Sweatshops Research Paper

Many well known companies around the world are employing sweatshops to produce their products. Sweatshops are simply put, factories with dangerous working conditions where men, women and even children work for long hours for little to no pay. Companies such as Nike, Apple, and other brands capitalize on this opportunity to reduce their production costs by employing these sweatshops. In order to fully understand the sweatshop debate, one must understand the pros and cons of sweatshops. Many argue that sweatshops are needed because they play the important role of an economic engine for third-world countries. In Bangladesh, the garment industry generates 80% of the country's revenue with 3.5 million workers at 4825 sweatshops (Sweatshops). On

She has constantly been shouted at with profanity and obscene language to make them work faster. If workers did not comply or made mistakes, they would anger their supervisors and would be treated with physical abuse. Even though they are upset and work with distressed hearts, they have no power to change as the factories do not allow unions to be formed. Due to sweatshops residing in countries with corrupt governments, workers are given the choice to keep working or get fired if they try to unionize. Since the government wants to maintain their political power and avoid instability, they have gone as far as utilizing their military forces to prevent strikes and independent unions from forming (Donaldson 589). This treatment towards workers is detrimental not only to sweatshop owners, but to the company employing them. Perhaps when more consumers understand the conditions workers who make their product are in, companies would take action as their profits would decrease. It is a fact that workers are put in inhumane conditions for miniscule amounts of pay, yet 80% of a country's revenue depend on these workers. If workers are such an important aspect of a country’s economy, they should be properly treated. Without workers, there is no economy, thus sweatshops are not needed in the supply

However, according to a professor of public management at Harvard, Steven Kelman concluded that, “In areas of environmental, safety, and health regulation, there may be many instances where a certain decision might be right even though its benefits do not outweigh its costs (Donaldson 542).” His makes this statement from a standpoint that decisions may be correct even though monetary costs are greater than monetary benefits. This is because decision can be influenced by factors outside of money, such as ethics and values. Kelman’s conclusion is applicable to the sweatshop debate because the correct decision might be to abolish sweatshops. Even though there are no monetary benefits and 80% of a country’s revenue will disappear, it is the correct decision because once safety of human lives are factored in, benefits greatly outweigh costs. With that in mind, abolishing sweatshops should be a last resort as there are solutions to the sweatshop controversy. If no action is taken, companies that employ them may be blacklisted by consumers, reducing their company