If the employee was on her way to shop for food for you, then she was acting on your behalf.  It is the same for commercial operation, if employee was on way to bank to make deposit or to see customer, the company would  be responsible. The responsibility for the third party damage attaches once the underlying Por Ror Bor requirement is exhausted, and then any additional liability limit  that attached to the vehicle owner.

One of the biggest mistakes foreigners make is to assume that if they have a Thai act on their behalf, that they are protected. If the Thai is acting as your agent under your instruction, then the Thai is no more than an instrument and a vicarious liability attaches to the instrument holder. This is why Thai courts will still hold a foreigner responsible in some legal cases.  you can miticgate or avoid the vicarious liability if you can show that the employee behaviour was intentionally wrongful and/or outside scope of employment.

Morning Mr V

Two excellent posts in this thread; it is clear that you put some time and thought into them. Cheers mate, it is appreciated.

However, I will stand by my post and I think that you acknowledge that my example delves into the realm of nuance, grey area and subtleties..

"This is why Thai courts will still hold a foreigner responsible in some legal cases.  you can miticgate or avoid the vicarious liability if you can show that the employee behaviour was intentionally wrongful and/or outside scope of employment."

and there is a conscious reason that I added the word "'negligently", even if I had to double check its spelling.

I suspect that this debate would need to end up in front of a Judge (Boo! Hiss!) or, much more fun, at a sleazy bar over a few cold glasses of ale surrounded by hot chicks who regularly interject comments on the magnificence of my junk.

Cheers

[JohninDublin]

10 hours ago, Vigo said:

You are "fed up" with Tesco's position. Well, I am  annoyed by those who are quick to condemn without knowing the facts.  Tesco is just as much a victim here  as the workers. What you have ignored are multiple key facts;

1. Tesco has a businesss code of conduct. https://www.tescoplc.com/media/1239/tesco-code-of-business-conduct-2018.pdf  It has teeth and it is enforced.

2. Tesco has invested millions of pound sterling in its audit procedures and goes to great lengths to protect worker human rights.    https://www.tescoplc.com/media/755600/10443v21en-human-rights-requirements-for-food-and-grocery-non-food-suppliers.pdf

3. Tesco uses auditors from reputable third party  organizations  approved by international labour unions and human rights groups. It also uses its own employees. It is not occasional, but follows agreed upon  standards.

4. It is obvious here that the contractor used elaborate means to deceive Tesco during this fraud.  Tesco is being pursued because it is the deep pocket, but the reality is that Tesco met the legal and ethical threshold for standards. beating up on Tesco acheives nothing except that it will force the company to go elsewhere, and any measures that were in place to protect workers and to improve wages and benefits will be lost.

The driver of human rights and worker condition protections in countries such as Thailand has always been western European and US based conglomerates. Attacking Tesco for something it had no control over is wrong. It takes a special kind of political blindness to ignore the fact that when Tesco awarded a contract, it priced the contract based upon a set amount of hours worked by a set  number of workers at specified wage and benefit wage rates. The contractor agreed to the higher  remuneration but paid the workers less, pocketing the difference. It is the contractor who deceived Tesco and cheated the workers, and yet here you are blaming the victims of the crime because one of the entities is a big international company.  I will simplify it: The way Tesco and other big conglomerates award their contracts is that they price their supply contracts  to comply with their production and ethical requirements.  It is the contractor that plays around with the inputs to increase the  supplier profit levels. There are hundreds of thousands of such contracts  in place, with most suppliers following the intent of the supply agreements. Not every supplier is a crook.

You are right. I don't know the facts of this case. What I do know is that time after time, Tesco has been linked to cases like this. 

So they have codes of practice and audits? So what? I have yet to read of them actually uncovering any of these malpractices in their SEA supply chain. Quite clearly, these measures are not working.

Tesco turns in profits in the region of £2 BN annually, so they must have smart people working for them. Yet they keep claiming bad faith by the other parties time after time. It's as if the management are saying, "So it's happened Xteen times before. Maybe this time it will be different? We will put our trust in the new supplier just like we did with the previous Xteen".

