Sweatshop Labors and Ethical Practice Concerns - Essay Example

SWEATSHOP LABORS AND ETHICAL PRACTICE CONCERNS and SWEATSHOP LABORS AND ETHICAL PRACTICE CONCERNS Sweatshops are a common component of many economies around the world, especially developing nations. These shops or factories for that matter influence the business world in many different ways. Even though their operations vary from one place to another, the common denominator is that working conditions in sweatshops are not favourable. In most instances, working conditions in sweatshops are best described as socially unacceptable. In this respect, loving sweatshops is wrong for many and different reasons. On the same note, no conditions therein justify any love for sweatshops anywhere in the world. In order to argue against sweatshops and disapprove love for sweatshops, it is important to understand how sweatshops operate in light of their definition. According to labour experts, sweatshops are factories that violate two or more rules, regulations, or laws of labour in a given country (Mullerat, 2010). Right at the onset, sweatshops cannot be trusted to comply with labour laws. It follows, therefore, that the operations of sweatshops are questionable at different levels of concerns. Over the years, studies have shown that sweatshops are characteristic of poor working conditions (Smith, 2013). Workers are subjected to inhumane and unacceptable working environment, an aspect that spells disaster for workers. In this respect, sweatshops can hardly be expected to promote worker welfare and development over time. Based on this observation, it is difficult to argue in support of sweatshops’ operations. On the same note, considering love, or even conditions for love in that case, becomes obsolete. When poor working conditions appear, there are many different factors to consider. To start with, the issue of wages and remuneration emerges. Around the world, there is a strong connection between sweatshops and unfair wages. Almost all workers in these factories receive less than one U.S dollar for every hour of work. In contrast, the products they make sell for tens and hundreds of dollars, prices that are hardly pegged on labour. Poor pay, therefore, is one of the unfavourable experiences workers have had to face when working for sweatshop owners. Over and above poor and unfair wages, sweatshop workers face long work hours without overtime compensation. In simple terms, employee exploitation is a common practice in sweat factories. Sweatshop operators take advantage of the social and financial situations of persons seeking to work in sweatshops. This is because majority of them are poor and have few, if any, alternative jobs to turn to in their societies. Capitalizing on people’s desperation subsequently results in exploitative practices that allow sweatshops to thrive with partial or complete disregard of labour laws. In more severe cases of sweatshop operations, child labour is apparently part of the equation. Poor families try to make ends meet by all means, which often leads children to seek employment before they are eligible to work. In such situations, sweatshops are quick to embrace quick and cheap labour without considering the implications of employing child labour. In this respect, any factory or employer who takes advantage of children from a labour point of view deserves to face legal consequences. On the same note, considering love or emotional driven support for such employers should not even cross anyone’s mind. It is evident that many businesses around the world thrive under the back up of sweatshops. As businesses strive to establish long-term operations and subsequent success, sweatshop workers dedicate their efforts to work that holds no benefits for them. Many sweatshop workers put in many years of employment, but their long years of work do not translate to any benefits. For workers who do not even get overtime pay, insurance coverage and retirement benefits are unheard of. Employers in this sector value what the workers can do, but not what becomes of these workers once they cannot work anymore. Based on the above-discussed practices regarding sweatshops, it is critical to take a stand for or against these factories. All the aspects presented before this paragraph do not support a favourable ground for sweatshops. Practices associated with sweatshops, therefore, only support the opposite of love for these factories. Moreover, considering conditional love is even more critical at this point. The only conditions necessary for sweatshops is to reform their operations and dignify the value of workers. On the same note, there is need to adopt socially and legally acceptable practices of doing business. Workers constitute an important factor in the business world, an aspect that makes them valuable by all possible means. While sweatshops may not be eliminated from the face of the global society, there is need to improve working conditions and subsequently make them appropriate employment places. In so doing, tragedies such as the Bangladeshi sweatshop fire that caused hundreds of deaths could be averted. It is evident that sweatshops’ operations and their mode of managing workers are contrary to social and legal expectations. In order to understand the extent to which sweatshops influence society, it is important to look at dominant products as far as these factories are concerned. According to Esbenshade (2009), common products in the sweatshop world include toys, clothing, shoes, coffee, rugs, chocolate, and bananas. All these products essentially drive almost every