CASE SUMMARY
Walk through Tong Yang Indonesia (TYI) shoe factory, an 8,500-worker complex of hot, dingy buildings outside Jakarta, and company president Jung Moo Young will show you all the improvements he has made in the past two years. He did so at the behest of his biggest customer, Reebok International Ltd., to allay protests by Western activists who accuse the U.S. shoemaker of using sweatshops.
Last year, Jung bought new machinery to apply a water-based solvent to glue on shoe soles instead of toulene, which may be hazardous to workers who breathe it in all day. He installed a new ventilation system after Reebok auditors found the old one inadequate. TYI bought new chairs with backs so that its young seamstresses have some support while seated at their machines--and back braces for 500 workers who do heavy lifting. In all, TYI, which has $100 million in annual sales, spent $2 million of its own money to satisfy Reebok. But to Jung's surprise, he says. ''The workers are more productive, and the new machinery is more efficient.''
This article is real case of a particular factory in Indonesia which produces shoe, primarily for Reebok. It reveals how one of the world’s most powerful companies is influencing lives and working conditions in one of the poorest countries in the world.
The lowest paid workers earn only $1 for every shoe, which is less than the legal minimum wage, and not enough to feed one person.
CASE ANALYSIS
In fact, more than a dozen companies have joined efforts to create an industry wide system for verifying that consumer goods sold in the U.S. are made under humane conditions. The most ambitious effort involves the Fair Labor Assn., which grew out of a Presidential task force of companies and human-rights groups. It plans to send outside monitors to factories worldwide to ensure that they meet minimum standards on everything from health and safety to workers' rights to join unions.
The problem is that such companies are the exceptions. Although many multinationals operate facilities in Asia and Latin America that are as well run as any in the West, far too many still buy from factories where practices are appalling--especially in such labor-intensive sectors as garments, shoes, and toys. And many companies that claim to adhere to labor codes are still in the window dressing stage.
The controversial issue of sweatshops is one often over looked by The United States. In the Social Issues Encyclopedia, entry # 167, Matt Zwolinski tackles the issues of sweatshops. In this article Matt raises a question I have not been able to get out of my head since I have begun researching this topic, “ are companies who contract with sweatshops doing anything wrong?” this article goes on to argue that the people who work in the sweatshops willingly choose to work there, despite the poor environment. Many people in third world countries depend on the sweatshops to earn what they can to have any hopes of surviving. If the sweatshops were to shut down many people would lose their jobs, and therefore have no source of income. This may lead people to steal and prostitution as well. this article is suggesting that sweatshops will better the economy by giving people a better job than what they may have had. Due to this the companies contracting with sweatshops are not acting wrong in any way. This was a deductive article it had a lot of good examples to show how sweatshops are beneficial to third world countries. Radly Balko seemed to have the same view point as Matt Zwolinski. Many people believe the richer countries should not support the sweatshops Balko believes if people stopped buying products made in sweatshops the companies will have to shut down and relocate, firing all of the present workers. Rasing the fact that again the worker will have no source of income, the workers need the sweatshop to survive. Balko also uses the argument that the workers willingly work in the current environments.
Look down at the clothes you're wearing right now, chances are almost every single thing you are currently wearing was made in a sweatshop. It is estimated that between 50-75% of all garments are made under sweatshop like conditions. Designers and companies get 2nd party contractors to hire people to work in these factories, this is a tool to make them not responsible for the horrendous conditions. They get away with it by saying they are providing jobs for people in 3rd world countries so its okay, but in reality they are making their lives even worse. These companies and designers only care about their bank accounts so if they can exploit poor, young people from poverty stricken countries they surely will, and they do. A sweatshop is a factory
With the continued rise of consumer "needs" in "industrial" countries such as the United States, and the consistently high price that corporations must pay to produce goods in these countries, companies are looking to "increase (their) profits by driving down costs any way possible... To minimize costs, companies look for places with the lowest wages and human rights protections" (Dosomething). Countries with lax or unenforced labor laws grant multinational corporations the leeway to use cheap foreign labor to mass-produce their commodities so that they can be sold in countries like America. These inexpensive, sometimes borderline illegal, establishments are known as sweatshops. In his book Timmerman discusses the topic of sweatshops in great detail. Originally in search of "where (his) T-shirt was made(;) (Timmerman) (went) to visit the factory where it was made and (met) the people who made (it)" (Timmerman5).
Large corporations such as Nike, Gap, and Reebok and many others from the United States have moved their factories to undeveloped nations; barely pay their employees enough to live on. Countries such as China, Indonesia, and Haiti have readily abundant cheap labor. There should be labor laws or an obligation of respecting workers to provide decent working conditions, fair wages, and safety standards.
