Ethical Issues at Sweatshops - Essay Example

Swaeshops and Ethics Name Class Unit Introduction Of late, there have been critics on the labor practices by the offshore manufacturing facilities (Meyers 2004, p. 320-327). Human rights organizations and labor movements have been on the frontline to criticize the operations of the sweatshops. Sweatshops are defined as any industry of factory that is in violation of labor laws. Large multinationals such as Nike and Wal-Mart have been accused of engaging in sweatshops in their supply chains. Activists have been pressuring outsourcing firms to adhere to labor laws and accord dignity to the employees in areas they outsource (Leonard & Gonzalez-Perez 2013, p. 36-38). Despite this, there have been those who have supported sweatshops claiming that those who work there makes a choice to hence it are not unethical (Newton, Englehardt & Pritchard 2010, p. 24-28). These groups have criticized those against sweatshops as biased and unrealistic. This essay argues against view that” Sweatshops cannot be unethical, because after all people choose to work in them”. Ethics Ethics refers to doing what is morally right (Grace & Cohen 2013, p. 13-21). Kantian ethical theory helps a lot in analyzing ethical issues in sweat shops. The theory conception of human dignity clearly defines the responsibilities of the employers to their employees. In this case, respecting the dignity of the employees involves ensuring that outsourcing activities are carried out through respecting labor laws, avoiding coercion, providing safety to employees and paying industry based wages. Respect for person is one of the pillars of Kant ethical principal (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). Morality involves having respect for other people. There is need to respect others since they have a right to dignity. Employees cannot be treated without respect since they have dignity which machines and capital cannot have. Human beings are responsible hence should be accorded freedom and self governance. To be ethical, the employers have to be concerned with the physical and moral wellbeing of the employees. The firms should ensure that operations at sweatshops are enhanced to meet the labor requirements where employment is free, respected and accorded their rights. It’s an obligation of the outsourcing firms to be ethical in all operations throughout their supply chain (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). Opposing For those supporting sweatshops, they claim making a choice is a transformative as it has an effect on both the legal and moral claims of those involved. This is the basis of the argument for the view. Making a choice is viewed as the autonomy of the agent practicing it. Decisions made by others are always respected as they represent their desires, goals and will. This makes it hard to interfere into a decision made by another person whether it have good or bad consequences for them (Manuel 2002, p. 13). This is the reason that if an employee makes a decision to work in a sweatshop, it becomes hard to make them change their choice. The employee choice to work under the conditions of a sweatshop shows his freedom of choice which cannot be interfered by others. For the sweatshop employees, they make the choices in order to survive. They have to work to feed their families and also educate their children. This is an indicator how their choices are important to them and the respect they deserve (Meyers, 2004, p. 320-327). The sweatshop employees’ are not in violation of anyone’s rights. Despite this, those who are against sweatshops claims to protect the rights of the employees there. In this case, the employees have a choice to ignore to be told by others. The supporters claim that it is important to give the employees autonomy they deserve in making their decisions. Any interference with the sweatshop employees’ rights is impermissible (Susan & Allen 2004, p. 306-315). Despite this, one can persuade them to reject oppressive labour practices. This will sensitize them but they have to make the final decision themselves (Gordon 2005, p. 33-36). Objections viewpoints Sweatshops are not ethical due to fact that they violate; rule of law, employers’ duty, use coercion, bad working conditions and low wages. To respect the employees’ dignity, sweatshops are supposed to follow rule of law. In developing nations where sweatshops are located, the employees’ rights are violated due to economic interest by the states. This makes it hard for employees in sweatshops to seek help when their rights are violated. Violating the employees’ rights is incompatible with the firms’ duty to respect the employees. Being indifferent to employees whose rights are being violated is denial of respect. The organisation is supposed to ensure the employees legal rights are not violated in their areas of operations. Workers cannot be used as means only according to Kant theory (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). This can be achieved through avoiding coercion as it violates workers freedom. Through coercion which is used by sweatshops, the employee is treated as a mere tool of trade. Sweatshops have been using coercion to improve productivity where employees are forced to work. There are cases where the employees work for long hours without overtime pay as they risk losing their jobs (Sluiter 2009, p. 12-14). Coercion used by sweatshops is morally objectionable since the employees cannot be used as tools for the benefit of the organisation. Workers in sweatshops are in some cases subjected to hazardous working conditions. For example, some of the sweatshops have been reported to expose workers to chemicals, pollutants and noisy places (Rosen 2002, p. 10-14). In some of the sweatshops, fire safety has not been observed. There are cases where employees are locked in to make sure they don’t leave the factory. This leads to workers being