aspect of the society. Based on the aforementioned observation, sweatshops benefit the society in diverse and dynamic ways. However, workers in these shops have little, if any, to show for their efforts and commitment to work. They are often disregarded and exploited as cheap means to make big economic profits. As a result, the thought of loving or even giving conditions to love of sweatshops is extremely difficult to comprehend. In other words, there should be no support of any kind to the social irresponsibility of sweatshop operators. From the most common to the most renowned entities in the world, sweatshops only spell doom than benefit for workers. In major economies such as Britain and United States, socially irresponsible behaviours of sweatshops are evident. For example, National Basketball Association jersey sewers receive 24 cents for every garment they make, and such a garment sells for up to 140 U.S dollars according to the National Labour Committee (Mullerat, 2010). This example shows the extent to which sweatshops’ conduct should not be tolerated by the society. It is important to point out that both men and women constitute sweatshops’ workforce. However, labour reports indicate that between 85 and 90 percent of sweatshop workers are women (Morriss & Estreicher, 2010). The fact that most workers in sweat factories are women introduces another socially and legally unacceptable behaviour in the sweatshop environment. Physical, verbal, and sexual abuses are common practices in sweatshops. Moreover, supervisors and managers are insensitive to men and women’s family demands. Even though men suffer abuse as well, this unacceptable behaviour is commonly directed towards due to their general vulnerability in the society. Still on women related issues, privacy and human rights are violated from time to time. As earlier mentioned, sweatshops do not provide workers with employment benefits over their period of employment. This situation leads to the violation of human and privacy rights that women should otherwise enjoy. Due to women’s high numbers in sweat factories, employers have increasingly designed ways to deny them a number of critical benefits. In a bid to deny women health and maternity leave benefits, sweatshop employers force women to undergo pregnancy tests from time to time, or even force them to observe birth control (Esbenshade, 2009). In simple terms, these employers take control of almost every aspect of employees’ lives. They simply decide what the worker should or should not do. They make personal and family related decisions for their workers. In other words, they interfere with workers’ private life in one way or another, and the primary objective is to exploit all possible aspects of workers’ lives. From an individual, social, or economic point of view, there is no excuse for these types of behaviour by sweatshops. Whenever legal arguments emerge, it is important to cite specific legal provisions that support or disapprove a behaviour or conduct. In the case of sweatshops, the most influential legal provisions address minimum wage, overtime, and safety and health laws. Based on the arguments presented in this paper so far, none of these laws is accorded adequate attention in the world of sweatshops. In fact, between 2000 and 2013, hundreds and thousands of sweatshops have continuously violated minimum wage, overtime, and safety laws across America, Britain, and Asia (Smith, 2013). Disregard for laws and workers’ welfare present sweatshops as unaccountable and irresponsible, thereby jeopardizing any positive arguments that could stand in support of their role in the society. Amid increased disregard for labour laws, it is evident that some countries have better labour laws than others. In particular, Britain and America have stronger labour laws than many developing or underdeveloped countries. However, strong labour laws do not imply absence of sweatshops by any means. Britain and America face sweatshop related challenges just like any other developing or underdeveloped country. This shows that negative practices by sweatshops are deeply embedded in many economies around the world. Arguments calling for the improvement of sweatshop operations are common to come by in different countries around the world. Different stakeholders argue that sweatshops could become better employment environments if appropriate steps are taken to reverse the usual sweatshop behaviour. The downside to such arguments, however, is that sweatshops operate in a rather complicated level of the society. Majority of persons employed in sweatshops live well below the poverty line. What this means is that these people can hardly afford to meet their basic needs. Upon receiving their paycheck, majority of sweatshop workers dedicate their income to the survival of their families. In other words, food and shelter constitute the top priority for majority of poor families. With basic needs coming first, these workers are left with nothing to save. They have no means to improve their lives because every paycheck has pending needs to meet in the family. In light of the poverty factor, sweatshops cannot be the solution to poverty. If anything, these shops only push families deep into financial crisis. Workers endure long work hours that are poorly paid. At the same time, there are unlimited needs that need to be met with hardly adequate income. In this respect, every day becomes a struggle for sweatshop workers who work and survive today without necessarily making plans for the future. Another way to address the problem would be to offer better pay for