Are sweatshops morally permissible? In Business Ethics, some things, that called as morally permissible means, that these ‘some things’ correspond to all ethical requirements in business. What we already knew about sweatshops? There are not one the exact meaning of what a sweatshop is. So, I can describe it, as poor working conditions with low wages, child labor and a lot of working hours. Sweatshops are very popular in the clothing production. Because Sweatshop workers get less money per month that they spend, therefore, these workers cannot save some money to improve the level of their lives. Sweatshops are very popular in the United States of America (USA) and China. It is so because China and the United States have a high level in the clothing producing. From time to time, on the Internet or TV programs, we can hear that big companies factory’, that situated in China or somewhere else, have some scandals. These scandals the result of working conditions in these factories. Workers work in poor conditions and have a big working day, also, low wages are the one of the main problems. Why did I start talking about sweatshops in the clothing industry? Clothing belongs to …show more content…
Most of these companies have big scandals that correspond to their working conditions, which we already knew. I want to present some examples of working conditions in the factories which are owned by such well-known brands. In a factory in China that makes Levi jeans, women sew for 12 hours a day for less than 12 cents an hour, with only 2 days off each month. Also, they receive no healthcare and no compensation for injury. In a factory in Vietnam that makes Nike tennis shoes, employees work for 65 hours each week, for less than $10 a week. Most of these employees suffer from respiratory problems caused by breathing in chemical fumes at
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
Most sweatshops have been known to be unlawful, but yet it doesn’t stop them to still be around today. Workers working in sweatshops are known to be getting paid small amount of money while working long tiring shifts, sometimes without being allowed to take a break. Many corporations have their products produce in third-world countries such as Guatemala, Pakistan, Vietnam, etc. where it costs them less to produce goods since they are paying their workers almost nothing. It is believed that it
When someone works in an environment where they are exposed to chemicals, dust, fumes and molds, they are more likely to develop asthma. Along with asthma, constant exposure to chemicals and vapors can cause serious lung problems that can develop into more serious lung problems.
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.
Nike should hold the standards regarding safety and working conditions that are prevailing in that country. However, when the sweatshop workers try to tolerate the conditions and wages, firms that are making investment in that country should not intervene the movement. In countries around the world, garment w...
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
Sweatshop is a common term used to refer to factories that typically produce apparel; that have very low wages by modern U.S. standards, long working hours, and unsafe or unhealthy working conditions; that often don't obey labor laws; and that would generally be considered
The perspective of the source is strongly in favor of sweatshops because it allows for both workers and consumers to benefit from economic globalization based on open markets which include sweatshops. You can distinguish this through the language and structure of the source. You can see that the source is in favor of sweatshops through the line “The discussion around sweatshops is overwhelmingly negative”. As it recognizes that most of the comments about sweatshops are negative because the jobs that they have to do are much more grueling than the more westernized jobs, and that the workers are being exploited and underpaid, but to the workers that is the price to strengthen and grow the economy. The author of this source is supporting a capitalist system of free
Historically, the word "sweatshop" originated in the Industrial Revolution to describe a subcontracting system in which the middlemen earned profits from the margin between the amount they received for a contract and the amount they paid to the workers. Today a sweatshop is defined by the government as any business or factory that violates one or more of the federal or provincial labor laws which are as follows: minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational health and safety, workers compensation, or industry registration. Originally when the garment industry went global it was all about the positive effects it was having on the developing countries in which the factories were located and about all the jobs that were introduced to those who once could not ever imagine getting paid to work.