In China, Kelsey Timmerman spent time with a couple who worked at the Teva factory, traveled to the countryside to meet the couple’s son, insert name, who hasn’t seen his parents in three years due to his parents working long hours and it being expensive to take a train ride. In the US, the author visited one of a few clothing factories in the US to talk to the workers about his shorts, and the decrease of American garment factories. Timmerman wants the consumer to be more engaged and more thoughtful when mindlessly buying clothes. By researching how well the brands you want to buy from monitor their factories and what their code of ethics details, you can make a sound decision on if this is where you would want to buy your clothes. The author writes about brands that improve employers lives like SoleRebels, a shoe company who employs workers and gives them health insurance, school funds for their children, and six months of maternity leave. Brands like soleRebels that give workers benefits most factory workers have never even heard of help improve the lives of garment workers and future generations. From reading this book, Timmerman wants us to be more educated about the lives of garment workers, bridge the gap between consumers and manufacturers, and be a more engaged and mindful consumer when purchasing our
“Sweatshops Are the Norm in the Global Apparel Industry. We’re Standing up to Change That.” International Labor Rights Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. .
This paper will give a brief introduction about the history of Nike Sweatshops which will shed the light on their public image and their manufacturing process. It will further move to the suggested alternatives, what facts impact them, their stakeholder and their impact on the economic as well as social basis. In the end, it will discuss if the given choices are legal and ethical or not.
Many global companies like Nike, Inc. are seen as role models both in the market place as well as in society in large. That is why they are expected to act responsibly in their dealings with humanity and the natural world. Nike benefits from the global sourcing opportunities, therefore areas such as production and logistics have been outsourced to partner companies in low-wage countries like China, Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand. As a result the company is limited nowadays to its core competencies of Design and Marketing.
Phil Knight started his shoe company by selling shoes from the back of his car. As he became more successful in 1972 he branded the name Nike. In the 1980’s Nike Corporation quickly grew and established itself as a world leader in manufacturing and distributing athletic footwear and sports' attire. The Nike manufacturing model has followed is to outsource its manufacturing to developing nations in the Asia Pacific, Africa, South and Latin Americas; where labor is inexpensive. It quickly became known for its iconic “swoosh” and “Just do it” advertisements and products. Its highly successful advertising campaigns and brand developed its strong market share and consumer base. But, the road has not always been easy for Nike; in the late 1990’s they went through some challenging times when their brand become synonymous with slave wages and child labor abuses. During this period, Nike learned that it paramount that the company understands its stakeholders’ opinions and ensures their values are congruent with their stakeholders. Nike learned that their stakeholders were concerned with more than buying low cost products; their customers were also concerned with ethical and fair treatment of their workers. Because Nike was unwilling to face the ethical treatment of its employees, the company lost its loyal customers and damaged its reputation. Nike has bounced back since the late 1990’s and revived its reputation by focusing on its internal shortfalls and attacking its issues head on. Nike nearly collapsed from its missteps in the late 1990’s. They have learned from their mistakes and taken steps to quickly identify ethical issues before they become a crisis through ethics audits. This paper is based on the case study of Nike: From Sweatsh...
In many parts of the world, labor violations are still present. Workers are forced to work in dangerous and unsafe places under harsh conditions. They work for long hours, yet receive little pay. Employees are not guaranteed protection or rights. Many
Many people in our society today are constantly asking, "Why do sweatshops exist?" The answer to this question is that companies like Nike and Wal-Mart use sweatshops to produce their goods for a much cheaper rate, to reduce the cost of their products. The problem with sweatshops is that the workers are subject to hard work in often times poor conditions for minimal pay. But although many people may condemn sweatshops, there are some advantages that many people overlook when arguing against sweatshops and their practices.
With the increasing awareness and publicity of poor working conditions in subcontracted factories in East Asia, Nike has stimulated an uprising of activist and watchdog groups working toward seeing these conditions changed. With Nike in the negative spotlight, various organizations have revolved around generating a negative outlook on Nike’s practices of social irresponsibility. Certain campaigns such as the “National Days of Consciousness” and “International Day of Protest” were organized to educate people on the deplorable working conditions in Nike’s Asian manufacturing plants, and were designed to get more people involved in global employment issues.
In June of 1996, Life magazine published a article about Nike’s child labor that was occurring in Pakistan. The article showed a little boy who was surrounded by pieces of Nike sports gear. The articles were shoes and soccer balls. Nike then knew then that they had to make some major changes in the way they were producing their items.
There has been increased the outcry by international labor organizations accusing multinational companies of foul play when dealing with their workers. Many multinational companies, in a bid, to reduce operation costs and costs of production, end up suppressing their clueless workers. Some multinational companies have gone to the extent on having their central productions being done in low-income earning companies where they would not have many responsibilities to bear for the workers. Coca-Cola, however, has received widespread criticism for its mistreatment of workers and the way it has...
First of all globalization has led to exploitation of labor. We can’t ignore the fact that ethical aspects of international business deserve special attention. Corruption and engaging in illegal practice to make greater profit is a source of continuing controversy. Sometimes companies go international and move their production to foreign countries so they could employ workers for long hours, at low wages and in poor working conditions (sweat shops). They are also using child labor, the employment of children to a full time work that can be otherwise done by adults all that so they could get out of their responsibility towards their workers by avoiding paying them national insurance …When these multinational firms go abroad they forget all about principles and about human beings and their rights, according to Kent, J., Kinetz, E. & Whehrfritz, G. (2008/March24). Newsweek. Bottom of the barrel. “The dark side of globalization: a vast work force trapped in conditions that verge on slavery”, David, P. Falling of The Edge, Travels through the Dark Heart of Globalization..Nov 2008. (p62) also agrees with them when he explained his concerns about Chinese and Indians t...