And btw, I do not single out Tesco, though they are among the most prolific at being caught out.

[GKThai]

So Tesco claims that they "have a robust auditing process in place across our supply chain and the communities where we operate."
Apparently, they in fact DO NOT have anything of the sort!

[Manu]

6 minutes ago, GKThai said:

So Tesco claims that they "have a robust auditing process in place across our supply chain and the communities where we operate."
Apparently, they in fact DO NOT have anything of the sort!

So it seems. In this story and so many others before that.

It also seems sometimes it should be Tesco's "supply chain" that should "have a robust auditing process" on Tesco's practices. (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/26/tesco-ordered-change-deal-suppliers).

"Every little helps" for Tesco PLC shareholders like Black Rock, The Vanguard Group and other similar "ethical" corporations to get their fat dividends each year.

[GKThai]

12 hours ago, Vigo said:

You are "fed up" with Tesco's position. Well, I am  annoyed by those who are quick to condemn without knowing the facts.  Tesco is just as much a victim here  as the workers. What you have ignored are multiple key facts;

1. Tesco has a businesss code of conduct. https://www.tescoplc.com/media/1239/tesco-code-of-business-conduct-2018.pdf  It has teeth and it is enforced.

2. Tesco has invested millions of pound sterling in its audit procedures and goes to great lengths to protect worker human rights.    https://www.tescoplc.com/media/755600/10443v21en-human-rights-requirements-for-food-and-grocery-non-food-suppliers.pdf

3. Tesco uses auditors from reputable third party  organizations  approved by international labour unions and human rights groups. It also uses its own employees. It is not occasional, but follows agreed upon  standards.

4. It is obvious here that the contractor used elaborate means to deceive Tesco during this fraud.  Tesco is being pursued because it is the deep pocket, but the reality is that Tesco met the legal and ethical threshold for standards. beating up on Tesco acheives nothing except that it will force the company to go elsewhere, and any measures that were in place to protect workers and to improve wages and benefits will be lost.

The driver of human rights and worker condition protections in countries such as Thailand has always been western European and US based conglomerates. Attacking Tesco for something it had no control over is wrong. It takes a special kind of political blindness to ignore the fact that when Tesco awarded a contract, it priced the contract based upon a set amount of hours worked by a set  number of workers at specified wage and benefit wage rates. The contractor agreed to the higher  remuneration but paid the workers less, pocketing the difference. It is the contractor who deceived Tesco and cheated the workers, and yet here you are blaming the victims of the crime because one of the entities is a big international company.  I will simplify it: The way Tesco and other big conglomerates award their contracts is that they price their supply contracts  to comply with their production and ethical requirements.  It is the contractor that plays around with the inputs to increase the  supplier profit levels. There are hundreds of thousands of such contracts  in place, with most suppliers following the intent of the supply agreements. Not every supplier is a crook.

I feel that you missed the point:

TESCO claims, as you said, to follow a strict policy and to "have a robust auditing process in place across our supply chain and the communities where we operate."

You can't make such claims if you do not really carry out that due diligence to comply with your own standards and requirements as stated "across our supply chain and the communities where we operate." 

It is obvious that they did not follow the standards that they set themselves - if they had, this case would never have occurred. It is not difficult to have someone from the company visit the factories on a regular basis and make an inspection - especially as the products were being manufactured under contract to Tesco and supposedly in compliance with those contract provisions, which would include reference to compliance with Tesco standards and practices.

Where a contract includes compliance with certain standards, the contractor should be required to allow regular inspections by the contracting organisation to ensure compliance. It should not be done by the contractor, as there is no confirmation of the legal state of compliance.

So... where was the "robust auditing process" when all this happened? MIA?

[Viggen840]

20 hours ago, ChrisS said:

"After catching heat for what critics considered a half-assed investigation, Thai police have now filed criminal charges against a factory used by Tesco."

I presume then that ALL the police involved in the original cover up investigation will now be charged under anti corruption legislation as it would seem obvious that they were paid off.

Do NOT hold your breath. Follow the money trail and I am sure someone in uniform higher up the chain was getting richer from doing nothing...

