Summary The world believed that slavery had ended in December 6, 1865; however, in Bob Jeffcott article “Sweat, Fire, Ethics” he exposes the bitter truth about sweatshops and how companies have failed to accept the moral code (industries code). Consumers are unaware of the harsh labor some employees have to go through just to create the product we (consumers) wear on a daily basis. Jeffcott is against Globalization and free trade because he demonstrates the working condition within each company in how brutal they are. In order to lower production cost, companies like Nike and Gap began to subcontract other factories around the world. Places like Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan were targeted and in the later future, Mexico and Thailand were hit. Jeffcott describe it as a race to the bottom of the lows wages and the worst working condition in the world. It was an endless cycle to try to find a country that would make your product for the lowest price possible. In the end Bangladeshi was contracted. Young 15-year-old girls and young women had to work long 18-hour shift with no breaks and if they even had a break, they …show more content…
were lucky enough to receive only 15 minutes. Consumers were blind to all these information, they only knew about the material of the product and where the product was made.
They didn’t know about the fire that broke out on the 9th floor of the Asch Building in New York City, that was owned by the Triangle Shirtwaist Company. It happened on March 25, 1911 in where 146 young workers were buried alive and burned alive because of crowded sewing machines. The young ladies that did make it over the sewing machine were jumping off the ninth floor, but they immediately died right after they landed. They also didn’t know about the incident of the 64 workers that were killed because the higher ups decided to ignore the ladies’ opinion on the construction of the building. All theses young ladies that were probably working on your new Nike shirt or shoes and because of the brutal working condition, they
died. In the end Jeffcott wants us to be informed about the working condition of young ladies and also to realize that we are not only consumers but citizen that have a voice in how we went our employees to work; and to also think about how are product is being made. Analysis Speechless is the definition of the article “Sweat, Fire, Ethics” by Bob Jeffcott. After discovering the truth about sweatshops and their working condition, I agree with Jeffcott argument about Globalization in where it is destroying employee’s life. No one would every imagine such tragedy in a sweatshop. How can people work for 18 long hours without eating or even taking a break? Its impossible to picture someone working for that long, and even when they did receive a break, it was only for 15 minutes long. These young ladies walked for 2 hours to get to their job and still had to work for that long, that is just heroic. These ladies were incredible! “Isn’t it a little presumptuous of us to think that we can end sweatshop abuses by just changing our individual buying habits?” Jeffcott could’ve have said it any better. We can not end sweatshop just because we become inform and decided to think twins before buying one shirt or a pair of shoes. What good does that do? Other people wont stop and some people wont be informed. In order for companies like Nike and Gap to notices our frustration we have hit them were it hurts. Which is not buying anything from them until we see an improving in the working condition of our employees or for anyone that is working in a factory. Or like in the article, in were students who wore Nike on an everyday basis wrote an angry letter to the CEO declaring that they will never wear a Nike product every again because they finally realize how their shoes or shirts were being made. After knowing such information, you can’t help, but feel sad. No one should be working for that long and not even receive minimum wage. Although companies have change their way, most companies have been demanding their employees to work faster and cheaper and sometimes they would threaten their jobs if they didn’t agree to those terms. How does this change anything? They are basically finding new ways to hurt employees, but in a way that doesn’t seem so bad. Its an endless cycle in where companies are trying to mislead our workers and the sad part is that many of them will take that job because they really need it.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire most of all impacted all forms of industry, and changed the way workers worked. Along with the legislations that impacted women and children, laws also centered on the safety and well being of all workers. One of the main reforms and changes came through the formation of the New York Factory Investigating Commission, or the FIC: a legislative body that investigated the manufacturers for various infractions. They were based on protecting the workers: both their rights and their lives. The FIC investigated countless factories and “enacted eight laws covering fire safety, factory inspections and sanitation.” The FIC was highly focused on the health and safety of industrial workers, making reports and legislation that focused on “fire safety, building construction, machine guarding, heating, lighting, ventilation, and other topics” and on specific industries like “chemicals, lead trades, metal trades, printing shops, sweatshops and mercantile establishments.” Thirteen out of seventeen of the bills submitted by the FIC became laws, and “included measures requiring better fire safety efforts, more adequate factory ventilation, improved sanitation and machine guarding, safe operation of elevators” and other legislations focused for specific establishments.” Fire safety and new fire codes such as “mandate emergency exits, sprinkler systems, and maximum-occupancy laws,” such as the Fire Prevention Act of 1911, were put into place to limit the likelihood that another fire like the one at Triangle would occur, or be as drastic and deathly. Other organizations like the Joint Board of Sanitary Control “set and maintain standards of sanitation in the workplace,” as well as actually enforcing these stand...
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. We can’t control and tell what you can buy or what you can’t because that’s up to the person...
