One quarter of the global economy is controlled by sweatshops (Kristof Wudunn 542). Well, that can’t be true! They call it the Sweatshop Belt: China, South Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia and Bangladesh to be more precise. What comes to mind when we say the word “sweatshop”? Sweatshops are known for their inability to provide a safe working environment, low pay rate and child labour. Because of all these negative connotations, sweatshops are continuously perceived in a negative way worldwide. Nike, Gap and H&M are brands that manufacture their products through sweatshops.
As consumers, we choose to avoid purchasing their products with the goal of discouraging sweatshops. The truth is, that does not benefit those who work in the sweatshops. Sweatshops would have a positive reputation if society took on a different perspective, if they were aware of effective boycotting strategies, and if the economic and social benefits of sweatshops were understood. Many people are against sweatshops for the sole reason that the workers do not get paid enough. What they do not know is that, what they are getting paid is in fact sufficient.
In Two Cheers for Sweatshops, Mongkol explained that his daughter, who works in a sweatshop in Bangkok, was paid two dollars a day for nine-hour shifts, six days a week. “It’s good pay,” he added (Kristoff et al 540). One tends to forget the difference in the standard of living between first and third world countries. Some families count on their children to be employed by a sweatshop to provide for their family. The wages of sweatshops in Asia, and some parts of Africa, equal or exceed average income (Powell, Skarbek 13).
That is to say, what seems like pocket change in the Western World, is more than enough to sustain the sweatshop workers. One brand that manufactures their products in sweatshops is Nike. For many years, people have tried multiple ways to address the low pay Nike has been giving their sweatshop workers. Many wages seem to appear far lower than they should; however, non-monetary compensation such as free health care and meals are not as known or emphasized. In April of 2013, more than one thousand people, mostly women and children, were killed in the collapsing of the Rana Plaza building.
This building was one of the many suppliers for Wal-Mart. It has been investigated that, the Rana Plaza was flagged for not meeting many safety requirements, but the workers were still forced to work, if not their jobs would be jeopardized (BBC). Unfortunately, in fear of losing their jobs, many lost their lives. Kalpona Akter, who was a former garment worker in Bangladesh was fired from the factory she had worked in since she was twelve. Akter was fired for organizing her colleagues to ask for better working conditions.
Akter explained that she and her colleagues were working 100-hour weeks for wages of six dollars a month. She also shared the many dirty secrets sweatshops have, from fire extinguishers that do not work, to emergency exits that are locked – all of which are just for show during “inspections” by foreign retailers (jezebel). Like Kalpona Akter, there are many sweatshop workers that are forced to work in such bad environments in fear of losing their job. Many workers follow memorized scripts to appropriately respond to questions corporate auditors ask.
Sweatshop workers are not allowed to tell auditors the numerous hours they work and the safety equipment that they use. Since this tragic event, forty-three companies worldwide signed an accord and agreed to pay higher wages and have more strict safety audits of their facilities (globe and mail). There are also other ways in which those in first world countries can help. One way help can be provided is through many campaigns that support fair labor such as Verite, which puts emphasis on the exploitation of workers in third world countries, and GoodWeave, which is more drawn to ending child labour.
Not only do these campaigns accept donations to help those in these types of situations, but more importantly, they are also advocates of educating consumers about the world of unfair labour. Despite the tragedies that have happened the past few years, some brand names have already begun to change the working conditions of their facilities. One manner in which support is attempted to be shown is boycotting. To show “support” against sweatshops, many people don’t purchase from those companies; however, instead of helping these workers, consumers put them at a higher risk of poverty. If consumers stop buying, that is like a boycott and a boycott doesn’t help us,” says Akter. For some workers, sweatshops are their only source of income, and for some families, it is the decision of who eats and who doesn’t. A father in Thailand described how he felt about his daughter working in a sweatshop, “I hope she can keep that job. There’s all this talk about factories closing now, and she said there are rumors that her factory might close. I hope that doesn’t happen. I don’t know what she would do then. ” (Kristoff et al 540).
Boycotting can only help if they are well organized, and when the workers have decided that that is the only way their voices will be heard. According to the Co-op America’s Boycott Organizer’s Guide, by Green America, boycotts can be very effective. “Boycotts used to take between five and ten years to get results, but now they take about two. That’s because they’re better organized and get more media attention: corporations recognize the damage potential much earlier. ” (Putnam 15) Big companies’ sales can be directly threatened with organized boycotts.
The guide showcases five steps before launching a boycott: 1. Research all possible targets. Choose a target that is likely to yield to your demands and that will gain the support of consumers. 2. Get all the facts about the company and the offensive policy or action. Use the company’s annual reports (readily available at the library or posted on the Internet) to obtain important company information such as product and brand names, the president and/or CEO’s name(s), addresses and phone numbers. Be ready to justify why you chose your target to consumers and the media. 3. Write to or meet with the company to voice your grievance. Indicate that if the policy or action is not changed, you intend to initiate a consumer boycott. 4. Some organizers attempt to negotiate with the company first and use a boycott strategy only if negotiations fail to bring about the desired changes. Occasionally the threat of a boycott can make the company yield to your demands. 5. Organize a coalition that includes the support or endorsements of other organizations.
Be prepared to present numbers to the company to show the support for and strength of the boycott. With the proper tools and knowledge on how to effectively boycott, sweatshops can become a better place to work, with potentially more benefits for the workers. Despite all the negative connotation surrounding sweatshops, one thing is for certain: sweatshops help economic growth. “Sweatshop manufacturing—especially in the production of goods like clothing and shoes—for foreign markets are an essential preliminary move toward economic prosperity in developing countries. (Sachs Krugman). Let’s take China, for example, because of the thousands of sweatshops, China economy has been doubling per capita every 10 years. It took Great Britain’s Industrial Revolution about fifty-eight year for per capita output to double (Kristoff et al 542). By opening sweatshops, many jobs are made and more and more people are pulled out of poverty. Sweatshops also bring along physical capital and technology, which increases worker productivity, which then, gradually result in higher wages.
Although sweatshops are not known for their great conditions or their pay, without them, many countries’ economy would be far worse. “A study on poverty relief and development by the University of Santiago de Compostela also suggests that such sustainable international investment in low income countries is important to economic progress. ” (Global ethics network). The economy not only benefits from the increase in job opportunities created by sweatshops, it also benefits from the employees that now have innovative capacity, organizational and managerial practices and skills suited for the workplace.
A general consensus would be to increase wages, then there would be no problems. If these wages were to be increased, those Nike shoes would cost one double what is already being paid. With that being said, it does not sound too easy to raise wages in these third world countries. The same case can be made with the working conditions of these sweatshops. If these conditions were to be more adequate the firms who invest in these sweatshops would need to relocate, which then hurts GDP and brings us back to fewer employment opportunities.
Although it’s been thought of for many years as a form of exploitation, sweatshops and their workers can be seen beyond the stereotypical wrongdoer and victim dynamic. It is important to remember that as a first world citizen one is not able to see what benefits sweatshops give those in third world countries. This extends from wages and the various working conditions. As first a world citizen one should go beyond what they can see and take the time to learn more about how help can be given to these workers through campaigns and proper boycotting procedures.
As a first world citizen one needs to acknowledge that the economic benefits are greater than all the negatives. In the past few years, sweatshops have changed in ways that both benefits the workers and the country in which they live in. With a topic as controversial as sweatshops it is difficult to remain in agreement. With that in mind, by looking at a different perspective, by researching better, real improvements will eventually come.
