鬥長氣鬥長命之再答家長(二)---完
好，長氣再開波。過氣了結。
(2) 迪士尼沒有責任？
「工廠對工人不好, 最大的責任是工廠, 不是買家. 美國貿易部對美國的買家向國外工廠購物已有很清楚的指示, 他們不能與不人道的工廠購物, 而美國海關的手上也有不人道工廠的黑名單. 如給海關發現美國的公司購入不人道工廠的貨, 整批貨會被扣查, 不能進口. 那公司也會列入黑名單, 和罰款. 當然有些工廠會做手腳, 但這是題外的事.」
明顯，在這裏，爭論點不是(跨國)企業可需負社會責任與否(這點似乎已有共識)，而是落實此項社會責任的責任，亦即監察的問題。
品牌形象，不失為保障勞工的制衡力量，所以包括迪士尼在內的好些跨國大品牌，都先後加入 FLA (Fair Labor Association)、SA8000等機制，以示其雙手是潔淨的。
但獵奇行動最近發表的勞工調查報告，卻令人擔心，所謂的社會責任機制，不過淪為企業臉上的鍍金；工人的保障，卻仍在企業道德光環的照耀之外。
一來，迪士尼一直不肯公開製造商、工廠的名字，使外界難以監察。
二來，以一群大學生的人力物力，尚可查出工傷、克扣工資、剝削勞工等情況嚴重，而迪士尼的查察人員，竟看不穿箇中把戲，令人難以置信。其監察不力的責任，難以開脫。且看迪士尼將如何回應獵奇的報告。
在此只匆匆就責任問題作最表癥的回應，若要對責任問題作全盤了解，則需放諸全球化的框架，作更闊更深的討論。
(3) 你情我願、食得鹹魚低得渴？
「如對客人要帶箸笑面等等, 員工們都早已知道公司對他們的需要. 如果他們不能接受這樣的工作環境, 可以離開, look for another job that they like. 樂園是主旨是令每個客人快樂, 如員工面黑黑, 客人們又怎會玩得開心, 快樂. 簡單點說, 你們到 restaurants 吃東西, 那些 waiters 對箸你們沒有半點笑容, 你們也不會喜歡, 也會投訴他們很 rude. 其實很多 different business organizations, specially service orientation, including banks 都有要 front line staff 面帶笑容對客戶. 沒有什麼無理的存在. 關於4 個小時才能休息15 minutes, 員工可以與公司商談改進. 大部份在百貨公司工作的員工都有同樣的情形出現. 在 restaurants 工作的員工, 除了整天要站之外, 連吃飯的時間也沒有.」
除以上回應，也經常會聽到以下說法︰出得黎撈，就預咗對人歡笑，背人流淚喇﹗
又或者︰唔鍾意就咪做囉，你唔做，大把人等住做﹗
這些說法，說得好聽些，是呼籲人知足；但剝去好聽糖衣，就是呼籲大家做順民；拋開個體自主意識、放棄個人應有權益，安於做令大機器運作的一粒螺絲釘。
從何時始，我們購買服務，連員工的笑容(情緒)也成為必然的一部份？人的臉部表情，從咧嘴而笑，到「黑口黑面」之間，應存有不算小的光譜區。人是有情緒的有機體，笑不笑，發乎內心，心有多開，嘴有多咧；若明明心裏發苦卻偏要笑，恐怕比哭還難看。當然，企業是不會容許你/妳笑得比哭難看的，所以結果「要笑的員工」是比在輸送帶前重複操作的差利，更徹底異化。
其實消費者與服務提供者之間，不外乎人與人的相處、溝通，彼此尊重有禮，就足夠。老實說，每上銀行，遇到門口列隊歡迎、經過訓練的劃一笑容，我總尷尷尬尬，三步作兩步，匆匆點頭而過。又不是中了六合彩，從哪兒擠出萬二分的能量，對完全陌生的人，還以咧嘴陽光笑容。
也忘了何時始，超市的收銀員，要說「你好」，但往往，那是說給空氣或飛過的蚊聽的；我作過觀察，十個九個香港人，都不會回禮；既是失卻對象的溝通，久而久之，當然只成純粹形式的存在，收銀員可以望著檸檬講、望著薯片講，都沒所謂，但最緊要─有講，因為this is the rule!
