In the videos, they mainly portrayed the horrors that are found in them and the lack of respect if the employees. In the Fashion Factories Uncovered video, they show the ill treatment of how they are abused. There were many scenarios where the building was not constructed in a manner that was safe. During a fire, there were not enough fire exits and the managers ordered them back to their post. The companies and retailers who are having them construct their clothing, should have a care for their safety at the work place. Around 90% of the a factories in Bangladesh have safety issues, through weak floors to not enough fire exits. Now, in the video Making the Case for Sweatshop, there is a statement that people actually see the sweatshop as a …show more content…
From Sex Workers to Seamstress, it was seen that the women were given an ultimatum: either they were to be trained for a new career or remain in custody until they die. One of the companies told the interviewer that their workers were paid higher than minimum wage—which they were not. Many of the woman were having a difficult time to support their family at the price they were paid. According to Rivoli, the living conditions are less than ideal, wages are low, the hours are long, the work is repetitive and tedious, the environment is unclean, the food is bad, and the list goes on. However he also states that their situation could be worse than what it is. Personally, I am on the middle ground. I can see both sides of the argument. I feel as if the statements that are made to support sweatshops are valid as are the ones to appose them. I do not feel as if this has to do with the differences between China and Cambodia/ Bangladesh. We are from a wealthy economy, and we are privileged in the sense that we have ethics and rights for the workers. In poor countries, they are more money hungry and ethics is not a concern of
Some of the arguments against sweatshops raised by Americans is the they take jobs away from the American people. In the job force it is becoming harder to find an open position any where. Instead of keeping the factories here the companies are shipped over seas, causing millions of job opportunities for Americans to be lost. Some arguments raised by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) are the poor working conditions, low wages, long hours, and children in the factories. The damp, dark, and cold environment can depress the workers even more than they may be, causing rates in suicide to increase. Low wages is another concern USAS have. The workers barley get enough money to survive.
Sweatshops started around the 1830’s when industrialization started growing in urban areas. Most people who worked in them at the time were immigrants who didn't have their papers. They took jobs where they thought they'd have the most economic stability. It’s changed a bit since then, companies just want the cheapest labor they can get and to be able to sell the product in order to make a big profit. It’s hard to find these types of workers in developed areas so they look toward 3rd world countries. “sweatshops exist wherever there is an opportunity to exploit workers who lack the knowledge and resources to stand up for themselves.” (Morey) In third world countries many people are very poor and are unable to afford food and water so the kids are pulled out of school and forced to work so they can try to better their lives. This results in n immense amount of uneducated people unaware they can have better jobs and that the sweatshops are basically slavery. With a large amounts uneducated they continue the cycle of economic instability. There becomes no hope for a brighter future so people just carry on not fighting for their basic rights. Times have changed. 5 Years ago companies would pay a much larger amount for a product to be made but now if they’re lucky they’ll pay half, if a manufacturer doesn't like that another company will happily take it (Barnes). Companies have gotten greedier and greedier in what they’ll pay to have a product manufactured. Companies have taken advantage of the fact that people in developing countries will do just about anything to feed their families, they know that if the sweatshop in Cambodia don't like getting paid 2 dollars per garment the one in Indonesia will. This means that there is less money being paid to the workers which mean more will starve and live in very unsafe environments. Life is
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.
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.
Young girls were not allowed to open the windows and had to breathe in the dust, deal with the nerve-racking noises of the machines all day, and were expected to continue work even if they 're suffering from a violent headache or toothache (Doc 2). The author of this report is in favor of employing young women since he claimed they seemed happy and they loved their machines so they polished them and tied ribbons on them, but he didn 't consider that they were implemented to make their awful situations more bearable. A woman who worked in both factory and field also stated she preferred working in the field rather than the factory because it was hard work but it never hurt her health (Doc 1), showing how dangerous it was to work in a factory with poor living conditions. Poor living conditions were common for nearly all workers, and similar to what the journalist saw, may have been overlooked due to everyone seeming
In the article, “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream,” Nicholas Kristof describes the dumps in Cambodia, “The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn” (Kristof). This garbage dump is where many people in Phnom Penh, Cambodia are forced to scrap together a living. When compared to life in a dump, sweatshops are actually considered safe and clean. Kristof goes on to explain the local view of sweatshop work as, “[A] cherished dream... the kind of gauzy if probably unrealistic ambition that parents everywhere often have for their children” (Kristof). The second important thing to note is that people are not forced to work at a sweatshop. This fact alone implies that a factory job is no where near the worst working situation. As Matt Zwolinski points out in “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation” published by Business Ethics Quarterly, “For the most part, individuals who work in sweatshops choose to do so. They might not like working in sweatshops, and they might strongly desire that... they did not have to do so. Nevertheless, the fact that they choose to work in sweatshops is morally significant” (Zwolinski 2). One of the major reasons people believe sweatshops are harmful is because they pay very little for grueling labor. From the perspective of most Americans, the equivalent of two dollars a day seems cruel, but when compared
Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn are Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times journalists who spent fourteen years in Asia doing research on the country as well as the sweatshops of that country. In their article "Two Cheers for Sweatshops" they sum up clearly the misunderstanding of sweatshops by most of the modern world. "Yet sweatshops that seem brutal from the vantage point of an American sitting in his living room can appear tantalizing to a Thai laborer getting by on beetles." The fact of the matter is that sweatshops in the eyes of the actual workers are not as bad as they are made out to be, by many activists. Though many organizations that oppose sweatshops and their labor practices try to make the point that sweatshops do not have to exist. But one must consider the fact that, the companies that use sweatshops are creating at least some type of jobs for people that gladly accept them.
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 four-page article was very weak and unorganized. Throughout the article there weren’t many points about how sweatshops do not violate human rights, most of the article was about the conflict and the protest between university students and big companies that use sweatshops. In most cases, facts and studies were used to support the claims being made, for example, “As the New York Times reported in it's may,16,2000 editions, ‘a typical worker in a Nike factory in Vietnam makes … more than twice country’s average annual income. “The article didn’t address the other side of the argument but it did use the protest of university students as a way to show that many people believe that sweatshops violate human rights.” Students at the University of North Carolina had a rude awakening when about 75 student protesters occupied an administrative building on the school's main quad and demanded stricter guidelines for the labor code governing the school's apparel contract with
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