Multinational Corporations and Sweatshops - Essay Example

Multinational Corporations and Sweatshops Introduction Today industrialized countries have favored contracting out ofproduction to the suppliers in the third world countries. By doing this, the industrialized countries have contributed to international division of labor. For instance, globalization of production in apparel and footwear companies such as Reebok and Nike has led to international division of labor. Here, the two companies major in product designing and marketing but rely on a number of contractors to build shoes and sew clothes that suit their specifications. One of the chief expectations by the two companies is high quality goods. In addition, they expect the suppliers in developing countries to produce quality products within a short time or precise delivery schedule (Maitland 120). This is a trend that has been observed with nearly all multinational corporations across the globe. Indeed, in recent years these companies have forgotten about manufacturing; instead, their focus is on marketing and product designing. The labor and human rights activists have criticized this contracting arrangement. They have argued that these corporations are exploiting workers and thereby promote international sweatshops. The critics have cited a number of areas of exploitation which makes them believe that the corporations contribute to difficult and dangerous environment for workers. For example, they have pointed out that the sweatshop workers work for very long hours but with minimal pay, albeit well defined laws on minimum wage and overtime pay. Moreover, the sweatshop workers might violate the child labor laws which are highly defined and outlined. On some occasions, sweatshops may promote hazardous situations and materials. In addition, in a sweatshop setup, the employer can choose to abuse the employees without easy ways for employees’ protection. These have prompted arguments on whether corporations have minimum obligations, at most merely complying with the host country laws, or further have negative obligations to respect human rights and finally, whether they should have positive obligations to promote just background institutions. However, based on the critics discussed above, I can argue that the disagreement concerning the social responsibilities of the multinational corporations should not continue. Instead, the multinational corporations should have positive obligations to promote just backgrounds. Body Multinational companies must promote just backgrounds and ensure that their international workers enjoy a favorable work environment. They must also play major roles in ensuring that human rights activists are heard and that their international corporations also enjoy their human rights. Therefore, the multinational corporations should identify contracting practices that, if implemented, will prevent the repressive regimes that make working difficult. To start off, these corporations must ensure that the current labor standards are satisfactory to the workers and that their rights to join the labor force are fostered. These ideals cannot be achieved if the corporations continue with their current contracting practices. For instance, Kathie Lee Gifford’s clothing line cannot continue using 13 and 14 year old children to work for 20 hours a day in their factories (Maitland 120). According to Charles Kernaghnan who worked with the National Labor Coalition, these contracting practices by Kathie Lee Gilford’s company promoted child labor violations in Honduras, yet there are established child labor laws and standards. Kernigan found out that the same contracting practices are found nearly in every developing country. He further explained that the same child and labor abuse in Honduras is widespread in Central America and Africa. To improve these contracting practices, labor and human rights activists have identified that all multinational corporations have a public image that they always want to protect. For this reason, Monshipouri found that they have always failed to defend their position on their social responsibility and the constructing practices (989). Instead, they have sued for peace so that they can protect this asset in the public image. It is on this ground that multinational corporations have improved some of the poor working environment conditions. Indeed, if the corporations can comply and implement obligations as demanded by the labor and human rights activists, it is apparent that their obligations are not only subjected to minimum obligations of just complying with the host countries’ laws. Developing countries are struggling with the need to meet the unconscionable wage demand. Most of the development governments have not come up with the most suitable minimum wage which can meet the needs of their workers. Therefore, multinational companies have adopted contracting practices which allow them to exploit workers in the developing countries. For instance, the governments in these countries are sometimes just paying slave wages and starvation wages. These governments pay these little wages albeit the fact that they are little and cannot meet the needs and demands of the workers. Based on these grounds, the multinational corporations most often engage in contracting practices that allow them to use cheap labor. However, human rights activists argue that a living wage should be enough to meet the workers’ needs and support their families’ demands. The activists further argue that these multinational companies often pay enough for workers in their industrialized companies. Therefore, these companies should do the same to the workers in the developing countries. However, they are not making any attempt to address the wage gap between their workers in developed and developing countries. Thus, workers have reasoned that these companies deliberately immiserize workers in the developing countries. Furthermore, human rights activists have pointed out that multinational