Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Challenges caused by immigrants
Sweatshop practices and the effects
Sweatshop practices and the effects
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Challenges caused by immigrants
Sweatshop Abuse and MIT’s Prospective Actions in Pursuit of International Labor Justice The term “sweatshop” refers to those factories relying on the exploitation and abuse of workers. Often (although not always) located in developing countries, these factories have been frequented by independent university researchers, who have published numerous accounts of worker imprisonment and physical abuse, as well as economic evidence revealing that many of these factories pay wages so small that their workers cannot live outside poverty. Several factories use horrific labor practices, and many factory workers have also been severely burned or mutilated in the workplace, while women among the labor population have often been forced to take birth control or abort their pregnancies (Given, 1997; Fernandez, 1997). The health burdens placed upon sweatshop workers have been extensively documented, and include exposure to noxious fumes, organophosphate compounds, and silica dust, resulting in record high cancer, asthma, bronchitis, pneumoconiosis, and leukemia rates in many regions because workers aren’t provided with masks and gloves (Kim et al., 2000). These abuses are neither just nor irreconcilable, but many people believe that sweatshops are an economic necessity and will come to pass on their own with economic development. Closer examination of both the social and economic dimensions of sweatshop labor, however, reveals this presumption to be far from the truth. Most objections to anti-sweatshop action stem from the idea that sweatshop jobs are the best opportunities available to people living in poor conditions. “They keep coming back day after day, so they must want these jobs.” Trying to make the jobs better will simply me... ... middle of paper ... ..., February). Sweat Shop Workers Struggle in New York’s Chinatown. Z Magazine. Kim, Jim Yong et al. (2000). Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor. Cambridge: Common Courage Press. Meyer, Karl (1997, June 28). Editorial Notebook. The New York Times. Mort, Jo-Ann. (1996, Fall). Immigrant Dreams: Sweatshop Workers Speak. Dissent. Richburg, Keith B. & Swardson, Anne. (1996, August 5-11). Sweatshops or Economic Development? Washington Post National Weekly Edition. Rosen, Sonia A., Jaffe, Maurren, & Perez-Lopez, Jorge. (1997). The Apparel Industry and Codes of Conduct: A Solution to the International Child Labor Problems. Upland, PA: Diane. Ross, Andrew. (1997). No Sweat: Fashion, Free Trade, and the Rights of Garment Workers. New York: Verso. Salomon, Larry. (1996, September/October). Sweatshops in the Spotlight. Third Force.
Sweatshops started around the 1830’s when industrialization started growing in urban areas. Most people who worked in them at the time were immigrants who didn't have their papers. They took jobs where they thought they'd have the most economic stability. It’s changed a bit since then, companies just want the cheapest labor they can get and to be able to sell the product in order to make a big profit. It’s hard to find these types of workers in developed areas so they look toward 3rd world countries. “sweatshops exist wherever there is an opportunity to exploit workers who lack the knowledge and resources to stand up for themselves.” (Morey) In third world countries many people are very poor and are unable to afford food and water so the kids are pulled out of school and forced to work so they can try to better their lives. This results in n immense amount of uneducated people unaware they can have better jobs and that the sweatshops are basically slavery. With a large amounts uneducated they continue the cycle of economic instability. There becomes no hope for a brighter future so people just carry on not fighting for their basic rights. Times have changed. 5 Years ago companies would pay a much larger amount for a product to be made but now if they’re lucky they’ll pay half, if a manufacturer doesn't like that another company will happily take it (Barnes). Companies have gotten greedier and greedier in what they’ll pay to have a product manufactured. Companies have taken advantage of the fact that people in developing countries will do just about anything to feed their families, they know that if the sweatshop in Cambodia don't like getting paid 2 dollars per garment the one in Indonesia will. This means that there is less money being paid to the workers which mean more will starve and live in very unsafe environments. Life is
He inquires, “Isn’t it a little presumptuous of us to think that we can end sweatshop abuses by just changing our individual buying habits?” (“Sweat, Fire, and Ethics). As Jeffcott provides the reader with the entirety of the background information on the Fairtrade-certification, he enables the reader to realize what really needs to be done in order to end the use of sweatshops. Another ineffective strategy that Jeffcott mentions is when society attempts to exert the guilt towards large brand name companies, as these companies only address these issues to the extent which it will not affect their productivity. Jeffcott explains that, “Conflicting pressures make suppliers hide abuses or subcontract to sewing workshops...The name of the game remains the same: more work for less pay” (“Sweat, Fire, and Ethics”). By clarifying how ineffective people’s current efforts are in influencing the abuse in sweatshops, Jeffcott challenges the reader to assess if their own efforts are sufficient for the cause. Jeffcott then concludes his argument by proposing to the reader to exceed traditional means of resistance to sweatshops by urging the government to intervene on these reprehensible practices, and perhaps then a solution may be achieved. Contrarily, Jeffrey D. Sachs argues in his excerpt “Bangladesh: On the Ladder of Development,” that despite the injustice that
