Why Sweatshops Are Good for the Poor - Literature review Example

Sweatshops Name Course Name and Code Instructor’s Name Date Sweatshops are places of employment that offer low pay, inflexible working conditions as well as long working hours (Jones and Malones, 2010). According to many economists, sweatshops have been perceived to benefit the poor as well as developing countries. It is also clear that anti-sweat shop movements can reduce employment opportunities in developing countries. From an economic perspective, sweatshops can be viewed as an exchange in which both employers and workers gain when they enter in the market voluntarily, even if the wage may be too low. However, much of the scholarly work regarding sweatshop has been focused on the wages employees get. Some authors argue that after regulating other factors, multinational firms pay more than the domestic firms in developing countries. Mobilization against exploitation at work place has spawned numerous grassroots movements; the most famous movement in this case is the anti-sweatshop movement (Claire, n.d). Anti-sweatshop movements champion for better working conditions, better pay as well as accountability and transparency of practices by the owners and the management (Jones and Malones, 2010). Many small operations supply big companies with whole or parts of the products that are made under questionable circumstances. Even though, the advocates for reform are diligent they have a daunting task. In most cases, the exposed sweatshops shut down overnight and reopen in another place under a new name (Jones and Malones, 2010). There has been an argument that those corporations buying goods from these firms claim that suppliers using the sweatshop tactics may not be part of the corporation, therefore suggesting that corporations which are not accountable therefore making social transformation intricate. In order to counter this rhetoric it requires both imaginative and inventive strategies (Jones and Malones, 2010). Environmental concerns have become more intricate in the present globalized world. Many sweatshops are located in places with low environmental standards (Jones and Malones, 2010). However, there are dangers associated with low environmental standards upon the individuals operating in the specific environments. Additionally, producing goods in nations that have low environmental standards implies that there will be increased use of transportation fuels so that the commodities can be moved around the world. According to Roberts, Moser LePan and Buzzad (2011, 478) they state that no story illustrates the growing distrust of the culture of corporate branding more than the international anti-Nike, this is the most known as well as tenacious of the brand-based campaigns. According to the Roberts, Moser LePan and Buzzad (2011, 478), Nike’s sweatshop scandals has been subject of discussion in more than 1500 new articles as well as opinion columns. Nike's Asian factories have been probed by cameras from major media houses such as ESPN, CBS, and Disney’s sports station. Additionally, Nike has been subject to various Doonesbury cartoon strips as well as butt of Michael Moore’s documentary The big One. Consequently, a number of people in Nike’s PR section are dealing with the sweatshop controversy. This involves, fielding grievances, meeting local groups as well as developing Nike’s responses (Jones and Malones, 2010). The company has established a new executive post, vice president for corporate responsibility (CCCE, 2013). The authors of The Broadview Anthology of Expository Prose claim that Nike has received thousands of letters of protest. It has also been faced with several group demonstrations and it is the target of several critical web sites. In Europe and North America anti-Nike forces have made attempts of scattering swoosh bashing on a single day. At an interval of six months, anti-Nike forces have declared an International Nike day of Action and they have used this platform to demand for fair wages as well as independent monitoring directly to Nike’s customers (Jones and Malones, 2010). All these were as a result of poor working conditions. It would be prudent if Nike would reconsider their strategy and ensure that the workers are satisfied since they are the ones who run the company. To some extent, sweatshops are good for the poor since they help them escape poverty by creating employment (Zwolinski, 2012). Velasquez in his article entitled “Minimum wage debate: How sweatshops are actually good for the poor” he states that there are some governments that have set minimum wage. However, the government does not provide adequate employment opportunities for its citizens. This leads to high unemployment rates among its citizens. The broke citizens are prompted to look for opportunities that can be favorable to their conditions since they have to pay their bills (Jones and Malones, 2010). Eventually, they end-up working in poor conditions that are not in tandem with the stipulated government regulations. The author of the article “Minimum wage debate: How sweatshops are actually good for the poor” explains how the New York Times ran a story of a woman in South Africa who was a victim of the high-unemployment in the country (Velasquez 2012). The lady was driven into accepting a low-wage post which was below the set minimum wage. However, when the government passes a regulation of shutting down factories that violated the country’s minimum wage she was among the many individuals who raised their voice in protest against the government’s decision (Jones and Malones, 2010). However, one cannot cease to ponder what could have caused this kind of situation whereby the government was championing for the rights of workers and the workers cannot agree with the government directive (Jones and Malones, 2010). Clearly, the government had failed on its part in ensuring that it offers adequate employment opportunities for its citizens or even make life more bearable for the low-end citizens. Closing sweatshops can be bad for the workers. Workers may be comfortable with the pay they get at the end of the month. However, the government may come up with regulations that are not conducive to the sweatshop owners. Consequently, this will prompt the company owner to quit business since it may be difficult for the company to operate when it has to pay its workers more than their returns (Jones and Malones, 2010). According to the author of the article “Minimum wage debate: How sweatshops are actually good for the poor” he states that even if the government tries to prohibit sweatshop it is a bad idea to the general public as well as its economy (Jones and Malones, 2010). According to the article even if the government is trying is trying to improve the conditions of its working populations, there will always be unintended consequences resulting from the action. In the article the