trapped in case of fire emergency. There are cases where employees in sweatshops operate in areas with toxic chemicals and other pollutants. The employees are not informed on the health hazards when they join sweatshops. Sweatshops employees have been offered low salaries. There have been complains to raise the salaries to living wages (Susan & Allen 2004, p. 306-315). Employers have a moral responsibility to ensure they compensate fairly so that employees do not live under poverty (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). This has not been the case in sweatshops where employees are underpaid hence unethical. Analysis and discussion Nike is one of the multinationals found to operate sweatshop in its supply chain. The company supply chain in Vietnam was found to violate labour laws where girls were subjected to abuse among other ill working conditions and poor pay. This case shed light into conditions under which employees in sweatshops faced. Despite this, cases of abuse in sweat shops are still common (Grace & Cohen 2013, p. 45-78). The case of Nike is a great example which shows the poor conditions which prevails in the sweatshops. Even if the employees chose to work at Nike sweatshop, the company had a moral obligation under the Kant ethical philosophy to accord dignity (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). The employees at Nike were not respected and their rights were being violated yet the company had failed to address the issue. The company had adequate resources to ensure that its employees in the supply chain were in healthy working conditions. Subjecting employees to abuse is against human rights. This is one of the areas where sweatshops have been engaging in. Most of the sweatshops as highlighted by the case still engage in practices that violate human rights such as, long working hours, denial of hospital leave and unpaid overtime (Manuel 2002, p. 13). Poor pay is a practice widespread among sweatshop as explained in the case. The employees are paid poorly yet the products that they make are extremely costly. Nike products are sold at premium prices yet the employees working on them at sweatshops are paid poorly. There are cases of invasion of cheap labour by multinationals globally. Violation of ethics is well seen in most cases such as Nike production. Use of children labour and unhealthy working conditions, poor pay and coercion are the main issues that face fast food industry. It’s evident that sweatshops have become evil of globalisation. The choice argument used cannot hold when the workers’ rights are being abused. Employees are working in conditions that are inhuman hence lowering their dignity (Manuel 2002, , p. 13). In a society that upholds human dignity as suggested by Kant theory, workers have to be respected and offered good working conditions. There are other cases which show how unethical it is to work in sweatshops such as the Haiti apparel manufacturers. L.V.Myles Corporation which was operating under Walt Disney license was accused of paying the employees less than Haiti minimum wage. The clothes produced were sold to large multinationals in US such as Wal-Mart and J.C. Penny. These are examples that show that sweatshops will remain unethical until the work in improving their working conditions (Gini & Marcoux, 2009). Conclusion The view that “Sweatshops cannot be unethical, because after all people choose to work in them” is wrong. Despite making choice to work in sweatshop, the employees have a right to dignity according to Kant ethical theory. Multinationals have an obligation to respect their workers by offering them dignity. Firms which engage in violations of labor laws, unsafe working conditions, coercion and paying low wages deny the employees dignity as well as themselves. Sweatshops are thus in violation of human dignity and respect. Despite choice of the workers being autonomous, there should be moral concern in operation of sweatshops. Organizations dealing with sweatshops in their supply chains have to ensure that they eliminate them and engage in working conditions that are able to respect employees’ rights. As seen in the case of Nike, it is morally wrong to profit from cheap labor when the firm have the capability to improve the working standards by eliminating sweatshops. References Gini, A. & Marcoux, A. M. (2009). Case studies in business ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Gordon, J. (2005). Suburban sweatshops: The fight for immigrant rights. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Grace, D & Cohen, S. (2013). Business Ethics (5th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford university press. Kant, I. & Abbott, T. K. (1979). Fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals. New York: Liberal Arts Press. Leonard, L. & Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. (2013). Principles and strategies to balance ethical, social and environmental concerns with corporate requirements. Bingley, U.K: Emerald. Manuel, G. V. (2002). 'Ethics and Business', Ch 1 of Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, (5th Edition), Prentice-Hall, pp.2-19, Meyers, C. (2004). Wrongful beneficence: Exploitation and third world sweatshops. Journal of Social Philosophy, 35(1), 319-33. Newton, L. H., Englehardt, E. E., & Pritchard, M. (2010). Taking sides: Clashing views in business ethics and society. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rosen, E. I. (2002). Making sweatshops: The globalization of the U.S. apparel industry. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sluiter, L. (2009). Clean clothes: A global movement to end sweatshops. London: Pluto Press. Susan, B. & Allen, M. (2004). 'Are Sweatshops Necessarily Evil?' Ch. 16 of Lisa, N. &Maureen, F. (Eds.) Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Business Ethics and Society, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 306-315. Read More