sweatshop workers. However, such a move would not produce significant positive results. For example, sweatshop owners could decide to double or triple workers’ salaries. While such a move appears positive in nature, the bigger picture is more negative than positive. As earlier highlighted, sweatshop employees earn less than one U.S dollar for every hour of work. This makes labour a minimal determinant of the final product price. Specifically, doubling salaries for sweatshop workers would increase product price on the consumer side by approximately 1.8% (Esbenshade, 2009). Going by market prices for sweatshop products, price increases following salary increment for sweatshop workers is relatively insignificant. Such a strategy, therefore, would not address the critical concerns associated with sweatshop operations. On the same note, there is need to factor in consumer’s preferences, interests, concerns, and needs as far as sweatshops are concerned. In conclusion, Esbenshade (2009) notes that consumers would rather part with up to 15% more in product prices than enjoy cheap prices for products made in sweatshops. In other words, buyers are ready to pay a higher premium just to avoid sweatshops. This shows that majority of consumers especially in the developed world do not support sweatshop behaviours and/or practices. Based on this observation, the society is more than willing to avoid products that have ties with sweatshops. In light of the arguments presented in this paper, it is evident that sweatshops cause the society more harm than good. Exploiting the poor cannot be a means of addressing poverty. On the same note, denying workers their basic rights only worsens their social and economic welfare. In that regard, it is wrong to love sweatshops and no conditions whatsoever would justify an otherwise position as far as socially unacceptable behaviours and practices are concerned. References Esbenshade, J. L. (2009). Monitoring Sweatshops: Workers, Consumers, and the Global Apparel Industry, Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Morriss, A. P. & Estreicher, S. (2010). Global Labour and Employment Law for the Practicing Lawyer: Proceedings of the New York University 61st Annual Conference on Labour, Volume 61, South Holland: Kluwer Law International. Mullerat, R. (2010). International Corporate Social Responsibility: The Role of Corporations in the Economic Order of the 21st Century, South Holland: Kluwer Law International. Smith, V. (2013). Sociology of Work: An Encyclopaedia, London: SAGE Publications. Reflective Review The group presentation was an informative and highly successful exercise. This activity highlighted critical activities that take place in a typical business and employment environment. As highlighted during the presentation, there are many different players in different sectors in the society. A common ground, however, is that different people seek to meet diverse needs using resources available in the society. This is where business and social interactions meet. Every member of the group made a significant contribution to the success of the team. Bring together diverse arguments and opinions, the group found a point of balance in the presentation. In other words, the final presentation featured the efforts of every member, an aspect that promoted unity and sense of responsibility among group members. On the same note, the presentation served the purpose of creating awareness on just how much diversity among group members works to the best interest of the group. It is important to consider aspects that made the presentation successful. To start with, it was evident that business enterprises operate in diverse and dynamic cultural, social, economic, legal, and political settings. All these factors affect the progress of an enterprise from time to time. Amid all these factors, the society emerged as a critical factor to account for at all times. This was in the form of social responsibility and compliance with the expectations of the society. Establishing a connection between the society and the business world showed the extent to which businesses can harm societies and how societies can build or break businesses. At a personal level, some aspects of the presentation were disturbing especially in regards to the exploitation of poor populations by major business players. The emergence and proliferation of sweatshops and similar enterprises is discouraging. These types of conduct by businesses call for adequate, effective, and efficient monitoring, regulation, and control. As businesses strive to minimize operating costs, it is evident that labour is a relatively insignificant determinant of product price. There is need to promote worker welfare alongside pursuing economic profits. Finally yet importantly, I believe social responsibility is not optional. Just as much as businesses want consumers to buy, they should be cautious of social factors that play a role in enhancing business prospects. Economic profits cannot outweigh human rights, proper working environment, and healthy lives. All the society needs is a balance between all those factors that drive business and economies in the society. The presentation highlighted all critical aspects of poverty, labour in both developed and developing worlds, and social responsibility in the contemporary world. From there henceforth, there is a dire need to make an impact in the world right from an individual effort. At a personal level, the group presentation served as an eye-opener to contemporary business trends and their effects on the larger society. Read More