Masango’s factory closed down since it could not cooperate with what was being demanded by the government. The decision of closing down the company was the worst since it led to massive job loss among its workers and bearing in mind that there are high unemployment rates in the country. The Masango’s factory management would have considered exploring other options such as having a lean and efficient staff so that they can cut on their expenditures (Jones and Malones, 2010). However, for the company to decline to comply with the new regulations implies that it actually had been difficult for the company to operate under the new law. Interestingly, sweatshop workers earn more income compared to the national average in extremely poor areas. Even though, sweatshop workers work for long hours and in hard conditions, it should be perceived in light of available alternatives. McGregor (2008 p. 143) argues that one of the key drivers of Southeast Asian economic growth has been its ability to attract foreign direct involvement into a low - kill, peri-urban manufacturing industries as well as labor-intensive urban. Nonetheless, for the past fifteen years industries that typically deal in garment, textile, footwear as well as electronics have had a fair share of criticism from the media as well as labor rights Non-governmental organizations. According to Watch (2011), sweatshops have substandard working conditions. These come to play when company managers under-invest in working conditions or underpay its employees so that the company can reduce its operational costs. In many cases, this occurs when companies set up their operations in countries that do not have strict work regulations that are found in developed countries, for instance, the United States (Jones and Malones, 2010). For instance, The Ohio Art Company had issues when it moved production of its products from Ohio to Shenzhen Province where most of its employees were teenagers and would work for long hours at a price of $0.24 per hour, this amount was below the set minimum wage of $0.33 per hour. The working conditions in the company are unbearable since they would report for work at 7:30 a.m. and close at 10pm and only break for lunch and dinner. Weekends would be treated just like any other working day, the number of hours the employees spent on the job exceeded the standard 40-hour per week that is set by Shenzen authorities (Jones and Hill, 2012, p. 401). There are several things that I keep asking myself. For instance, do Europeans and Americans have a moral duty to alleviate poverty abroad? If this is the case, then America and Europe should consider shipping buckets full of cash to developing countries. It would have been instructive to have a thoughtful national debate regarding this question. However, anti-sweatshop movement ought not to be mistaken for a meaningful contributor to the national debate. Closing down sweatshop does not help in alleviating foreign poverty; this is something that would need a sacrifice on the side of the Americans (Jones and Malones, 2010). Instead, it dictates the foreigner’s response to the hard choices which poverty demands from them. However, responses endorsed by the anti-sweatshop crowd are responses which have never worked for poor people in the United States or anywhere in the world. Imposing labor as well as environmental standards down people’s throat does nothing to shield them from poverty. Conversely, it prompts the poor to buy goods used by the rich, for instance, clean water, leisure time, as well as clean air. Developing countries cannot be made better off by forcing the poor to make developing first-world-style decisions regarding labor and the environment (Jones and Malones, 2010). It would have been better if they would have been required to buy Sony Play Stations. Since Americans buy Sony PlayStations and it makes Americans happy. To some extent anti-sweatshop movements do not have an interest in stopping the trade in developing nations. However, they oppose the rampant exploitation as well as the means global traders use to justify in the name of profits (Jones and Malones, 2010). Their main objective is to convince policy makers that business performance as well as worker protection and respect for human rights cannot be mutual exclusive (Jones and Malones, 2010). Imagine a situation in which everyone is allowed to do what benefits him or his firm. There would actually be a mess in almost everything that is done. In this case sweatshop would be worse since the conditions are likely to be more severe, some of their workers may not even be paid for the services they have offered. It is evident that sweatshops are a feminist issue. More than 85% of sweatshop staff are women aged between 15-25. Their employers often force them to take birth control measures and conduct routine pregnancy tests. The goal of doing this is to ensure that the employer does not pay maternity leave. When they test positive they are fired and no one is held accountable. I believe this problem can be solved by adjusting the regulations so that the workers can have a decent working conditions, first of all workers should not be fired unless they have not performed their duties well. References CCCE. 2013. Center for communication & civic engagement.Available at Http://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/Nike.html Claire, R. n.d. Rhetorical ingenuity in the New Global Realities: A case of the Anti-Sweatshop Movement, [online] available at: http://kbjournal.org/book/export/html/965> [accesse d 21 September 2013]. Feminist Majority Foundation, 2013. Feminists against sweatshops. Feminist Majority. Retrieved from http://www.feminist.org/other/sweatshops/sweatfaq.html Jones, R and Malones, A. 2010. Revealed: Inside suicide sweatshop where workers toil in 34-hour shifts to make your iPod, [online] Avaialble at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285980/Revealed-Inside-Chinese-suicide-sweatshop-workers-toil-34-hour-shifts-make-iPod.html> [Accessed 21 September 2013]. McGregor, Andrew 2008. Southeast Asian Development. New York: Routledge. Robert, Tammy, Moser, Mical, LePan, Don and Buzzard, Laura. 2011.The Broadview anthology prose, second edition. Toronto: Broadview Press. Velasquez, J. 2012. Minimum wage debate: How sweatshops are actually good for the poor. [online]. Available at http://www.policymic.com/articles/9459/minimum-wage-debate-how-sweatshops-are-actually-good-for-the-poor. [Accessed 21September 2013]. Watch, C. 2011. China labor watch.[online]. Available at http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2104&context=global docs. [Accessed 21September 2013]. Zwolinski, M. 2012. Top 3ways sweatshops help the poor escape poverty. Learn Liberty.org, [online]. Available at http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/top-3-ways-sweatshops-help-poor-scape-poverty. [Accessed 21 September 2013]. Read More