發乎真情的笑容，當然可愛。但為什麼，要把笑容變成消費的必然附庸？難道是為了maximize consumption，咁先至抵得返晒？
想起那些扮老鼠之類的員工，烈日當空，空氣極濁，還要披上厚厚的戲服，本人實在覺得離「樂園」二字更遠。
(4) 陰澳變欣澳，大家應欣然接受？
「對於陰澳改名為欣澳, 很多人都覺得改得很好, 因為欣字代表歡欣. 欣澳的名字比陰澳好, 而且兩個音都很近. 在指罵政府之前是否已有人弄清楚政府改地方名是要先得到 public approval 才成 或是他們有權這樣做. 政府把吊頸嶺改了為調景嶺, 為何沒有人說他們不對.」
調景嶺當年為何改名、由誰提出改名，我不知道，所以沒法就此例子回應。但我相信，不涉及域外文化進駐的權力因素。
關於陰澳改名，小奧在留言已說了很多，我也不贅言，只再打個譬喻︰若某外國大款，謂願意大額投資打救香港經濟，但認為香港之名，香香聲，唔老禮，要改做勁港。那麼，借問，要錢要名？
我們從哪裏來，繼而往哪裏去，在乎我們的歷史、文化。
(5) 一小撮人的投訴不算投訴？
「不要為了一小部份的投訴便說廸士尼對全部的員工不好, 無理. 讓事情發展 tell us the truth!」
一小部份人的聲音，為什麼就不值得尊重了？更甚而有妄語之嫌，道理何在？尤其是當員工提出的投訴，針對的是制度，而非個人事件。
*******************************************************************************
留言者問︰「為何每件事情都要針對廸士尼? Disney 在香港的經驗還是淺, 高層對中國或香港的文化還是沒有很深的認識, 暫時源用他們一向的手法來管理. 給他們多一些時間熟習香港人的需要, 環境, 他們一定能改善各問題的.」
我不禁要反問，為什麼每一環節都認為迪士尼是如此合理呢？
其實，縱觀幾篇貼文留言各種為迪士尼護航的理由，背後都可見這樣一種邏輯︰凡存在的，就是合理的﹗
我在第一篇貼文曾問︰為什麼要看清自己的位置，這麼難？
想多一點，這其實並非源於階級意識的盲點，而是對social mobility的迷信︰終需有日龍穿鳳，他日我將必然坐擁的城堡，豈容你們今天來拆毀磚頭﹗？
我相信，於家長的想像中，孩子的將來，斷不會是那個穿老鼠戲服的演員、不會是超市的收銀、不會是餐廳侍者。孩子的將來，只會植根在那可以命令他人歡笑、不準他人喝水的位置。所以，要好好讀書囉。一整套的價值，在此縫合。
再拉扯多一兩件題內話。
上星期旅遊專員鄭汝華上電台接受訪問，一開腔，我差點以為她收兩家茶禮，兼職迪士尼PR，把迪士尼守護得密不透風(迪士尼多高明，真身不現，即已有那麼多街外人撲出來替其辯護)。但最令人啼笑皆非是，當主持問她迪士尼要求食環署人員脫帽、除章始得進入，是否太過大美國主義，她竟以文化差異來回應執法問題︰佢哋冇諗過中國人對食咁著重﹗(大意如此，確實用字記不清)
另，沒想過目前能抗衡「樂園霸權文化」的，竟是自由行同胞，雖然所產生的cultural resistance，並非出於自覺。迪士尼可以嚴格規限，不準你帶水帶食物等進場，但各位觀眾身上的文化，他卻沒辦法剝下來、扣留於外。撇開媒體的過份渲染，同胞們不按規定抽煙、脫鞋鬆腳、哪兒累了哪兒蹲下，揮灑自如，把樂園反客為主，白雪公主要保持矜持，延續夢幻，倒有了難度。
這樣說，希望不至惹人誤會我大力鼓吹「隨地小便」吧。
最後，以一個小故事作結。這則寓言引自課本，原意為指出知識(如歸納法)之不確定。抄譯在此，作另一層借鏡。
很久以前，有極聰明火雞一隻。他住在雞欄裏，善良的主人供養著他。他所有的需要都得到滿足，於是他有空便想想世界的奇妙與法則。他發現了一條法則︰每逢天亮，就會聽到主人霍霍霍親切的腳步聲；接著，就會有美食與清水，出現於雞欄，供其享用。世事有變化︰有時下雨，有時下雪，有時暖，有時冷；但，唯一不變是，腳步聲之後，緊隨的總是食物。這個定律，構成了聰明火雞對世界美好事物的基本哲學。
一天，火雞靜聽霍霍霍之腳步聲之後，他聽到自己的頭，也霍霍被砍下。
*******************************************************************************
前事︰
致家長們︰迪士尼是你/妳買給孩子的「歡樂夢」嗎？
答家長問
鬥長氣鬥長命之再答家長(一)
另，無塵工作室把我一直的申辯理解為佔據道德高地的傳統儒家思想作祟︰
Disney - the land of dreams...of course it comes at a price (1)
要講的，都講了。到底是文化差異，還是霸權主義，各位讀者自行判斷吧。
Tag:迪士尼
posted by 熊一豆 @ 9/24/2005 01:26:00 上午
8 comments
8 Comments:
他們的解釋, 官也好, 所謂的 pro-disney, 仍然令我想起那篇"中國人, 你為什麼不生氣?". 更可悲的, 是這班"不生氣的"向生氣的人生氣...