In his article “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” Matt Zwolinski attempts to tackle the problem of the morality of sweatshops, and whether or not third parties or even the actors who create the conditions, should attempt to intervene on behalf of the workers. Zwolinski’s argument is that it is not right for people to take away the option of working in a sweatshop, and that in doing so they are impeding on an individual’s free choice, and maybe even harming them. The main distinction that Zwolinski makes is that choice is something that is sacred, and should not be impeded upon by outside actors. This is showcased Zwolinski writes, “Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant. Taken seriously, workers' consent to the conditions of their labor should lead us to abandon certain moral objections to sweatshops, and perhaps even to view them as, on net, a good thing.” (Zwolinski, 689). He supports his argument of the importance of free choice by using a number of different tactics including hypothetical thought exercises and various quotes from other articles which spoke about the effects of regulation business. Throughout the article there were multiple points which helped illuminate Zwolinski’s argument as well as multiple points which muddle the argument a bit.
The belief that the archaic-like prisons known as sweatshops have been abolished, has been proven false. They do, in fact, exist in not only foreign countries but also in America. The abuse of human rights is demonstrated as more than half the 22, 000 garment contractors in the United States don't pay workers minimum wage, according to the Labor Department, and working conditions are deplorable...Americans were horrified to learn last August of 72 Thai laborers imprisoned in El Monte, Near Los Angeles, who were forced to work up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week at $1.60 an hour" (Yeh).
As a major contributor to the global economy, Mexico’s sweatshops have contributed to the United States’ wealth and economic growth. It is the unfortunate truth that many individual workers have suffered as a result of this prosperity. The sweatshops, known as maquiladoras, are in debate because of the ethical and lawful reasoning behind their existence and conditions. How can we, as a First-world nation, allow such industries to exist where people are denied basic and fundamental human rights? What, if any, laws and regulations are put into place for the maquiladoras? Are these laws and regulations hindering, harmful, or helpful? Are they enforced emphatically? If not, how does this affect development? After finding an answer to the first question, I began to realize why it is so important to answer the latter questions. As a First-world nation, we allow such industries to exist because as consumer-citizens, we benefit greatly from such industries as the maquiladoras. Subsequently, it is imperative that individuals understand the point of views of the Mexican and United States Governments on such industries and what is being done, or not being done, to stop or prevent the existence and growth of the maquiladoras. From the stance within a pro-worker discourse, the conditions in the maquiladoras are dangerous, hazardous, and harmful to the safety, well-being, happiness, and development of these workers- the majority of whom are female.
Kirk, John A. "Crisis at Central High." History Today (London, England) Vol. 57, No. 9. Sept. 2007: 23-30. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
When people think of a sweatshop, images of people assembling items in a hot and crowded factory somewhere in a “Third World” country tend to come to mind. However, the first few sweatshops were located in both New York and England, becoming established in the late 1800’s. The term “sweatshop” originated from the term “sweating”, which described the contractual agreements between workers and designers to produce clothing. In these workshops, there was a “sweater”, an individual who monitored garment making (“Origins Of Sweatshops”, 2017). The term sweatshop is more so currently used to describe the working conditions rather than the type of workplace itself. Even back then, these workplaces were unsanitary, were sources of safety hazards and extremely crowded. Throughout the years, poor people and immigrants filled up the sweatshops in desperate search for work. This eventually spread beyond the United States and U.K., and became a commonplace practice in developing countries ruled by dictators. With this spread quickly came the employment of child workers, especially in places such as Indonesia, and India. Like the adults, they are subject to treatment that violates their human rights. They are left without protection from any other adults, making them more susceptible to abuse. Despite this, major corporations and brands such as Wal-Mart, Adidas, Aldo, Victoria’s Secret, Urban Outfitters and so on use sweatshops for affordable labor. One of the more prominent cases is the incident involving Kathy Lee Gifford and Wal-Mart, in which both Gifford and Wal-Mart “suffered as a result of the negative press surrounding the manufacturing of Gifford’s clothing line distributed by Wal-Mart” (Radin & Calkins). Gifford’s clothing was produced in a factory in Honduras, where female workers constantly suffered “cruel and inhumane treatment” (Radin &
...ce on a journey to sweatshop factories and the lives of an everyday garment worker. Labor laws need to be enforced. The people should help, and the owners need to be more respectful. Laws should be created to protect the workers, sweatshop conditions should be improved, and workers need to speak up for themselves.
