The Arguments for and against International Fair Wage and Employment Standards Codes - Essay Example

Discuss the Arguments For and Against International “Fair Wage” And Employment Standards s (i.e., Anti-Sweatshop Rules) Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 3 Thesis Statement 4 Argument for International “Fair Wage” and Employments Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules 4 Argument against International “Fair Wage” and Employments Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules 7 Justification of the Idea behind Employee Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules 9 Design, Implementation and Enforcement of Employment Standard Codes 10 Conclusion 11 Works Cited 13 Introduction It has been observed that human beings are mainly concerned about their well being which is often deciphered through their status position as compared to their peers. In this regard wage comparison is often argued to play a major role. It is in this context that the employer-employee relationship is primarily based on an exchange agreement, where the workers provide their valuable services to the company in exchange of fair compensation. When workers develop the perception that the compensation received in exchange to the effort rendered in performing the job is insufficient, it hinders their morale towards the organization and their motivation as well. This is quite likely to adversely affect the productivity and ultimately affect the performance of the organization causing ethical issues in the working environment in relation to human rights. It has been with this concern that the concept of “Fair wage” was developed (Grossman and Helpman, “Fair Wages and Foreign Sourcing”). This particular developed in the working environment can be well-described with reference to the occurrence of sweatshop movement during the 19th century (Miller, “Why Economists Are Wrong about Sweatshops and the Anti-Sweatshop Movement”). Thesis Statement The sole intention of this essay is to argue on the basis of international “fair wage’ and employment standards taking in to account both favorable and opposing views to the issue. With reference to the occurrence of anti-sweatshop movement, the discussion henceforth will emphasize on explaining if the implemented employment codes were effective along with rational assessment of the relevant aspects. Following the findings in this regard, the discussion will also precise certain specific recommendations to mitigate the limitations and facilitate the positive of implementing the international “fair wage” and employment standard codes. Argument for International “Fair Wage” and Employments Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules Researchers have often assumed that employers are always ethically appreciative to pay fair wages to the employees whenever possible, in order to keep them motivated and satisfied. However, in the practical scenario, the working environment situations have repeatedly been witnessed to depict the authoritarian power led malpractices conducted by employers in terms of employee exploitation. A best example to this context has been the anti-sweatshop movement which resulted in the establishment of certain rules in terms of international “fair wages’ and employment standards with the intention to protect the human rights and welfare of employees along with rendering due significance towards employers’ interests (Miller, “Why Economists Are Wrong about Sweatshops and the Anti-Sweatshop Movement”). The anti-sweatshop rules illustrate that the global pay system is based on three fundamental principles which include paying for the job, paying in accordance with the skills and competencies of the employees or workers and paying in context of the market value. Based on these principles, the concept of international “fair wage” was derived which renders due significance towards the ethical business conduct and also towards the transparency in employer-employee relationship. Fair wages can be illustrated as the wage rate which is above the minimum wages offered in a particular region for a particular job responsibility, but are below the standard wage required for bearing the living cost in that region. The lower limit of the fair wages is the minimum wages that the company pays and the upper limit of it is the maximum that the company can pay (Deb 303). Hence, it can be stated that the witnessed scenario of slavery could be minimized with the implementation of international “fair wages” by enforcing international guidelines owing to which employers were restricted to exploit labors conducting unethical behavior. It is worth mentioning in this context that the implementation of anti-sweatshop rules concentrating on international “fair wages” and employee standard codes to the employees not only minimized the associated risks of work, but also enhanced the loyalty of the workers towards the company which in turn raised significant opportunities for the company to attain sustainable growth. Moreover, the concepts also proved vital for companies in terms of developing a productive work culture. The fair wage system and other anti-sweatshop rules concerning employment standards also aimed at assisting organizations to retain productive workers, preventing wage based issues, and increasing the stability of the labor which in turn played a vital role in enhancing the quality of the products/services offered and make the company more competitive (Fair Labor Association, “Fair Wages”). Correspondingly, in relation to employment standard codes implemented in the aftermath of anti-sweatshop rules, are also quite beneficial to employees. The enforced rules specified that the agreement of employment would connote all the clauses regarding the job which includes daily wages of the employees as well as rules and regulations practiced within the organization which is required to be agreed upon by both the employer and the employees prior to the establishment of the relationship legally. These codes mainly enable both the employees