說 "所謂的 pro-disney", 因為我不覺得他們真心 pro-disney. 他們跟子女排兩個多小時去玩幾分鐘的機動遊戲, 半個多小時去洗手間, 個多小時吃貴夾唔飽的午飯.... 之後, 還會為迪士尼抬轎嗎?
呵呵.
吊頸嶺->調景嶺... google之下發現, 絕對跟外來文化無關 - 吊頸嶺跟那裡一位麵粉廠東主自盡的故事有關; 而調景嶺則由一班被調遷往當地的難民提出的.
參考文章
我相信，於家長的想像中，孩子的將來，斷不會是那個穿老鼠戲服的演員、不會是超市的收銀、不會是餐廳侍者。孩子的將來，只會植根在那可以命令他人歡笑、不準他人喝水的位置。所以，要好好讀書囉。一整套的價值，在此縫合。
講得好，好可能真係某些父母的心態。
講真，我好怕俾那些超好笑容超好禮貌的店員服務（仲會跟住你，驚死你行路都仆襯），我有時覺得他們好慘。
消費者被寵壞了，以為這些「超好笑容」是應份的。或許這也是一份差使、奴役人的心態作崇，甚至可能是香港人的傳統中國農民暴發戶特質附體揮之不去。
我倒好喜歡逛那些店員不會亦步亦趨的商店。
Sorry, I'm a little late on this topic.
Like everyone has said before, there's no black and white on any issues. And about ahsun's comment about "on the disney issue, there is right and wrong", I absolutely do not agree with it. So, below is my own opinion. I don't think I'm 100% right, some people might even think I'm 100% wrong, but it is my side of the story.
Why are people so hesitated when it comes to go against the idea of Disney? Because we grew up with this stuff. How many people has had wonderful childhood memories because of Disney? Because of their movies, their TV shows, their parks, their products. My first book in English ever was "Peter Pan and Wendy", published by Walt Disney Publishing. So am I grateful that this company brought me so much good memories? Absolutely. So don't tell me there is no good in the company at all. Cuz I know there is good in the company. However, the grey area lies in whether we think the good outweighs the bad, or the other way around.
From your article:
1. >>工傷、克扣工資、剝削勞工等情況嚴重
Actually(sorry if I'm wrong), does this have more to do with the laws of the country rather than the company itself? Does the law of China insure workers to get disability and money when they're injured on the job? Does it have a minimum wage system? etc, etc.
If Disney is obeying by the law of the country, I don't see what's wrong with it. I think the problem is that the government should do more to ensure its own people.
Like in America, I know a Disney employee who got Carpal Tunnel from typing on the computer. The Disney HR department was so concerned that they sent her to a specialist right away, paid for all expenses, and let her take disability leave to stay at home for a long period of time. I think it's because in America, the law requires the company to do so. But in China, it does not. Does that mean it's morally right for Disney to take advantage of that? No. But is it lawful? Yes. That's what I mean by there's no absolute right and wrong.
2. About the 製造商、工廠issue, I don't know anything about it. So cannot comment... (gotta do more reading first! :))
3. >>你情我願、食得鹹魚低得渴？
Actually, your statement "從何時始，我們購買服務，連員工的笑容(情緒)也成為必然的一部份？" is true, but in this case, it's false. You see, all employees of the Disney company are called "Cast Members", which means they're all part of a big entertainment production. They're "actors" and "actresses" of the show. They are to put on a smile and happy face everyday, because that's what the show is about. Just like with any entertainers who perfom on a stage, they are expected to put on a smiling face.
4. 陰澳變欣澳 <= I have no opinion on this either.. heheh. I guess I don't care if the name is changed or not. I understand why some of you are very upset about this though.
5. >>一小撮人的投訴不算投訴？
I don't believe that either. Of course everyone's opinion matters. That's why I wrote the above, to let people know that thinks differently than you do.
One last thing, this was from your first post on disney:
"我很難過，真的感到很難過。
為什麼會有家長認為迪士尼是「一個這麼好的樂園」？請問好在哪裏？為什麼要把孩子的夢植根在迪士尼？為什麼迪士尼會成為香港孩子難得的樂園？帶孩子去郊野行山，認識一下大自然，就不能有happy dreams嗎？"
I was very sorry when I read this too. I just feel like you have a very set mind about Disney, that it has absolutely no good in it. While in my eyes, it has both good and bad. I'm not saying that the good outweighs the bad, but don't deny everything that's good about it either.
first time reader，我想你提出第一個論點的邏輯，就是「因為內地沒有嚴僅立例和執行法律，所以發生諸如工傷、克扣工資、剝削勞工等情況也沒問題」。
那麼我想問假如有個地方沒有立例說殺人是犯法的，那麼殺人便沒問題？請護架的人別是非不分，法律有漏洞不等於就可以做壞事，不能因為法律不嚴僅而當看不見迪士尼的惡行。而且要立法迫使才負企業道德責任的企業，也不是什麼好東西。
這麼有問題的邏輯論證在之前討論己看得太多了。請想清楚才回應。
靖然 ≒ 華利﹐
>>那麼我想問假如有個地方沒有立例說殺人是犯法的，那麼殺人便沒問題？
If there is such a place in the world, would you want to live there? And you're saying the government has no responsibilities in this at all?