Technological advancements due to new innovative and creative ideas have furthered the world and society to levels that would otherwise be unimaginable. Although many problems have been solved, new ones have emerged. In recent times, overseas factories have been a much-debated controversy on the issue of exploitation of workers. The majority of the products we own like our hats, shoes, and shirts are made entirely in a different country. Countries like China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia have factories filled with employees working long hours for not even half the amount Americans get paid for minimum wage. International factories that produce clothing for well-known brands like Nike and Adidas have earned the name “sweatshops”, due to the conditions and the low wages that workers get paid. The term sweatshops have been popularized through the media as exploiting workers in factories where they are underpaid
The cheap labor is an important factor in the investment attractiveness of the country, Third World counties such as Indonesia and Bangladesh offers United States cheap production of goods , however most of the time they are made in sweatshops, under terrible working conditions and low wages that barely supports their needs . Many people are against sweatshops , they believe that its against human rights and labor laws. Although sweatshops have negative impact on workers health , I think that sweatshops are beneficial to poor nations because it provides jobs and increase their countries economy. John Miller, professor of economics wrote an article “Why Economists Are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement” in which he argues
Imagine a worker receiving their paycheck after excruciating hours of hard labor and discovering that they have only made enough for their rent. This is an event that is repeatedly lived and witnessed by those who work in sweatshops. Globally sweatshops, which are factories in which workers are paid low wages for extensive hours, have been seen as a nightmare which is justified. Sweatshops are the industrialized slave labor with abuse, exploitation, and government neglect.The only way to confront this practice is awareness.
“I was 18 years old when I first went with the Consumers’ League into sweatshops in New York City. For the first time in my life I saw conditions I would not have believed existed, women and children working in dark, crowded quarters, toiling, I was told, all day long and way into the night to earn a few pennies. I can never forget these conditions” (Meltzer 63). In 1902, Eleanor Roosevelt got a small taste of how the United States was exploiting workers through sweatshops. Even though time has passed, the problem has not. Sweatshops are still in operation. Some United States companies even support them by taking advantage of lower trade barriers, failing transportation, and communication costs to relocate production of goods to poor countries
In an article written by Alex Massie, titled "In Praise of Sweatshops"; he speaks about the many suggestions people have given on how to improve the situations in sweatshops. In his article, Alex writes, “Some even suggest that factories in Bangladesh and other developing countries be held to the same standards that apply to factories and working conditions in countries such as the United States or the United Kingdom. Intuitively, this seems an appealing argument. But it is, nevertheless, an inadequate one.” (Massie, “In Praise of Sweatshops”). In many developing countries; they lack the funds to implement change and improve standards,
The definition of “sweatshop” remains largely interpreted differently by many people or governments. According to Barbara Sullivan, Tribune, a staff writer at the Chicago tribune describes a swetshop as any factory run under complete authority by overseers, doused by dangerous and unhealthy working conditions, and long hours with very low wages/pay. The world has also come to view a sweatshop, as an entity which employs and exploits child labour, to work in horrendous conditions. Contrary to popular belief many developed , have at some point engaged in sweatshop production facilities large scale production. In today’s modern world a major portion of the world’s remaining sweatshops are located in and around parts of Asia and other developing(poor) nations. As more countries seek to end this long-standing tradition of fostering slave labor, has led to a reconsideration of the ethical practices being examined and have becomes increasingly important issue in the business world(2012).
Myerson, A. R. (1997, June 22). In Principle, a Case For More 'Sweatshops'. In The New York Times. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/22/weekinreview/in-principle-a-case-for-more-sweatshops.html?src=pm