companies are contributing to the widened gap between the rich and the poor. Therefore, the only way for these companies to ensure equality in trade is to build just institutions. Therefore, as I had pointed earlier, these companies should not just comply with the minimum wage regulations that have been set by the developing countries. This is because these wages are insufficient for workers’ requirements. Furthermore, by doing this they promote trade inequality between the developed and the developing countries, which should not be the case. According to Maitland, “the major adverse consequence of quickening global economic integration has been widening income disparities within almost all nations” (121). Consequently, it is the accountability of the multinational corporations to ensure balanced trade. In addition, the multinational corporations must ignore the cheap labor wave and ensure human rights and labor rights are met. This is because most developing nations will create repressive regimes to woo investors. In so doing, the workers are left exposed to exploitation. This means that, the only way to overcome these disparities is by ensuring that labor needs are met and that employees are allowed to form labor unions which will promote and better their working conditions. It is significant to note that the majority will accept any pay given by the multinational corporations. This is because currently there are limited job markets which mean any opportunity that comes by is welcomed. The recent recessions and their implications have seen a number of companies lay off their workers and students drop out of schools. These factors combined have forced many workers to accept any environment condition, particularly workers in developing countries. These situations have been so dehumanizing that these individuals have found it acceptable to take any job offer. They have made employees be easily abused and exploited by their employers. This implies that, for the multinational corporations to stop these kinds of misuse and abuse of the workers, they must set up just backgrounds and institutions that will not allow for exploitation. This cannot happen if the corporations seek for minimum obligations set by the developing countries; instead, they should focus on maximum obligations if there are such obligations. However, their vital concern should be ensuring that the working environment is acceptable to employees and favors maximum production. The multinational corporations also, should yield to the pressure of human activists if they are to stop international sweatshops. This can only happen if these corporations appreciate the fact that workers in developing countries are vulnerable and accept exploitation. In fact, Maitland (121) pointed out that “…exploitation is not a concept easily comprehended because the alternative prospects for earning a living are so bleak” (Maitland 121). This means that unemployment has weakened the ability of employees to bargain for better pay. Multinationals have argued that it is acceptable to pay market wages even if they do not meet the living wage demanded by the labor activists. On the other hand, they perceive that it is unethical to pay the workers’ wages which are above the market wages. They have identified this as another form of inequality which they do not fancy. However, activists have found out this argument is based on their desire to protect their public image. Thus, I can argue that these companies believe that it is their social responsibility to protect their image than to stop the international sweatshops (Stanley, 490). Another controversy with sweatshops results when the multinational corporation fails to reveal the hazardous working conditions to the employees. The proponents to sweatshops argue that the company should not expose their products and operations to the public. However, by not doing this, workers in the factories across the globe are exposed to hazardous compounds and chemicals such as carcinogens, neurotoxins, malfunctioning equipment and other hazards. This allows me to argue that it is only human and proper for these corporations and factories to inform their workers prior to their employment of the expected work conditions. Thus, I disapprove the position that multinational corporations should only comply with the host country’s laws. Instead, the multinational companies should endeavor to improve the working standards and ensure that their institutions and work conditions are just and fair enough for their employees. Hence, I suggest that they should have two minimum obligations: first, to meet the local labor laws, and second, to disclose workplace hazards to all their employees (Arnold, 637). Conclusion As discussed above, multinational corporations are obviously doing more harm to their workers and host countries than promoting equitable trade and international development. Therefore, there is a need to improve working conditions for their international workers. However, this cannot happen when companies are still attracted to their image and still ignore the labor and human rights activists. Furthermore, they will never achieve equitable economic integration when they only focus on the host country laws. Instead, they should promote just institutions and backgrounds. As discussed above, this is the only way to end the sweatshops. Works Cited Arnold, Dennis. “Working Conditions: Safety and Sweatshops. Attached. (ND), pp. 629-638. Maitland, Ian. “The Great Non-Debate over International Sweatshops.” British Academy of Management Annual Conference Proceedings. September 1997. 240-265. Print. Monshipouri, Mahmood, Welch, Emerson, and Kennedy, Evan. “Multinational Corporations and the Ethics of Global Responsibilites: Problems and Possibilites”. Human Rights Quarterly. November, 2003. 25(4), pp. 965-989. Stanley, Dru. “Conjugal Bonds and Wage Labor: Rights of Contract in the Age of Emancipation”. The journal of American History. September, 1998. 75(2), pp 471-500. Read More