London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Every newspaper and even Forbes are running with the Sunday times article, it’s not often a company looses a billion quid in 8 hours. Interesting few days ahead.
Course it is PP.
I think we are disagreeing as you think I’m implying boohoo are operating illegally.
I don’t think they are, but the subsequent breakdown of sweatshops in the area will mean labour needs to be addressed. This will need to be water tight after this event and will mean switching manufacturing to more expensive options.
Anyway I think we will always disagree so all the best.
thats just pretty blinkered. The ST only needed one for the story - how do you know they had to investigate loads of suppliers to find one rogue subcontractor? Boohoo themselves this morning in their statement talking about "working with officials to raise standards" - to me that is an acknowledgement there may well be more problematic subcontractors out there and BOO just don't know.
Do you honestly think they sent 1 reporter in undercover or 10?
Let’s be honest they sent 1.
He found one,
Had they sent 40 under covers maybe the story would be different.
Do you honestly thing the 1 undercover reporter went to all the illegal sweatshops, had a tour, coffee, filmed the workers and had a Q and A with the factory owner?
Please.....
He went to the first and got that footage IMO
Paiulorufus - you're missing the point. This has nothing to do with Boohoo. This is about one supplier being greedy by subcontracting to an extremely rogue supplier using the fake name Faisal Fashions.
roomie - if there was more than one rogue subcontractor the Sunday Times would have been onto them. They'll have had to investigate loads of suppliers to find this one rogue subcontractor. If there had been more than one, then you can be sure the Sunday Times undercover operation would have had a field day.
but PP this is all predicated on there being one rogue supplier. We have no idea whether that is the case. It could be one, it could be endemic - we don't know. I would be surprised if the Sunday Times happened to come across the one supplier acting unethically (and all the others are above board) but it is possible. If it is endemic it doesn't really matter (for shareholders) whether BOO legally at fault or not, it will be ugly.
Blimey you really are missing the point.
Yes legally boohoo can not be held to account if their suppliers are sub contracting,
Obviously
However if they now need to move their business model away from certain questionable areas supplying their goods to a more regulated supply chain their costs may double/treble etc.
That’s the point, I’m surprised I had to extrapolate it tho.
Of course it is illegal not to pay the minimum wage. The point is Boohoo have done nothing illegal. Boohoo stipulate in their contracts that workers must be paid the minimum wage. If contractors have subcontracted the work to suppliers who are not paying the minimum wage then the contractors have behaved illegally, the subcontractors have behaved illegally and Boohoo have not behaved illegally. Boohoo police all contractors and subcontractors and if they haven't been informed about a subcontractor then that was illegal by the contractor and not by Boohoo.
One massive can of worms being opened up in Leicester. When the work has gone what do they do with the homeless illegals, a community leader almost said that on the news.
It’s illegal to operate sweatshops but the area is littered with them. I really doubt the factory owners care one bit. Hence the news article.
Exposing the illegal activities of suppliers is the entire point of the discussion and share price collapse isn’t it?
roomie - it is not Boohoo's fault. Legally the contractor must always tell Boohoo the name and details of all subcontractors.
it is illegal to pay less than minimum wage, doesn't mean it doesn't happen
Paulorufus - in the UK it is illegal for contractors to subcontract work out to others and not provide the name and details to the company that you're contracted to.
I spent my 20s living in Rabat, in the textile industry.
Common practice was that most contracts were given to factories by companies in the uk, the factories managed 30 - 40 percent of the quotas and the rest was made up of hundreds of residential one man bands who made a few hundred pieces a day and delivered them to the factories to make up the numbers,
The fear, I imagine is that a lot of suppliers are sub contracting to households and tiny 3 or 4 man bands, in and around the area.
I could always tell factories that farmed out orders as the sizing was always very inconsistent considering the batch was produced on the same factory runs!
I hope this isn’t the case here but I’m concerned that there has been a lot of blind eyes turned here and if so an example needs to be made.
Those saying their kids/friends will not stop buying are silly. They won’t stop buying yet but the demographic of this company is attention seeking, virtue signalling millennials. Once it trends on Twitter they will Stop buying, if nothing more to attention seek.
Risky share at the minute this one,
All in my opinion and do your own research.