and the employee to understand their rights and responsibilities in the workplace including the obligations of the employer to consider employee treatment as one of its ethical and moral duties (Blowfield, “Implementation Deficits of Ethical Trade System”). From a critical perspective, it can be stated that the implemented international fair wages and the employment standard codes played a vital role towards ensuring an ethical working environment. Contextually, by explicitly defining the rights of employees and the responsibilities of employers, these codes were quite effective in minimizing the ethical issues within the working environment which in turn proved quite beneficial in raising managerial control of organizations on the various aspects related to its effective business functions (Blowfield, “Implementation Deficits of Ethical Trade System”). These standards were also helpful in developing the attention of employers towards Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) which in turn facilitated the construction of fair working environment in the international arena (Bendell, “In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility”). Argument against International “Fair Wage” and Employments Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules In relation to the employment codes enacted in the aftermath of the anti-sweatshop movement, critiques have often argued that apart from the positive impacts, the rules also caused significant issues in the employment environment in the international context. This policy was introduced to ensure that companies pay its workers or employees the wages and benefits that they deserve from companies in accordance to their work. With this concern, the anti-sweatshop rules emphasized on communicating and making initial agreements between employers and employees with regard to the attributes constituted within the working environment. However, in real life practices, such agreements were observed to be subjected to various other aspects such as the economic conditions of the region which determined the wage requirements of the employees, educational skills of the labors so as to assist them in identifying and appropriately making use of their human rights as well as legal specifications of the local, state-level and national government in controlling the employment practices. It has fundamentally been due to these reasons that even though the rules enacted were successful in mitigating the ethical issues being extensively witnessed in the global employment practices to a certain extent, in the long run scenario, the rules failed in preserving a fair working environment. It has further been noted in this regard that these policies were beneficial to have an impact on a certain section of employees in the global realm; whereas, a large percentage of people remained isolated from the benefits of this policy (Powell, “In Reply To Sweatshop Sophistries”). The imposition of these rules were also criticized on the basis that it was the sole decision of people to work in an environment which is not fair in terms of the employment practices or in terms of the health concerns. Therefore, the intervention by third parties, such as governmental bodies, social organizations, and other similar groups to develop a fair employment environment was unjust. These kinds of arguments can be based on the understanding that even though the implemented codes were effective upon certain groups of workers directly related to sweatshops in the short-run, the practices failed disruptively in the long run in compensating the losses incurred by both the companies and the employees owing to the continuous boycott series resulted from the movement (Zwolinski, “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation”). In the similar context, it has often been argued that the employment standard codes proved to be harsh on the part of the employers forcing them to pay the promised wages or salaries irrespective of its low productivity or losses and thus, increasing the burden of budget deficit on the organizations (Powell, “In Reply To Sweatshop Sophistries”). Moreover, simultaneous considerations required to be rendered by the organization is rendering appropriate wages and providing employees with a safe and comfortable working condition, made it more challenging and complex for managers (Block, “Negative Impacts of Minimum Wage and Anti Sweatshop Legislation”). Justification of the Idea behind Employee Standard Codes in Relation to Anti-Sweatshop Rules Anti-sweatshop is a movement that is conducted to enhance the conditions of the people working in sweatshops as well as other industries in the global context. Undoubtedly, the codes specified in response to the anti-sweatshop movement proved beneficial in attracting the organizational concerns towards employers’ ethical responsibilities and the sustainable benefits of preserving a fair employment environment. The codes which were principally depicted through these standards were focused on the compensation scheme practiced by organizations which further gave rise to the concept of fair wages. From a general perspective, the implementation of fair wages can be affirmed as a good idea as it aimed at minimizing or rather discouraging the practice of employee exploitation, making it obligatory for companies to render a minimum wage which would be enough to stabilize the life of the workers. Similarly, certain employment codes were also imposed in the post anti-sweatshop movement with the intention to build transparency in the employer-employee relationship emphasizing upon mutual benefits. Thus, based on these understandings, the idea can be regarded as good. However, from a critical point of view, these notions or ideas can be contradicted emphasizing on its long run effects which have been apparently disappointing when concerning the gap of the obtained results from the implementation of these codes and the expectations when designing the same. For instance, irrespective of the enforcement of anti-sweatshop laws