Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Child labor: where the issue exists and who is affected
Child labor in third world countries
Child labor: where the issue exists and who is affected
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Branded products are loved by everyone. If you have name brand products, then people perceive you differently. For example a pair of Nike shoes for $190 would be bought without a second thought. In contrast, these name brand products are made for less money by people, who can only dream about being luxurious. Companies’ profit increase by selling expensive products but the people who make them receive no benefit from that. The act of slavery might not be existing publically in the world; however, it is still happening behind the screen which is known as sweatshops. Originally the purpose of sweatshops was to help people in under developed countries to earn money in order to change their living conditions positively. Unfortunately, low salaries, …show more content…
Sweatshop companies argue that they are creating jobs and helping people to improve their financial standard but the reality is they don’t improve people’s financial standard instead industries just use people’s poverty to maximize their profit margin. Globalexchange.org restates the statement of National Labour Committee as mentioned below. “According to the National Labor Committee, a worker in El Salvador earns about 24 cents for each NBA jersey she makes. These same jerseys then sell in the U.S. for $140 each. The 60 cents an hour the Salvadoran NBA seamstresses earn covers only about a third of the cost of living, and even the Salvadoran government says this wage leaves a worker in “abject poverty.” In poorer countries such as the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, the wages are even lower.” (globalexchange.org, n.d.) This little salary gives them only the ability to buy food for their families to survive and not for anything else like for example for furniture or to save money to buy a …show more content…
Sweatshops contractors are being too greedy by saving money from not providing safe and healthy workplace environment. Contractors’ and companies’ greediness costs workers’ lives very often. There are many incidents which proof that. One of those happened in Vietnam in February. It was in 1997, when 200 sweatshop workers fell ill and were hospitalized by over exposure to acetone, a chemical solvent used in production in McDonalds Happy Meal Toys. However these incidence are reported the factory refused to improve its ventilation system for its workers. Another incident was in Bangladesh in the year 2005. 64 workers were killed and 80 workers were injured. These tragedies were preventable if the factory owners wouldn’t have violated building codes and safety regulations. Such dangerous conditions are very common in sweatshops. Raveena Aulakh, a daily mail reporter, also agrees with that after her experience as an undercover worker in a sweatshop. “A quick tour of the building revealed no fire extinguishers, only one exit - the front door - and little more than a hole in the ground, down a rat-infested hall, for the toilet” (Aulakh, 2013). The owners don’t only violate safety regulations of a factory but also human rights. Even though the act of child labours prohibited in most of the countries, sweatshops use children. Raveena Aulakh was also shocked when she saw a nine-years-old girl working in the factory,
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.
The mere idea of sweatshops, let alone their existence, seems cruel and unusual to people like us, especially in today's day and age. After all, in sweatshops "workers are subject to extreme exploitation. This includes... (not) enabling workers to cover ...
...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.
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?
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.
The lives of people in some third world countries such as Honduras and Indonesia are completely different than ours hear in a much more prosperous nation. So when citizens of this great nation hear about people working for thirty to fifty cents an hour they think it’s absolutely absurd. But what they don’t realize is that this amount of profit is acceptable to these people. David R. Henderson backs this up by stating, “Take the 31 cents an hour some 13-year-old Honduran girls allegedly earn at 70-hour-a-week jobs. Assuming a 50-week year, that works out to over $1,000 a year. This sounds absurdly low to Americans but when you consider that Honduras’s GDP per person in 1994 was the equivalent of about $600.” You can also see proof of this in Cathy Young’s article when she writes, “I have also wondered why, when we are shocked by reports of 50-cent-an-hour wages, we never think of those Save the Children ads reminding us that a contribution of $15 can feed and clothe a Third World child for a whole month.” Also, Young brings up another good point by stressing the fact that to many Third World country families having children is one more financial burden, “…in poor societies, a family cannot afford to support a child for 18 years. For virtually all of human history, most children worked…”
The General Accountability Office defines a sweatshop as a “multiple labor law violator.” A sweatshop violates laws pertaining to benefits, working hours, and wages (“Toxic Uniforms”). To make more money, companies move their sweatshop factories to different locations and try to find the cheapest locations with the least regulations (“Sweatshops”). There are not as many sweatshop factories in the United States because the industries have been transferred overseas where the labor is cheaper and there are weaker regulations. In the United States, sweatshops are hidden from the public, with poor immigrant workers who are unable to speak out against the injustices (“Subsidizing Sweatshops”). Workers in sweatshops are forced to work overtime, earn below a living wage, do not earn benefits, and encounter verbal, physical and sexual abuse. Macy’s, JCPenney, Kohl’s, The
What is found at sweatshops though, is quite the opposite. The highest wage within a sweatshop goes to the senior operators. The already low salary of a sweatshop worker, is actually decreasing, as the median wage for a senior operator at a sweatshop decreased by 29 percent from 1994 to 2010. These senior operators are of the highest rank, and according to Niagara Textiles, located in Bangladesh, now earn only 20 cents an hour, or 488 dollars per year. In fact, the same sweatshop have reports of workers being beaten for asking to receive their pay on time. They are also forced to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week, with one day off at most. These workers have the longest hours, worst treatment, and most tedious conditions and still barely get paid enough to sustain themselves, let alone families. Sweatshops are completely immoral, and are under complete violation of the codes of
Today, Americans seem to believe that olden-day slavery is the only possible form of slavery, but they do not see the horrors that go behind all the different types of modern-day slavery around the world. The most common form of slavery today is called debt-bondage, or bonded labor (Meyer, pg. 9). People who are in desperate need of money look for people who can help pay off their debt. Workers receive the pay in the advance, and then do not know how much work they will have to do in order to pay off their debt; therefore, they can never get free of their debt (Meyer, pg
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.
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