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.
Multinational corporations can be viewed as ethically and morally just in some instances by adding a few more cents to the employee’s wage to obtain a living wage and further, providing the workers with a safe and healthy work environment. There has always been negative attributions attached to the term “sweatshops” or “sweat factories” and there are many legitimate reasons for this. Sweatshops are considered to be any work environment that involves intensive labour and sometimes child labour receiving compensation that is unfair in which the employee’s can hardly survive on. These labourers work for exceedingly long hours in hazardous conditions that D’Oria 2 could result in serious injury or death. On top of all these unreasonable conditions employees may be subject to mental or even physical abuse brought on to them by their employer.
With little ventilations, heat, and stuffy some factory operators require their employees to work in bad working orders. In my opinion I feel that they are often unaware of their own rights, but have no choice but to continue to work because sweatshop managers threaten to punish them for insubordination. Now labor and human rights activists have been successful at raising public awareness regarding labor practices in both America and off-shore manufacturing facilities. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch, United Students Against Sweatshops, the National Labor Coalition, Sweatshop Watch, and the Interfaith Center of Corporate Responsibility have accused multinational enterprises (MNEs), like Nike, Wal-Mart, Disney, and others of the pernicious exploitation of workers (Arnold and Bowie 221). German philosopher Immanuel Kant said, " Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own ... ... middle of paper ... ...e their product.
This paper will follow up on the guiding question asking why does Nike set up sweatshops in developing countries? The major focus of this section will focus on the working conditions in Nike subcontracted sweatshops. Many of the sweatshops in developing countries function with the overexploitation of human capital at low wages. The wages are considered even lower in U.S. dollars because the purchasing power of the home country is often lower than that of the United States. Regardless of the already inflated profit margins coming from sweatshop conditions, the Nike Company does little to create harmonious conditions, free of the painstaking pressures placed on the sweatshop workers.
In Bangladesh, Joe Fresh had the opportunity to have their merchandise manufactured for less, by doing so, they were capable of keeping prices in store lower (Watkins, 2013). Being cost effective keeps Joe Fresh in business and generating a profit which adds to our economy. In consequence of that choice, the latent function of Joe Fresh’s sweat shop is that the conditions their workers were in was inadequate (Canadian Press, 2013). Maclean’s reporters disclosed that there were deep visible cracks in the walls, very poor working conditions, and very low wage. Though unintended, by over looking the severity of the buildings damages, it cost over 200 people their lives (CTV, 2013).
Many multinational companies defend themselves under the pretext that sweatshops help the impoverished people by employing them and are just a side effect to globalization that is necessary to stay competitive in the world market. This however is a false statement. Even though people have jobs at factories in developing nations they are not being benefitted due to the multinational companies' lack of respect for the laborer's individual rights, poor working conditions, and denying that they can be successful without sweatshops. To begin, the economic and social costs of sweatshops domestically do not outweigh the global benefits and should not be ignored. Urbanizati... ... middle of paper ... ...ng nations through the voluntary cooperation and assistance of companies and institutions.
Author shows that the wages that the sweat shop workers receive in the developing countries that are “not enough for basic survival needs” (Garyfalakis, par. 2). Sweat shop workers have to live with that small amount of wages which is hard to survive. Author shows the real story about sweatshop workers where she proves that, the wages that workers receive is not enough for basic survival. Low Wages, Strong Backs also proves that factory workers in U.S. receives less wages for their hard work.
While, of course, a few lucky employees are able to enjoy a higher wage, many willing could-be employees are not able to find jobs as a result; in other words, the minimum wage creates unemployment in poorer communities (Rothbard). One sensible person might ask, “Why is the minimum wage still being enforced today even though it is such a horrible law?” This perceptive question leads to a disappointing answer; the people that actively support the minimum wage act because of politics or simply economic ignorance. A minimum wage that derails the less affluent can positively affect those with larger wages and those in power. Therefore, the minimum wage is often used as a scheme for political and personal gain, despite the great amount of hurt that it causes to others (Vuk). In order to avoid unfair political advancements and unemployment to those who need it, the minimum wage should be outright eliminated; the market would work its own way through finding the right price to pay low-level employees.
Both consequences and benefits of manufacturing in foreign companies was discussed in the article. In addition to how manufacturing costs affect the financial outlook of the company, the article addressed how having factories in less-developed countries has an impact on public opinion of Nike. Manufacturing in foreign countries typically means cheaper production costs resulting in higher profit margins. Nike operates manufacturing plants worldwide, with most of their clothes and shoe... ... middle of paper ... ...orking environments for their factory employees. Even with international groups and organizations keeping a constant watch on companies who outsource work to impoverished countries, there is often little that can be done to control these companies.
American companies purposely make their goods in other countries such as India because their labor practices do not meet US standards and can easily be manipulated for maximum profit. By paying their employees extremely low wages, they are still able to manufacture their products. As a result they pull out more profit that does not have to be given back to their employees due to minimum wage laws not being in effect in these countries. In “Distributional Effects Of Globaliz... ... middle of paper ... ...lar.November 2011 Javdani ,Marie. Plata o Plomo: Silver or Lead.