focusing on employee welfare and fair working environment, the occurrence of Wal-Mart’s and Levi Strauss’s labor related malpractices in Bangladesh, British Petroleum’s failure to ensure workplace safety and similar other hazards have proved that the implemented codes were of least effects (Lahiri and Al-Mahmood, “Bangladesh: How Rules Went Astray”; Nielsen, “The Politics Of Corporate Responsibility And Child Labor In The Bangladeshi Garment Industry”; Urminsky, “Public Policy, Reporting And Disclosure Of Employment And Labor Information By Multinational Enterprises (MNEs)”). Moreover, these codes can also be stated to impose an increased burden of maintaining industrial standards on employers irrespective of the economic conditions or business losses which has resulted in the collapse of many companies (Powell, “In Reply To Sweatshop Sophistries”). Hence, from an overall perspective, the ideas can be referred as good, but due to the lacuna in its directives concerning its effective implementations, the ideas can be criticized as a failure as well. Design, Implementation and Enforcement of Employment Standard Codes Concerning the limitations in the ideas implemented to support better employment environment and minimization of employee exploitation, the employment standard codes would have to be designed with due consideration towards the requirements and needs of both the parties involved, i.e. employers and the employees along with taking into account the various influencing factors which might influence the working circumstances in the practical scenario. The welfare of both the parties should be considered before developing the codes. In general, employment standard codes include the responsibilities of the employees towards the organization, working hours of the workers, the minimum standard wages, payment for overtime, and rest hours of the employees. Contextually, the codes should also contain the policies of the organization regarding leaves such as parental leaves, paid leaves and general holidays among others (Lund-Thomson, “The Global Sourcing and codes of Conduct Debate: Five Myths and Five Recommendations”). The codes also contain the rules and regulations that workers need to perform in the workplace to maintain a transparent and healthy relation with their employers. It can be collectively stated that all the basic factors are to be included in the employment standard codes during its designing. Additionally, specific directives and conditions should be mentioned in order to execute the employment standard codes effectively with the assistance of local, state-level as well as national governmental bodies. From an overall perspective, it is quite necessary that both the employers and the employees understand their responsibilities towards each other and the society as well as the economy at large. Conclusion With reference to the above discussion, it can be summarized that the concepts of fair wages and employment standard codes, have both positive as well as negative impacts for employers and employees in the real life context. Subsequently, it can be noticed that the fair wage concept has been quite beneficial for the workers as it enabled them to be benefitted with minimized exploitation and better human rights, even though in the long-run it was observed that least attention was paid to these codes which led to various instances depicting labor maltreatments. Moreover, in the aftermath of anti-sweatshop movement, the employment standard codes also acted towards facilitating the employees as well as the employers to minimize ethical issues in the workplace which combatively denoted the ideas as highly moral. However, in its later years, the codes were observed to lose their significance in the working cultures which further caused various employment issues in the global context, making its negative impacts in terms of increased burden on employers, complexities in the employer-employee relation and similar other consequences more apparent to its international users. It is worth mentioning in this context, even though the ideas were enforced with a moral motive, its execution possessed certain limitations or gaps which needs to be taken into account with the aim of developing the codes as more beneficial for both employers and employees in the modern day contexts. Works Cited Block, Walter. Negative Impacts of Minimum wage And Anti Sweatshop legislation. Emerald Insight (2007): 83-92. Print. Blowfield, Michael. “Implementation Deficits of Ethical Trade System.” Journal of Corporate Citizenship (2004): 77-90. Print. Bendell, Jem. “In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Development in Practice 15.3/4 (2005): 362-374. Print. Deb, Tapomoy. Strategic Approach to Human Resource Management. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2006. Print. Fair Labor Association. “Fair Wages.” FLA Assessment Portal (2010): 1-3. Print. Grossman, Gene M. and Helpman, Elhanan. “Fair Wages and Foreign Sourcing.” Weatherhead Centre for International Affairs (2007): 1-30. Print. Lahiri, Tripti. and Al-Mahmood, Syed Zain. Bangladesh: How Rules Went Astray. The Wall Street Journal, 2012. Web. 9 March 2013. Lund-Thomson, Peter. “The Global Sourcing and codes of Conduct Debate: Five Myths and Five Recommendations.” Institute of Social Studies 39.6 (2008): 1005-1018. Print. Miller, John. “Why Economists Are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement”. Challenge, Vol. 46, No.1 (2003): 93-122. Nielsen, Michael E. “The Politics of Corporate Responsibility and Child Labor In The Bangladeshi Garment Industry”. International Affairs 81 (2005): 559-580. Print. Powell, Benjamin. “In Reply To Sweatshop Sophistries.” Human Rights Quarterly 28 (2006): 1032-1042. Print. Urminsky, Michael D. “Public Policy, Reporting and Disclosure of Employment and Labor Information by Multinational Enterprises (MNEs)”. Working Paper No. 99 (2005). Print. Zwolinski, Matt. “Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation.” Business Ethics Quarterly 17.4 (2007). 689-727. Print. Read More