[Grumpish]

Something that is seems to be getting lost in all the noise is that this was not Tesco UK, this was is Tesco Lotus, a subsidiary company that is now owned by a Thai investment group (same people that own the 7-11's in Thailand), and the products were only sold in Thailand. 

[Vigo]

On 3/5/2023 at 5:04 AM, Grumpish said:

Something that is seems to be getting lost in all the noise is that this was not Tesco UK, this was is Tesco Lotus, a subsidiary company that is now owned by a Thai investment group (same people that own the 7-11's in Thailand), and the products were only sold in Thailand. 

I looked at the dates of the allegations prior to commenting as I would have said the same thing as you. However, it looks like the  events occurred before the change in ownership, although contractor was Thai.

On 3/5/2023 at 1:39 AM, GKThai said:

I feel that you missed the point:

TESCO claims, as you said, to follow a strict policy and to "have a robust auditing process in place across our supply chain and the communities where we operate."

You can't make such claims if you do not really carry out that due diligence to comply with your own standards and requirements as stated "across our supply chain and the communities where we operate." 

It is obvious that they did not follow the standards that they set themselves - if they had, this case would never have occurred. It is not difficult to have someone from the company visit the factories on a regular basis and make an inspection - especially as the products were being manufactured under contract to Tesco and supposedly in compliance with those contract provisions, which would include reference to compliance with Tesco standards and practices.

Where a contract includes compliance with certain standards, the contractor should be required to allow regular inspections by the contracting organisation to ensure compliance. It should not be done by the contractor, as there is no confirmation of the legal state of compliance.

So... where was the "robust auditing process" when all this happened? MIA?

Your point would be valid if you were aware of the schedule of the audits and what the audits entailed. A company can only do so much before an undertaking becomes impractical and/or financially unviable. You criticize the inspection format. Fine. What exactly did the company not do appropriately?

See, that's the  problem for you, as you criticize: You don't know what the inspections were, nor do you know their history, nor their format, nor their frequency. I would understand and even agree with you, if you could do more than offer your unsubstantiated assessment of an activity that you have no knowledge of. If you wish to judge someone guilty, then it is customary to offer substantive proof of the guilt.

[Vigo]

On 3/4/2023 at 11:41 PM, JohninDublin said:

You are right. I don't know the facts of this case. What I do know is that time after time, Tesco has been linked to cases like this. 

So they have codes of practice and audits? So what? I have yet to read of them actually uncovering any of these malpractices in their SEA supply chain. Quite clearly, these measures are not working.

Tesco turns in profits in the region of £2 BN annually, so they must have smart people working for them. Yet they keep claiming bad faith by the other parties time after time. It's as if the management are saying, "So it's happened Xteen times before. Maybe this time it will be different? We will put our trust in the new supplier just like we did with the previous Xteen".

And btw, I do not single out Tesco, though they are among the most prolific at being caught out.

Anyone with experience in  supply chain management will tell you that the audits regularly turn up irregularities. These are addressed either through education, modification, or termination of supply agreement. In many cases, the supplier terminates after the supply agreement is completed. The unfortunate aspect of this is that the foreign purchasers are the driving force behind  workplace improvements. If they push to hard, the supplier walks away and instead supplies to a Russian or Indian or Chinese manufacturer who have no such concerns. The workers are the losers.  That's the Trolley problem for the morality  crusaders to sort out. 

[JohninDublin]

I am sorry to have to say this, but that post just oozes vacuity. Do you think the victims of abuse really care about the nationality of the abuser? And that's quite apart from the fact that the abuse will yet again be exposed putting the purchaser in another blaze of unwanted publicity. All I want to see, is the likes of Tesco being pro-active in weeding out the abusers, instead of it the media having to tell them about. But when it's the media doing Tesco's job all the time, this starts to look like Silver Blaze.

As for the jobs going to Russia, China or India, where conditions will be even worse, that point is about as lame as you can get. How that does marry up with the codes of cnduct you've cited. It seems to me that you are saying that ethics code is, "We hold our supliers to the highest ethicala standards, but when we cannot find someone to mee these, and monster will do".