The law has been set up for a reason. That's why we have governments. Because as Machiavelli would say, all people are evil, right? :P So, I would blame the government mostly and foremost before anybody else. However, I am not saying the company doesn't have to take responsibility either, but you made it sound like it's the sole "person" who's at fault here.
>>法律有漏洞
That is the grey area I was trying to say.
>> 請想清楚才回應。
Actually, I have thought it through. Thank you very much.
Like I said before, I didn't say there's no faults with Disney. but you guys are saying there's absolute no good in the company, like all those happy memories that the company gave to millions of children all over the world did not exist at all.
我想first time reader的重點，是質疑本人為何不提迪士尼之好，而只唱其衰。
首先，迪士尼如此龐大跨國企業，資金實力如此雄厚，你實在不必擔心他的宣傳工作會不夠。
目前的情況是，大部份的人只知其「美好」，而不知其醜。
我一直以來的申辯，都不是從個人想像出發，而是列舉事實。目的，就是提供多一種聲音，讓一些資訊有限的人，知道迪士尼其實有其黑暗面。最終，選擇權還是在消費者本身。
若知道了這些事實，仍然能擁抱迪士尼，那是你的選擇。
若你知道迪士尼是香港政府動用超過二百億(但教育、社福等環節卻一再削資)買來的不平等條約、要賠上香港的環境 (包括水與空氣污染)而建成，卻仍然可以樂也融融地暢遊香港迪士尼，那是你的選擇。
若你明知那些不過是演員，卻很享受他/她們的演技，那是你的選擇。
(只一點註腳，舞台上的演員，不是朝九晚五，全年演戲，而且是在台上演，不是做true man show。)
若你知道迪士尼的產品，生產過程涉及剝削，勞工是在環境惡劣、工傷頻生的情況下製造的，卻仍能很快樂地擁抱米奇公仔(這和迪士尼有冇責任無關，只從消費者享用的角度出發)，那是你的選擇。
這幾篇文，旨在拆穿迪士尼的美麗夢幻，並指出一些邏輯上的謬誤。對於有污點的迪士尼，愛還是不愛，落在這幾篇文章的能力之外。
希望你讀懂了我的意思。
Dear 熊一豆,
actually, it's not that you(i mean anti-disney people) don't "talk" about the good of Disney, what bothers me the most is that you don't "think" there is anything good about the company AT ALL. 100%. It just seems a little bit too extreme for me.
For me, I acknowledge the fact that there are good and bad. But for you, there is only the bad. Disney is a huge corporation with probably hundreds of departments, not every department is like that. Not every department will explore labor. There are some writers in the Disney Animation department who have worked for the company for 10+ years, everyday all they think about is how to come up with a story that children will like. Are they evil? Anyways, that is what bothered me.
And yes, people will probably still choose to go to Disneyland and use Disney products even after they know all the facts. It is sad but true. Just like how people still flock to McDonald's everyday knowing how they treat cows and how they exploit their workers. Just like how people still love to buy Nike shoes knowing how the shoes were made in sweat shops. Just like how people still eat all sorts of meat everyday, knowing how the animals are getting slaughtered.
I do admire how you guys speak up, to voice what the company has done wrong, but I guess we'll never see eye to eye, because I see this whole situation as a glass half-full, while you see this as a glass half-empty. :P Oh well.... at least we both voiced our opinions, that's the great thing about free will, right?
btw, great blog you have here. :)
but you made it sound like it's the sole "person" who's at fault here.
first time reader，我也明白，政府也有責任，但就算如你指出了政府的問題，也改變不了迪士尼沒有負上企業道德責任的事實（無論她製造了多少歡樂給兒童）。
what bothers me the most is that you don't "think" there is anything good about the company AT ALL
我很同意一豆所言，迪士尼好的一面，我想各位每天看廣告也看不少，身邊也有不少人常常提及迪士尼什麼什麼好玩。當主流媒體／企業以其巨大（而且無形）的影響力美化迪士尼，為什麼還要跟著替其說好話？在媒體相助下關於迪士尼的一些事實被封殺。這裡不是新聞報道，也不須像教科書列出好處壞處。一豆只想在這裡提供另一種想法，讓大家在資訊被封殺而又不自知的環境下有機會反省。
發佈留言
<< Home