Sweatshops are not necessary to provide affordable goods
and meet consumer demands
For those who protest the use of sweatshop labor, the focus is on raising workplace standards everywhere (Atal, 2013). Those opposed to sweatshops are not interested in preventing trade, but oppose exploitation and abuse by global traders in the name of profit. Their goal is to convince policy makers and international business leaders that business performance and worker protection are not mutually exclusive. The pressures anti-sweatshop activists place on multinational corporations have met with progressing success as demonstrated by Nike's efforts to improve factory conditions, pay, and business practice transparency (Nisen, 2013). Despite these set higher standards and monitoring practices, Nike has yet to eliminate sweatshop practices by their manufactures. In July 2011, the Daily Mail Reporter reported that Nike factory workers in Indonesia were routinely physically and mentally abused by factory supervisors. Nike argues that monitoring and enforcing their standards are difficult because work is often subcontracted. Thus, arguing they cannot do anything about these situations (Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). While Nike has acknowledged its sweatshop problems and made some attempts to improve these conditions, other multinational companies, like Walmart and Sears, continue to do very little and to brush off responsibility for improving working conditions in their manufacturing factories (Blumgart, 2013).
Around the world, in both underdeveloped and first world nations, individuals voluntarily report to work in sweatshops because alternative employment for these individuals tend to pay far less and would force these individuals to live in extreme poverty (Atal, 2013). While those who work in sweatshops choose to be there, they pay a high price for their decision by sacrificing their dignity and well-being and routinely submit to slave-like treatment (Atal, 2013; globalexchange.org, n.d.; Wong, 2013; Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). High labor standards and effective enforcement is crucial for avoiding this slave treatment of employees everywhere.
Multinational corporations often argue that they subcontract with these factories and, thus, are not responsible for what happens in them (Atal, 2013; Wong, 2013). As demonstrated by Nike, this is a fundamental fallacy. International companies are not helpless to influence the local suppliers with whom they work in order to influence contractors into paying sub-minimum wages and improving working conditions (Nisen, 2013). While Nike progress has been slow and not-perfect, its turn around has demonstrated that improvement is possible (Daily Mail Reporter, 2011; Nisen, 2013). Multinational corporations through partnership with governmental agencies and global manufacturers can afford to pay a living wage and support a clean and safe workplace if they so choose to work towards this goal.
Around the world, in both underdeveloped and first world nations, individuals voluntarily report to work in sweatshops because alternative employment for these individuals tend to pay far less and would force these individuals to live in extreme poverty (Atal, 2013). While those who work in sweatshops choose to be there, they pay a high price for their decision by sacrificing their dignity and well-being and routinely submit to slave-like treatment (Atal, 2013; globalexchange.org, n.d.; Wong, 2013; Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). High labor standards and effective enforcement is crucial for avoiding this slave treatment of employees everywhere.
Multinational corporations often argue that they subcontract with these factories and, thus, are not responsible for what happens in them (Atal, 2013; Wong, 2013). As demonstrated by Nike, this is a fundamental fallacy. International companies are not helpless to influence the local suppliers with whom they work in order to influence contractors into paying sub-minimum wages and improving working conditions (Nisen, 2013). While Nike progress has been slow and not-perfect, its turn around has demonstrated that improvement is possible (Daily Mail Reporter, 2011; Nisen, 2013). Multinational corporations through partnership with governmental agencies and global manufacturers can afford to pay a living wage and support a clean and safe workplace if they so choose to work towards this goal.
Sweatshops are mutually beneficial means to provide affordable goods
and meet consumer demands
The debate about corporation obligation to eliminate sweatshop labor practices is complicated. While it is sad that poverty and human suffering exists, it is a natural part of life and the human experience. For individuals working in "sweatshop" conditions, working is a better alternative to starving. The individuals who work in these factors may work in less than ideal conditions by American standards, but they work in better conditions and earn significantly more than they could working in agriculture or other jobs available in their country. For example, the average pay at a Nike factory in Vietnam is $54 per month. This is almost three times the minimum wage for a state-owned enterprise (Norberg, 2003). In addition, workers in Nike factories often receive benefits for medical care, education and food subsidies (Norberg, 2003). Many of those who work in these factors know that if they leave their job by choice or firing, there are thousands of others waiting outside to take their job (Wong, 2013). Often those who oppose sweatshops do not recognize is that those who work in sweatshops actually demonstrate a significant increase in quality of life (Myerson, 1997; Kristof, 2009). Norberg (2003) notes that when factory workers in Vietnam first begin to work in a factory they usually have to walk many miles to work, but over time they can afford bicycles and scooters to take to work. Thus, the existence of sweatshops in developing countries is actually the first step toward economic prosperity because these countries routinely benefit from the introduction of low-wage manufacturing jobs.
For the owners of these factories, the costs of improving working conditions would ultimately drive companies out of business, therefore, jobs would be lost and greater hardship would be created for people who rely on these manufacturing jobs for their livelihoods (Myerson, 1997; Norberg, 2003). While multi-national companies, like Nike, may put into place means to monitor and influence factories in developing countries to improve their practices, these companies do not own the factories (Atal, 2013; Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). Multinational companies subcontract with these factories, therefore, they cannot be held responsible for what happens in the factories (Wong, 2013).
For the owners of these factories, the costs of improving working conditions would ultimately drive companies out of business, therefore, jobs would be lost and greater hardship would be created for people who rely on these manufacturing jobs for their livelihoods (Myerson, 1997; Norberg, 2003). While multi-national companies, like Nike, may put into place means to monitor and influence factories in developing countries to improve their practices, these companies do not own the factories (Atal, 2013; Daily Mail Reporter, 2011). Multinational companies subcontract with these factories, therefore, they cannot be held responsible for what happens in the factories (Wong, 2013).