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. Although many U.S. citizens do not know or do not believe that the U.S. has sweatshops, they do exist, many are in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles (Background on Sweatshops). Sweatshops grew in popularity during the Industrial Revolution because farmers left their land to acquire new jobs in factories (Sweatshops). The global economy should not depend on sweatshops, instead developed nations that obtain services from overseas sweatshops should improve the working conditions and provide a living wage for their workers. II. Background History Due to the large increase of immigrants in the United States in the 1800s, sweatshops started to develop in the East Coast cities. The immigrants that were mostly targeted to work in sweatshops came from European countries. These immigrants were not forced to work in sweatshops with poor working conditions, but they had few other choices because most of them were unskilled laborers in a new country. This situation facilitated the growth of sweatshops. Social and economic conditions in cities made it possible for sweatshops owners to choose from a large desperate population of workers willi... ... middle of paper ... ...oup.com/ic/ovic/ReferenceDetailsPage/ReferenceDetailsWindow?zid=19404905dc531f1b8af14f1bbd4490f1&action=2&catId=GALE%7C00000000LVZ8&documentId=GALE%7CPC3021900163&userGroupName=p1841&jsid=f8d20a8f5e8c472f6ec251356fd9ca23>. “Sweatshops Are the Norm in the Global Apparel Industry. We’re Standing up to Change That.” International Labor Rights Forum. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. . “Uncle Sam’s Sweatshops.” The Opinion Pages. The New York Times, 29 Dec. 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. . Velasquez, James. “Minimum Wage Debate: How Sweatshops Are Actually Good for the Poor.” Policy Mic. N.p., 9 June 2012. Web. 7 Feb. 2014. .
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
...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.
When you go to the mall to pick up a pair of jeans or a shirt, do you think about where they came from? How they were made? Who made them? Most consumers are unaware of where their clothes are coming from. All the consumer is responsible for is buying the clothing from the store and most likely have little to no knowledge about how it was manufactured, transported, or even who made the clothing item and the amount of intensive labor that went into producing it (Timmerman, 3). In my paper, I will utilize the book Where Am I Wearing? by Kelsey Timmerman and the textbook Cultural Anthropology: A Toolkit for a Global Age by Kenneth J. Guest to examine globalization in the context of the clothing industry.
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.
The first perspective, or source, is a short paragraph that can be described as a pro-globalization view. It goes to say that Sweatshops are adequate enough for the moment, yet soon will expire because of better job choices and economic awareness. The writer compares sweatshops with mines and mills from the 19th century, as to bring public to the view that sweatshops will eventually be overruled by better options such as higher paying jobs, and human rights such as child protection and reasonable working hours.
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?
Sweatshops, when left to operate without government intervention, are the most efficient way out of poverty especially in developing countries. This argument may feel far fetched, but when examined in the context of those working at sweatshops and the locations sweatshops are most often constructed in, the reason why this is true is apparent. The benefits of sweatshops can be found by examining how they increase living conditions, examining the locations where sweatshops are constructed, and looking at how government regulations on factories don’t help anyone.
... by groups that convince Americans that “sweatshops” are terrible – while unaware of the true picture (an important fact to consider is that many anti-sweatshop groups are heavily funded by organized labor groups).
Many people in our society today are constantly asking, "Why do sweatshops exist?" The answer to this question is that companies like Nike and Wal-Mart use sweatshops to produce their goods for a much cheaper rate, to reduce the cost of their products. The problem with sweatshops is that the workers are subject to hard work in often times poor conditions for minimal pay. But although many people may condemn sweatshops, there are some advantages that many people overlook when arguing against sweatshops and their practices.
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
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
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.