More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of sweatshops in globalisation
Positive and negatives of sweatshops
Positive and negatives of sweatshops
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of sweatshops in globalisation
Each day, millions of people of all ages in developing countries suffer in factories all over the world while making the clothes that we buy and wear everyday. They have to go to work in places with conditions that we couldn’t even imagine because they need to make enough money to provide food for their families. Working in sweatshops is their best option for obtaining even the slightest source of income. In these factories, dust lingers in the air, there is little light, and the machinery threatens to cut off one or more of your fingers at any moment. The possibility of death is always present. Managers force you to work gruesomely long shifts, with little to no rest, and they beat you if you complain. But who is responsible for the anguish and misery that these conditions cause? Companies are to blame for the pain that is caused by sweatshops all over the world. The responsibility for ensuring that goods are ethically made lies predominantly on them. Their needs cause the rapid construction of the factories, and they have the final say in how they want the conditions in their factories to be. …show more content…
While this is partially true, brands won’t admit that their factories have problems. Because of the fear of losing customers, they refuse to inform their consumers about what actually goes on in their factories, leaving consumers in the dark. Therefore, consumers don’t even stand a chance at making a change because they don’t realize that there are problems and conditions that need to be changed. Companies hide the truth from their buyers, which allows the sweatshop problem in developing countries to become more severe with each
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).
...e their product. Sweatshops are found usually all over the world and need to make a better decision as in more labor laws, fair wages, and safety standards to better the workers' conditions. It should benefit the mutually experiences by both the employers and the employees. Most important is the need to be educated about their rights and including local labor laws.
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
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
Ravisankar concludes his expository essay by informing his audience about organizations like the University Students Against Sweatshops who are forcing corporations to source their clothes from respectful factories or they will not purchase their products.
What are sweatshops? The Miriam-Webster dictionary defines sweatshops as: A shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions. These factories are mainly located in Third-World countries, although there are still a few in the United States. Many popular, name brand companies like Nike, use sweatshops around the world. Today there is much controversy about sweatshops and whether they should be banned and closed. In reality, the conditions of these factories are terrible. The employees are paid very little, even after working long, hard hours. The supervisors of these shops are often cruel, malicious, and brutal. Sadly, these factories are often the only source of income for Third-World workers. As bad as these sweatshops might be, they have pulled many countries and individuals out of poverty. So, are sweatshops beneficial?
Therefore, the companies bear the most responsibility for ensuring ethical manufacturing due to their attempts to shift the blame onto others, desire for cheap manufacturing, and placing the needs of other countries over ethical dilemmas. Companies are trying to shift their faults to others. “Business must stop just holding up its hands to say:‘It is not our fault -- they bought it’”(“Bangladesh Factory Collapse: Who really pays
Linda Lim, a professor at the University of Michigan Business School, visited Vietnam and Indonesia in the summer of 2000 to obtain first-hand research on the impact of foreign-owned export factories (sweatshops) on the local economies. Lim found that in general, sweatshops pay above-average wages and conditions are no worse than the general alternatives: subsistence farming, domestic services, casual manual labor, prostitution, or unemployment. In the case of Vietnam in 1999, the minimum annual salary was 134 U.S. dollars while Nike workers in that country earned 670 U.S. dollars, the case is also the similar in Indonesia. Many times people in these countries are very surprised when they hear that American's boycott buying clothes that they make in the sweatshops. The simplest way to help many of these poor people that have to work in the sweatshops to support themselves and their families, would be to buy more products produced in the very sweatshops they detest.
Americans do not realize the amount of clothing we wear on a daily basis is actually made in Cambodia, such as Adidas and even the Gap. The women that work for these sweatshops in Cambodia sew for 50 cents an hour, which is what allows stores in America, such as H&M to sell inexpensive clothing (Winn, 2015). The conditions these Cambodian workers face are a noisy, loud, and extremely hot environment where people are known for having huge fainting attacks. When workers were on strike a year ago, authorities actually shot multiple people just because they were trying to raise their pay. There is plenty of evidence of abuse captured through many interviews of workers from different factories, and is not just a rarity these places see often or hear of. Factories hire children, fire pregnant women because they are slow and use the bathroom to much, scream at regular workers if they use the toilet more than two times a day, scam hard working employees with not paying them their money they worked for and more, and workers are sent home and replaced if 2,000 shirts are not stitched in one day. Expectations are unrealistic and not suitable for employees to be working each day for more than ten
The strengths of the book come from its’ accessibility. The book is easy to follow and provides readers with a great deal of information about the production of mass-manufactured clothing. As well as brings awareness to its’ many issues which we inadvertently take part in when we purchase such products. The book is well written and thoroughly researched but does have its’ share of weaknesses.
For example, factory workers were expected to work 14-16 hour days, six days a week. The dusty, dirty, unlit mills along with few break times made working there a living hell. “Breaker boys suffered from chronic throat trouble and respiratory illnesses that were caused by inhaling coal dust. Above ground machinery, particularly coal crushers, were dangerously loud. If a breaker boy worked long hours around the coal crusher he often suffered from hearing loss (Wagner). Due to the fact that there were no safety laws in place, ear plugs and masks were not used. In fact, no safety equipment was. The dangerous machines with unprotected parts made children susceptible to injury and death. If someone were to get injured, they were immediately fired and not paid compensation for their health care. “If a boy was caught wearing gloves, the boss would beat him. A skin condition that miners termed “Red tips” was brought about by prolonged contact with sulfur from the coal. Breaker boys’ fingers often became cracked, bloody, and swollen from sorting (Wagner)....