Comparison of Sweatshops' Wages and Working Conditions - Literature review Example

Sweatshops Following the American Psychological Association Guidelines HRM 430 Mary C. Jones The paper will explore the concept of sweatshops defining and explaining the term from various perspectives taking into account its constant changing with time. The history of sweatshops appearance will be helpful in understanding the reasons of the phenomena origination. The work will describe the processes of sweatshops` operation concentrating on the examples of well- known past and present sweatshops. The paper will also be focused on the violation of rights of sweatshops workers and explore the laws and penalties applied in the cases of illegal sweatshops revelation. The list of companies that are known to have sweatshops will exemplify the study, allowing to learn about the typical spheres of operation and the products made. The paper will expand on the existing literature by comparing sweatshops wages and working conditions. The paper will also examine the perspectives of sweatshops in near future taking into account the received information. Key words: sweatshops, garment industry, wages, working conditions. The sweatshop (the sweating factory) is a working environment considered to be extremely hard or even dangerous with a low pay for the workers, enormously long working hours, and difficult manual labor. Sweatshops are common for developing countries; however, they can exist anywhere in the world as they first appeared in the USA and Europe. The history of sweatshops started with the publication of The Condition of the Working Class in England by Friedrich Engels in 1844, where he brought attention of the public to this phenomenon. Later in 1890 Charles Kingsley offered the explanation of the term the “sweating system” which he defined as “a surviving remnant of the industrial system which preceded the factory system, when industry was chiefly conducted on the piece-price plan, in small shops or the homes of the workers”. British House of Lords conducted additional investigation into sweatshops and concluded that the distinctive features of the phenomenon were low rate of wages, excessive hours of labor, and poor conditions of the houses where the work was performed. More recently, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) explained the term sweatshop as any employer that violates several labor laws providing lower than minimum salary, engaging employees into extra time work, using child work, industrial homework, neglecting safety and health norms, and employee benefits (Ross,1994). According to Stein (1977) sweatshop can exist in numerous forms as it is rather “state of mind or a physical form than a place”. It is possible to say that regardless of the size of factories sweatshops can be viewed as enterprises where employer has total control over employee`s working conditions and salary. Thus, sweatshops have existed for over three centuries already and do not seem to disappear as number of industries, such as furniture, garment, and agriculture still operate through them. Garment production is the sphere, which is typically associated with this concept; however, other industries use sweatshops as well. Garment sphere is, nevertheless, the one that has been using sweatshops the longest with the biggest human rights violations. First sweatshops appeared in Western Europe, mostly in France and England, due to large amount of unemployed people after industrial revolution. The cities were invaded by immigrants, women and children, in search of any type of work. The immigrants are usually considered to be the reason of poor work conditions and low wages in sweatshops. The immigrants were and remain to be usually badly educated or almost illiterate having no possibilities to complain or address to the government with their problems (Stein, 1977). The Massachusetts garment industry first started enrolling homeworkers in the villages and small towns in the beginning of the 19th century. The unlimited quantity of the employees and a low cost of entry for companies permitted to launch the system of exploitation. With the progress of industrialization and urbanization in the 20th century work moved slowly out of homes into factories with no significant improvement of working conditions or salaries. In the beginning of the 20th century garment factories were usually situated in gloomy and smelly rooms with little personal space and no toilets. Most of the workers were young girls or even children who were supposed to work for 14 hours daily without any breaks. The workers were also often discriminated and abused morally, emotionally or even sexually (Duncan, 1978). The most outrageous sweatshop episode took place at the Triangle Waist Company, a garment company in New York, America. On March 25, 1911, a fire broke out at the factory, leading to the deaths of 146 workers, most of whom were young immigrant girls. The girls used to work for 12-14 hours daily with pitiful annual income of $338. One of the reasons of such a horribly high number of victims was the fact that the owners of the company simply had locked the door before leaving. This fire drew public outrage and attention to poor working and safety conditions in such factories; however, the factorys owners were acquitted of wrongdoing. (Duncan, 1978). Globalization has given a new impact to sweatshops development in the 21st century. The possibility to outsource companies to the developing countries to reduce the costs for manufacture made most of Asian and Latin American countries like China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Haiti, Mexico the centers of sweating factories. Therefore, the responsibilities for workplace health and safety were put on the subcontractors. Modern sweatshops do not differ much from those existing in the beginning of the century. According to the Daily Mail reporter, Raveena Aulakh (2013), her experience in the garment factory in Bangladeshi was appalling. She worked from 9AM to 9 PM with only one lunch break for a month with a number of teenage girls who were forced to leave schools to support their families. The conditions of the work were threatening as the sewing machines were placed in close area, and some equipment was placed on the floor. The