Sweatshops and Violation of Human Rights - Assignment Example

Sweatshops And Violation Of Human Rights Sweatshops are factories that employ workers at low wages for long hours and under poor conditions. The thought of sweatshops brings to mind small confined rooms in a factory where many people work tirelessly, without enough break times. The rooms are filled with an air that is heavy and stinks of dampness and filth. People appear reluctant to work and lively chatters and laughter are amiss. Everyone is looking down at their tasks like chicken thrown in their cages, pecking at the feed. As much as we can sympathize with people who suffer from the sweating system, the issue of sweatshops has remained controversial and better alternatives to these are still elusive. The opponents of sweatshops argue that under no circumstance, the rights and dignity of human beings should be violated by exploiting poor people’s labor and forcing them to work under dangerous conditions at low wages. On the other hand, proponents assert that without jobs in sweatshops, there are only far worse alternatives such as prostitution, crime, or even starvation. Are sweatshops and slave labor acceptable or even justifiable? In most ways, considering moral judgments, the answer would be a conclusive 'no'; however, it also depends on the economic and cultural contexts of individuals and countries, making it acceptable in some ways. Stopping the poorest people from working in dangerous environments as an excuse for protecting them from low wages, hazardous circumstances, and abuses is not the ultimate solution for them; instead, they should be provided with better choices and alternatives that would eventually allow them and their country to stand on their own feet. When it comes to the matter of slave labor, or sweatshops, it is difficult to determine precisely what sweatshops actually mean. The U.S. General Accounting Office defines a sweatshop as “an employer that violates more than one federal or state law governing minimum wage and overtime, child labor, industrial homework, occupational safety and health, workers compensation, or industry regulation.” However, it seems very unreasonable and unrealistic to apply this standard to people in poor countries, as they have a very low standard of living and are desperately in need of jobs to sustain their daily livelihood. Hence, it is vital to understand the concept of sweatshops from their point of view, to ascertain what they actually need to survive, and what can practically benefit them in the long term. Opponents of sweatshops believe that buying products from sweatshops is immoral. They thus urge others to purchase from places that guarantee minimum wages, appropriate working hours, proper working conditions, and minimum working ages. However, in case of poor countries, boycotting products from sweatshops can result in depriving the people of their only jobs. That is, if people purposely avoid sweatshop products, believing that it will help in eliminating slave labor, it will only have adverse effects on the people's livelihoods. External pressure from human rights organizations to improve the labor standards and low wages will cost the companies heavily. As a result of the decrease in profits and increased production costs that result from improvements in the employees’ working conditions and wages, it is more likely that the companies will close their factories. Therefore, in spite of the good intentions of the opponents of slave labor, their misguided actions and arguments can take away the livelihoods of poor people, subjecting them to far worse alternatives such as prostitution, crime, and scavenging dumpsites, apart from starvation. Nicholas D. Kristof, a renowned columnist for The New York Times, argues that many people in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, actually live at dumpsites to pick up recyclable garbage to earn money. The author asserts that because there are not enough sweatshops to hire these people, they risk their lives in terribly unsanitary and dangerous environments for their survival. Finally, he urges that there is a need to promote more sweatshops in Cambodia and other poor countries so that underprivileged people can have better jobs than as garbage-scavengers at dumpsites for overcoming their poverty. At the end of his article, he quotes a 13 years old girl, Neuo Chanthou, who determinedly says, “a factory is better.” This statement explicitly and effectively shows the importance of understanding the issue from their point of view, in order to discover realistic and practical solutions, as the fundamental rights and dignity of humans are at question if they are forced to live at dumpsites. Although many people are concerned about low wages, sub-standard working conditions, and excessive working hours at sweatshops, it is an undeniable fact that such jobs are the only remaining means of escaping extreme poverty. Those who oppose the purchase of products from sweatshops overlook the fact that they are actually enforcing their points of view on poor people. Most of the people in countries such Indonesia and Cambodia spend less than a dollar a day. This means that they have lower living standards than the U.S. According to Benjamin Powell, Economics professor at Suffolk University, sweatshops can actually ensure better wages and better lives for poor people. His research described in the article, “In Defense of Sweatshops”, clearly demonstrates that, on an average, people who are working in sweatshops are earning more than most others. Powell further asserts that in Cambodia, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Honduras, sweatshops are paying two times more than the average national income. Thus, since sweatshops can provide better lives to poor people, financially, it is important to focus on how their working conditions can be improved rather than abolishing the sweatshops themselves, as they are the only means of livelihood for most people. Moreover, by allowing companies and economies to grow through cheap labor and less production costs, they can later re-invest their profits into better materials and working conditions for improving the productivity of the workers. Furthermore, workers can demand better working conditions owing to the fact that they have the option to move on to other jobs, since economic growth translates into more factories. Therefore, as the economies grow and the factories make profits, it would be economically feasible to improve the working environments and wages of workers at sweatshops. Another reason for supporting sweatshops in poor countries is that sweatshops can lay the foundation for not only economic growth but also for the promotion of their own industries. As Kristof claims, the best way to put an end to extreme poverty in poor countries is by promoting their own industries. Although hard to believe initially, sweatshops can bring this goal to realization through the provision