This makes it hard to interfere into a decision made by another person whether it have good or bad consequences for them (Manuel 2002, p. 13). This is the reason that if an employee makes a decision to work in a sweatshop, it becomes hard to make them change their choice. The employee choice to work under the conditions of a sweatshop shows his freedom of choice which cannot be interfered by others. For the sweatshop employees, they make the choices in order to survive. They have to work to feed their families and also educate their children.

This is an indicator how their choices are important to them and the respect they deserve (Meyers, 2004, p. 320-327). The sweatshop employees’ are not in violation of anyone’s rights. Despite this, those who are against sweatshops claims to protect the rights of the employees there. In this case, the employees have a choice to ignore to be told by others. The supporters claim that it is important to give the employees autonomy they deserve in making their decisions. Any interference with the sweatshop employees’ rights is impermissible (Susan & Allen 2004, p. 306-315). Despite this, one can persuade them to reject oppressive labour practices.

This will sensitize them but they have to make the final decision themselves (Gordon 2005, p. 33-36). Objections viewpoints Sweatshops are not ethical due to fact that they violate; rule of law, employers’ duty, use coercion, bad working conditions and low wages. To respect the employees’ dignity, sweatshops are supposed to follow rule of law. In developing nations where sweatshops are located, the employees’ rights are violated due to economic interest by the states. This makes it hard for employees in sweatshops to seek help when their rights are violated.

Violating the employees’ rights is incompatible with the firms’ duty to respect the employees. Being indifferent to employees whose rights are being violated is denial of respect. The organisation is supposed to ensure the employees legal rights are not violated in their areas of operations. Workers cannot be used as means only according to Kant theory (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). This can be achieved through avoiding coercion as it violates workers freedom. Through coercion which is used by sweatshops, the employee is treated as a mere tool of trade.

Sweatshops have been using coercion to improve productivity where employees are forced to work. There are cases where the employees work for long hours without overtime pay as they risk losing their jobs (Sluiter 2009, p. 12-14). Coercion used by sweatshops is morally objectionable since the employees cannot be used as tools for the benefit of the organisation. Workers in sweatshops are in some cases subjected to hazardous working conditions. For example, some of the sweatshops have been reported to expose workers to chemicals, pollutants and noisy places (Rosen 2002, p. 10-14). In some of the sweatshops, fire safety has not been observed.

There are cases where employees are locked in to make sure they don’t leave the factory. This leads to workers being trapped in case of fire emergency. There are cases where employees in sweatshops operate in areas with toxic chemicals and other pollutants. The employees are not informed on the health hazards when they join sweatshops. Sweatshops employees have been offered low salaries. There have been complains to raise the salaries to living wages (Susan & Allen 2004, p. 306-315). Employers have a moral responsibility to ensure they compensate fairly so that employees do not live under poverty (Kant & Abbott 1979, p. 13-34). This has not been the case in sweatshops where employees are underpaid hence unethical.

Analysis and discussion Nike is one of the multinationals found to operate sweatshop in its supply chain. The company supply chain in Vietnam was found to violate labour laws where girls were subjected to abuse among other ill working conditions and poor pay. This case shed light into conditions under which employees in sweatshops faced.

Read More