hygiene norms and fire protection norms were completely neglected. Workers got a salary of $25 a month, they were allowed half a day off every Friday and did not get holidays or paid sick leave. Despite this terrifying experience Aulakh (2013) emphasizes that for the country with high overpopulation and subsequent poverty the job in the sweatshop is highly valued and is considered a blessing as it allows to feed the family. Thus sweatshops in many cases are viewed negatively, but actually they influence positively the economies across the world. In defense of Aulakh`s evidence it is worth mentioning that many economists seem to support the idea of sweatshops as they are viewed as a form of the exchange, in which both employees and employers achieve when they voluntarily participate in the labor contract, no matter how low the salary can look for the foreigners (Powel & Skarbek, 2004). Sweatshops are commonly critisized for low wages, when actually the employees’ earnings in the host country are reasonable when taking into consideration the country’s standards. Ross (2004) states that the average salary of employees in China is 45 cents per hour in countrified areas, and though it seems to be rather low in American Dollars, but it is not reasonable to compare other countries wages to America. For instance, no income taxes, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment debt, and union dues withdrawn from average salary in China. For example, daily payment of three and a half dollars is enough for lunch in developed countries while in countries like China or India this sum of many is a fortune. According to Kristoff & WuDunn (2000) South Korea’s economy was considered stagnated by many experts before the implementation of sweatshops. In the beginning of the century sweating factories appeared in South Korea and the government of the state accepted the idea of sweating factories as the way of managing with economic problems. The authors consider that eventually the workers in South Korea explored persuasive advantages to working in these garment industries. They provided an opportunity for employment among many individuals. Labor in the factories was far more accepted by people as opposed to living in the suburbs and wandering along the streets in search of any products (Kristoff & WuDunn, 2000). Many would argue that work in the manufacture is dangerous and overly exhausting, but actually, these jobs are far more rewarding than working on the fields under the sun. Moreover, Korea’s education levels improved significantly while the rates of children mortality decreased. A variety of working places for the people with poor educations allowed the country to cope with unemployment and poverty. Asian countries` economies with introduction of sweating factories received the chance to compete with other developing countries. (Kristoff & WuDunn, 2000). A number of well-known global companies are blamed for using sweatshops in manufacture of clothing. Gymboree, Hanes, Burberry, Marks and Spencers, Next, Ralph Lauren, DKNY, GAP, American Apparel Banana Republic, Lands End, Levis are commonly globally famous companies that use sweating factories in production of garment (Bunting, 2011). L.L. Bean, Gymborree, Hanes use unregistered children in Asia for cotton production plants. The workers of these companies have no possibilities to form labor unions to protect their rights. Businesses with large income like Nike and Adidas have theirshoes produced in Indonesia as well violating major labor rights. Ikea, Walmart and Kohls were also blamed for exploiting developing countries in order to reduce the cost of manufacture (Powel & Skarbek, 2004). According to Ross (2004), agro-industrial companies like Monsanto, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland receive a substantial part of their income with the help of sweatshops. Complicated system of provision goods from private farmers evokes reduced prices. Children labor in production of cocoa, flowers, tea in Asia and Latin America is supported by large food companies, such as Kraft, Dole, and Nestle Applying any penalties to these companies is problematic that they operate via subcontractors and, thus, the workers of the sweatshops have to be protected according to the laws of the respective countries. In reality, the governments of developing countries encourage any western initiatives as they allow overcoming unemployment and subsequent poverty. So it is possible to conclude that the sweatshop is inevitable product of a free market, which, as an ambivalent phenomenon, has its negative and positive aspects. Taking into account its origination in the USA and Europe with shifting to Asian and Latin American countries, it can be regarded as necessary stage of economy development; however, it does not solve the problem of unhealthy and dangerous working conditions for the employees. The history suggests that the acceptance of sweatshops has led to growth of manufacture along with salary of workers. The sweatshop is not “natural” byproduct of company`s manufacture process but rather a deliberate attempt to exploit the workers gaining the best results, and if it cannot be eliminated totally, it must be updated to modern labor standards of Western countries. References Aulakh, R. (2013). My life as a sweatshop worker. The Daily Mail. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2456412/My-life-sweatshop-worker-Undercover-reporter-tells-crushing-work-terrible-pay-girl-boss-aged-just-NINE.html Bunting, M. (2011). Sweatshops are still supplying high street brands. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/apr/28/sweatshops-supplying-high-street-brands Duncan, B. (1978). The Sweated Trades: Outwork in Nineteenth Century Britain. New York: St. Martins Press. Kristoff, N. & WuDunn, S. (2000). Two Cheers for Sweatshops. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/24/magazine/two-cheers-for-sweatshops.html Powel, B., & Skarbek, D. (2004). Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth the Sweat.The Independent Institute. Retrieved from http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369 Ross, A. (2004). Low Pay, High Profile: The Global Fight for Fair Labor. New York: New Press, Stein, L. (1977). Out of the Sweatshops, New York: Quadrangle Read More