2 John Bowe, author of Nobodies: Modern Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy said if he could sum up what his book was about it would be “we all seek control. Control equals power. Power corrupts. Corruption makes us blind, tyrannical, and desperate to justify our behavior” (268). He is writing about the slave trade happening in our own Land of the Free. He wants Americans to be aware of the slave trade and recognize that it is not only happening in other countries, but effects items we use in our everyday lives, like the clothes we wear and the food we eat. As he is an immersion reporter, he visits three different sites of slavery: Florida, Tulsa, and Saipan. The stories and facts in this book are all from people who experienced some aspect of the abuses he writes about, whether a victim, a lawyer, or just a witness to the heinous crimes. He is not satisfied with half truths, which seem to fly at him, especially from those who did the abusing he was talking about, he does his research well and I appreciated that while reading this book.
The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire was remembered as one of the most infamous incidents in American industrial history. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory was owned by Max Blank and Isaac Harris. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory grew quickly as Max and Isaac moved their business from a little shop by 1901 to the new ten-story Asch building at the top three floors. There were approximately five hundred workers who worked in the Triangle Shirtwaist Company at the time while the fire broke out. The workers were mostly Jewish and Italian immigrant women (Campbell 210-212). The incident happened in Manhattan, New York City in March, 25, 1911; also, as one important event that held relevance in American .This incident was the deadliest industrial disaster. 146 workers died, and they either died from the fire or jumped from the window. They jumped out from the window because the fire trucks’ ladders could only reach up to the seventh floor. After the incident, there were demands for enhanced law to protect workers health and safety, including factory fire codes and child labor law that helped shape future labor laws; however, there was evidence that the fire wouldn’t have happened if the company owners had listened to the warnings, and the owners were found unfairly not guilty in the court.
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.
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
Life in the early 1900’s wasn’t easy. Competition for jobs was at an all time high, especially in New York City. Immigrants were flooding in and needed to find work fast, even if that meant in the hot, overcrowded conditions of garment factories. Conditions were horrid and disaster was inevitable, and disaster did strike in March, 1911. The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York set on fire, killing 146 workers. This is an important event in US history because it helped accomplish the tasks unions and strikes had tried to accomplish years earlier, It improved working conditions in factories nationwide and set new safety laws and regulations so that nothing as catastrophic would happen again. The workplace struggles became public after this fire, and the work industry would never remain the same again.
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.
Large corporations such as Nike, Gap, and Reebok and many others from the United States have moved their factories to undeveloped nations; barely pay their employees enough to live on. Countries such as China, Indonesia, and Haiti have readily abundant cheap labor. There should be labor laws or an obligation of respecting workers to provide decent working conditions, fair wages, and safety standards.
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
New York City in the early 20th Century was a place where immigrants came to work and to start a new life in America. During that time, over twelve million immigrants came to the United States, and most of them worked in factories or in hard labor jobs (liberty). One of the many jobs available to immigrants was in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, which was owned by Max Blanck and Isaac Harris. The conditions at this factory were unsanitary and cruel just like in many other factories and sweatshops of that time. Workers were treated and paid unfairly. On March 11th, 1911, a fire broke out at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory killing nearly two-hundred women, men, and children. This essay will explain the tragic events that led to the Triangle Shirtwaist fire, the women’s strike, and unfair wages during the late 1910s.
The owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory did not care for the needs of factory employees, making them culpable of the employee’s deaths. The owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory did not care for the needs of factory employees, making them culpable of the employee’s deaths. Because Max Blanck and Isaac Harris showed carelessness in terms of caring for the factory, tending to the needs of workers, and a self centered desire of money, they were responsible for the lives that were lost during the Triangle Fire.
In a New York Times essay “Where Sweatshops are a Dream” writer Nicholas D. Kristof writes to the citizens of America to oppose future trade regulations in Cambodia. He does this by aiming to change the general connotation of sweatshops and in turn reaches to reveal the importance factories hold in third world countries. Throughout his essay, Kristof uses several rhetorical devices like personification, allusion, and diction to help the reader feel what life is like for those who live in third world countries without the opportunity to work in sweatshops. In addition, he uses many examples from his own experience in order to establish credibility with his audience. Later Kristof shares a few stories and testimonies of people that live in Cambodia
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
Another area of concern is the discrepancy of differences in East Asian worker regulations and wages compared to the North American standards. Much speculation has gone toward attacking Nike for their blatant disregard of American labour ethics, but Nike is having difficulty explaining their justification of meeting offshore requirements. For example, the legal age in Indonesia was 14, an age at which compulsory Schooling has ended. Nike was criticized for apparently having girls at this age working in their factories (which wasn’t true), and was shunned for inhuman labour practices according to American standards.