of infrastructures, technologies, and educational opportunities. When a company initiates a sweatshop in a poor country, it can have a substantially positive influence on the country's economy. Firstly, infrastructures such as transportation facilities can be provided by the company for the supply of materials to the factory. Secondly, facilities for the management and production of products, and other infrastructures such as those for information and communications can be established. Moreover, a company can introduce technologies essential for the production of their products by sweatshops, and these in turn could prove to be good opportunities for people who lack education and skills, as they can acquire new skills and learn to operate new technologies. Consequently, after acquiring new skills and with the use of appropriate infrastructures and technologies, they can have their own manufacturing units that may ultimately progress into industries. It is thus a very fundamental stage for them, wherein, they can establish their own industries and develop their economies. South Korea is a great example of how a poor country can develop its own manufacturing industry. After the Japanese empire lost in World War II, South Korea was freed from the colonialism of Japan. However, South Korea was devastated by the war between Japan and China, and it had no natural or other resources, except for a cheap, labor-intensive market. Besides, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Additionally, South Korea was socially and politically unstable because of North Korea’s constant armed provocation. Despite these difficulties, the South Korean government tried to attract multinational companies with cheap labor costs, as it was the only way to survive and escape from dire poverty. Many companies established their factories, such as apparel factories and wig factories, in South Korea. As the country began producing and exporting products to other countries, the government focused on the technologies brought in by the multinational companies and encouraged people to learn new skill sets and develop their own manufacturing industries. As the South Korean economy gradually grew, the government promoted and prepared capital-intensive factories to increase the productivity of labor. Companies were directed to raise the wages and working standards of their workers. This was feasible not only because of the economic growth that improved the labor productivity, but also because it resulted in increased profits for the companies. Consequently, accumulated technologies and skills enabled South Korea to start its own industries for a wide-ranging variety of products, including wigs, toys, clothing, and small radios. As the economy improved during the 1970s and 1980s, the government directed domestic companies into acquiring more and more heavy industries such as automobile and shipbuilding industries. By the 1990s, South Korea improved its economy significantly, and became a stably industrialized country. In addition, the South Korean government and manufacturers made a major shift in their future production plans toward high-technology industries by focusing on information intensive industries such as computer semiconductor, computer programming, and information processing services. As a result of these efforts, the South Korean market economy was estimated to be the 15th largest in the world. South Korea thus started its own industries with the help of a cheap, labor-intensive market and benefited from the advantages of advanced technologies and infrastructures offered by multinational companies. It can certainly be a role model for most poor countries today. In light of these facts, sweatshops must be promoted in poor countries so they can develop their own economies and future industries. However, the argument that sweatshops should be promoted in poor nations is still contentious because there is always a possibility that multinational corporations could take advantage of poor people who are vulnerable to inhumane treatment. Typically, in third world countries, working standards are hardly assured due to the incompetency of governments. In addition, greedy companies can easily infringe upon the fundamental rights of the low-wage workers. In other words, when a company has stronger power over a vulnerable group of people, the company tends to abuse its power to maximize its monetary profits. This self-centered and insatiable nature of human beings is clearly illustrated by Voltaire in his book, Candide: or Optimism, in which the main character, Candide, encounters a black slave on his way to Surinam with his servant Cacambo. He later hears about the cruel reality of slavery, and about how people abuse their power over others in brutal ways just for the sake of their self-interests. Moreover, Cunegonde and most other female characters are sexually abused by men with power. From the story of Candide, Voltaire tries to convey the message that people with power and money are more likely to be tempted by greed, and it leads them into violating and suppressing the basic rights of others. For this reason, sweatshops in third world countries should be strictly monitored. The working conditions, standards, and health conditions of workers should be constantly improved as the economy grows. Furthermore, the government, companies, and NGOs should monitor whether the companies are working towards the improvement of labor standards gradually as they witness an increase in profits. Even though sweatshops are appalling, they are better alternatives to crime, prostitution, and working in garbage dumps. Working in sweatshops is often the last and only resort for most underprivileged individuals as a means of livelihood. While the fundamental needs of the poor for food, shelter, and clothing are not satisfied, and they find sweatshops as the only means of livelihood, others cannot enforce their judgments upon them. There is a need to understand their situations and circumstances. It is necessary to acknowledge the fact that sweatshops could be the only hope for them to rise from poverty to wealth, just as South Korea did 30 years ago. Hence, while companies offer job opportunities for the poor, they should try to improve their lives as well as the economy of the country. Thus, with technologies, capital, and infrastructures introduced by new companies, poor countries will be able to develop their own manufacturing industries, and these will boost economic growth, ultimately raising the living standards of workers. Works Cited Kristof, Nicholas D. “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company. 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 19 Jan. 2012 Powell, Benjamin. “In Defense of Sweatshops.” Library of Economics and Liberty. Liberty Fund, Inc. 2 June. 2008. Web. 18 Jan.2012. Voltaire [Francois Marie Arouet]. Candide: Or Optimism. Trans. Peter Constantine. New York: Random House, 2005. Print. Read More