Portrait photographs for Wonderland Magazine

No, his message is a bit more complicated than that, just like modern life.

Time for Bike Polo Union.

Sanctioned sponsors, events, non-profit ethically produced merchandise, how can it fail?

and what's with the first reason to play bikepolo aka F U N???

Where do Swrve get their stuff made? Where is their cotton sourced?

I asked them about their labor conditions before I took the sponsorship. They are a small company, based on LA, that offers year-round, full-time employment with a living wage, to local LA workers. They have an explicit commitment to fair labor practices. This company is far, far better than a typical clothing company.

A competitive hourly wage = the standard for the local area.
Additional pay bonuses = a reason to work your knuckles to the bone.
Offer year-round employment = the offer's there but seasonal work is paid better.
We also have paid days off = you have paid days off or the workers do?

Just being pessimistic but the wording on that is flaky to the power of max.

An explicit commitment to fair labor practices and, indeed, to secure employment, is not flaky.

The local area is Los Angeles. A competitive wage there is good.

Secure, year-round employment is a very big deal in this increasingly precarious labor market.

This comment is disingenous and stupid: " We also have paid days off = you have paid days off or the workers do?"

It's just worded badly Matt... probably put together by a copywriter/marketeer and not phrased to be locked down or legally binding, etc.

Links back to this:

However, if companies, however small, use ethics/environmental issues as part of their marketing (as swrve seem to have, and Howies still do) then it is fair to ask questions about whether or not that claim can be sustained.

The claims should be the core of the brand/company and should be legally binding within all activity they do, otherwise it's just another branding exercise. I'm not attacking Swerve, I'm just saying that the claims are often market-led/promoted and not truly substantiated. Swerve exist to make money, not to provide jobs/security/etc. That is unlikely to change until consumers care, or become super-savvy.

You could argue that the appropriation of such good-will/activity is damaging towards a company that may want to truly set itself out to be different (in that making money is a secondary objective and they would allow themselves to be made bankrupt before compromising on a legally binding, non-monetary side to the company).

Bill's comment is correct and important. Marketing and branding is often mere rhetoric, and this needs to be checked by consumers and social movements.

But I think Jono is incorrect, by implicitly arguing that there is only one type of company -- that all equally profit-driven and obsessed -- and only one type of competitive strategy -- profit maximizing based on lowest cost.

Rather, certain companies are more obsessed with profits than others. Companies have different time horizons, product strategies, employment strategies and so on. Some companies are "low road" companies that focus only on short-term profit, based on minimizing costs wherever possible.

Other companies are "high road" companies that have a longer-term focus and compete on quality, and may see commitment to workers and fair wages as entirely consistent with, and even beneficial for, making profits.

Now, the capitalist system generates strong pressures for companies to take the low road, but there are different kinds of companies out there.

True.

I guess I just find it disconcerting that companies like Swerve would compromise on their ideals before going out of business (or re-brand entirely)... it's a better place to spend your money perhaps, but it's not the ideal and may in-fact be damaging whatever that ideal may be.

I guess I just find it disconcerting that companies like Swerve would compromise on their ideals before going out of business (or re-brand entirely)... it's a better place to spend your money perhaps, but it's not the ideal and may in-fact be damaging whatever that ideal may be.

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here.

#nottryingtobeadick

I just don't understand the argument or the point.

#moneyistherouteofallevileverythingsthesamewereallf*cked

Money is, among other things, a necessary means of exchange. After a certain level of very basic economic development, a pure barter economy is not possible. Hence money.

Capitalism is the root of all evil. Property and profit, these are the problems.

There's a difference between endorsing a product and buying a product.

i started smoking when i saw how cool you looked doing it, there i've said it.

I asked them about their labor conditions before I took the sponsorship. They are a small company, based on LA, that offers year-round, full-time employment with a living wage, to local LA workers. They have an explicit commitment to fair labor practices. This company is far, far better than a typical clothing company.

If one wanted to quibble, one would want to know whether it was The LA Living Wage thing (from a little background reading, I notice there is such a thing, and it appears to be backed by the municipality), and also a commitment to allow independent workplace organisation.

I did an awful lot of reading on worker's rights in the garment industry worldwide , and the conclusion of most of the reports was that independent monitoring is only effective if it is carried out by workplace unions.

But that's quibbling.

i find it a bit hypocritical when quite a few people here smoke like chimneys and the tobacco companies have wreaked havoc on man kind, be it ecological destruction or health concerns. anyway, digressing!

It would only be hypocritical if the people doing the criticising were major stock-holders in tobacco companies, ie profiting from the self-same practises that they were criticising.

Bill loaned me £10 on Monday and I only repayed it today and he didn't charge me any interest at all. I think there is something to learn from that.

Capitalism is the root of all evil.

Bollocks, religion is the root of all evil. No religion, no evil. Simple as.

Are we doing this shoot or not then ?

I wanted to meet Cav.

Whatever the root of evil is... this is way off my moral radar. There's only a few things I wouldn't do for money and this is one ;-). Shame as I'm a fan of Cavendish but he has definately lost a wee bit of respect from me.

^What are the other things you wouldn't do for money? I mean, you know, just asking...

There are a lot of things I would do for money. So many that right now I can't think of the things I wouldn't.

I'm skint anyway.

And happiliy married, of course. Well, divorced actually.

If one wanted to quibble, one would want to know whether it was The LA Living Wage thing (from a little background reading, I notice there is such a thing, and it appears to be backed by the municipality), and also a commitment to allow independent workplace organisation.

I did an awful lot of reading on worker's rights in the garment industry worldwide , and the conclusion of most of the reports was that independent monitoring is only effective if it is carried out by workplace unions.

But that's quibbling.

I agree with everything you say here. And independent monitoring is not quibbling, it is essential for workers' rights.

I not trying to sanctify Swrve or anything, but i've talked to the designer/owner and the UK guy. They are a tiny company with a progressive labor policy, not to mention a commitment to urban biking culture.