Defending Sweatshop Labor Powell and Zwolinski offer a nuanced defense against several common criticisms of sweatshop labor. The authors refrain from explicitly defining sweatshop labor, but for the purpose of clarity, it may be useful to identify the distinguishing characteristics of sweatshops. From Powell and Zwolinski’s discussion, it can be inferred that sweatshop labor differs from ‘normal’ labor in two major respects: Sweatshops pay workers objectionably low wages. Sweatshops subject their workers to objectionably poor working conditions. The authors acknowledge that at first impression, sweatshop labor appears to be immoral, or at least unfair. However, upon closer inspection, they find that sweatshops may in fact offer fair compensation. …show more content…
However, “the rate of profit in multinational enterprises that [utilize sweatshops] is generally no higher than it is in other industries with a similar level of risk” (624). It is unclear that sweatshop workers earn less than the market price for their wages, and according to Powell and Zwolinski, it may maximize aggregate well-being to leave sweatshops unregulated. If the labor of an additional sweatshop worker generates marginal revenues of $1, then it is justifiable that he/she be paid $1—even if that wage is considered insufficient as a means of living—especially if the alternative is …show more content…
This claim rests not on supply and demand reasoning. Instead, it is grounded in a broader moral consideration of global economies. The authors write that a sweatshop worker’s opportunities may be “restricted by injustices in the global economic order, including the unjust seizure of land and natural resources by states and other entities, and the unjust restriction of free access to Western markets by various forms of protectionism” (625). Over time, these injustices collectively contribute to poor economic conditions in developing countries, ultimately leading to the rise of sweatshop labor. The authors recognize that this process may corrupt the moral integrity of sweatshops. If unjust politico-commercial maneuvers precipitated poor economic conditions in a particular country, then a resulting sweatshop economy must be unjust as well.
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.
Mayer, Robert. "Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility." Journal of Social Philosophy, vol. 38, no. 4, Winter2007, pp. 605-619. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00401.x.
Is it only a sweatshop to earn more money for the multinational company? Second, what is the present status of workers in developing countries? Then the most important one is the wages that multinational companies pay employees and the multinational companies’ relationship with workers in developing countries.
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
The mere idea of sweatshops, let alone their existence, seems cruel and unusual to people like us, especially in today's day and age. After all, in sweatshops "workers are subject to extreme exploitation. This includes... (not) enabling workers to cover ...
To begin with, improve their working conditions. Promulgated mental and physical abuses sweatshops don’t delivered alleviate poverty. Poor working conditions have been around for centuries. Here in America, we have a stronger labor laws than most undeveloped countries, but it is not free of sweatshops. Reading I found out that many of the factory buildings are crowded, have windowless walls, filthy, back-breaking and hazardous. 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 ...
Some people of North America know about these sweatshop workers, they feel bad and some also protest. They set up NGOs, send funds and donations but they never try to break the tradition of sweatshop working. They all assume that this is best for the society. An Idea can be drawn from William
It is often said that products made in sweatshops are cheap and that is why people buy those products, but why is it behind the clothes or shoes that we wear that make sweatshops bad? In the article Sweat, Fire and Ethics by Bob Jeffcott is trying to persuade the people and tell them how sweatshops are bad. Bob Jeffcott supports the effort of workers of the global supply chains in order to win improved wages and good working conditions and a better quality of life of those who work on sweatshops. He mentions and describes in detail how the conditions of the sweatshops are and how the people working in them are forced to long working hours for little money. He makes the question, “we think we can end sweatshops abuses by just changing our individual buying habits?” referring to we can’t end the abuses that those women have by just stopping of buying their products because those women still have to work those long hours because other people are buying their product for less pay or less money.
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.
Sweatshops are factories that violate two or more human rights. Sweatshops are known in the media and politically as dangerous places for workers to work in and are infamous for paying minimum wages for long hours of labour. The first source is a quote that states that Nike has helped improve Vietnamese’s’ workers lives by helping them be able to afford luxuries they did not have access to before such as scooters, bicycles and even cars. The source is showing sweatshops in a positive light stating how before sweatshops were established in developing countries, Vietnamese citizens were very poor and underprivileged. The source continues to say that the moment when sweatshops came to Vietnam, workers started to get more profit and their lives eventually went uphill from their due to being able to afford more necessities and luxuries; one of them being a vehicle, which makes their commute to work much faster which in turn increases their quality of life. The source demonstrates this point by mentioning that this is all due to globalization. Because of globalization, multinationals are able to make investments in developing countries which in turn offers the sweatshops and the employees better technology, better working skills and an improvement in their education which overall helps raise the sweatshops’ productivity which results in an increase
I. Introduction A sweatshop is a workplace where individuals work with no benefits, inadequate living wages, and poor working conditions (Dictionary.com). Sweatshops can be found all around the world, especially in developing nations where local laws are easily corrupted: Central America, South America, Asia, and in certain places in Europe (Background on Sweatshops). China, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Philippines and Bangladesh are the main places where most sweatshop products are made (McAllister). Often, sweatshop workers are individuals who have immigrated and are working in other countries.
In ” Sweatshop Oppression”, there is a great emphasis on inhumane and harsh work environments known as sweatshops. Likewise, In “ Terror’s Purse Strings”, sweatshops are greatly emphasized to show the audience that purchasing counterfeit products negatively affects the livelihood of the sweatshop workers. The difference between these two emphases is the perpetrators behind the sweatshops. In Thomas’s essay, the perpetrators are various crime syndicates and in Ravisankar’s the perpetrators are major
Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way out of poverty especially in developing countries. This argument may feel far fetched, but when examined in the context of those working at sweatshops and the locations sweatshops are most often constructed in, the reason why this is true is apparent. The benefits of sweatshops can be found by examining how they increase living conditions, examining the locations where sweatshops are constructed, and looking at how government regulations on factories don’t help anyone.
Globalization and industrialization contribute to the existence of sweatshops, which are where garments are made cheaply, because they are moving production and consumption of those cheap goods. Industrialization has enabled for global distribution, to exchange those goods around the world. They can also set apart the circumstances of consumption and production, which Western countries as mass consumers, are protected from of producers in less developed countries. These factories are usually located in less developed countries and face worker exploitation and changes in social structures. Technological innovation allows for machines to take the place of workers and do all the dirty work instead of workers doing hours of hard work by hand.
These concerns typically include the rights of the children, the responsibility of the parents and employers, and the well-being and safety of the children. In Stefan Spath’s “The Virtues of Sweatshops,” it is made very clear that he, like many others, feel that the general public is highly misinformed on what sweatshops are and what they actually contribute to their respective communities. In the eyes of someone from a developed country, sweatshops and child labor that takes place in them seem primitive and are interpreted as simply a means by which companies can spend less money on employers. He states that when labor unions claim that companies which establish operations in developing nations create unemployment in America, they aren’t really explaining the whole story. The author claims that those who are adamantly protest sweatshops are only telling half the story with a claim like this. He points out in this part that the American people can rest assured that high skilled jobs will not be taken over to developing countries because “– high-skilled jobs require a level of worker education and skills that poorer countries cannot