Sweatshops: Good News or Bad News? (Essay Sample)

SWEATSHOPS: GOOD OR BAD NEWS?
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
Sweatshops are the manufacturing factories which overexploit the human capital through overworking employees and offering peanuts for their remuneration. The debate surrounding sweatshops may continue for years as both proponents and opponents have facts to hold onto in their arguments. This paper pays close attention to the reasoning behind sweatshops, especially for the developing nations, and makes recommendations regarding the garment industry in Bangladesh.
The movements of students against sweatshops in the 1990s were somewhat successful. They were up in arms against the oppression of those people who were involved in the making of their clothing and shoes. The students proposed that those employees should be offered nothing less than a living wage. A living wage can be defined as a remuneration that is enough to support an employee and other two dependants out of the poverty level. The move did not get well with the mainstream economists whose response was in some way appalling. Mainstream economists hold onto the positive effects that sweatshops have on the economies of developing countries. Opponents to the idea of sweatshops however, argue that the First World is out to exploit the resources of the developing countries. Heading east has been the trend for most of the American big brands such as Nike, Reebok, Apple, and Wal-Mart among others (Miller, 2003). They all depend on the East for the manufacturing of their commodities but have less concern for the employees. They are attracted towards the East owing to the cheap cost of labor there.
Mainstream economists argue that sweatshops are justifiable basing it on the exchange effect. They argue that employees in developing countries turn to sweatshops as it has better remuneration than the alternatives would do. They compare the pay that women get in sweatshops with those working in agricultural farms (Miller, 2003). Sweatshops turn to be better options. All the same, the fact that sweatshops are better options for employees does not justify that the employees are not strained and their abilities are overexploited. Opponents argue that there has to be a balance between the wages paid and the amount of time and work dissipated towards production.
There are horrifying stories about how employees have perished in factories owing to the meager working conditions that they have been exposed to in their jobs. The hazardous environments are merely among the considerations that companies put into perspective. For instance, Apple, the world’s largest company has been informed of potential perils that would affect its employees or those of its subcontractors, but has neglected the warnings and allowing the worst to happen (Miller, 2003). As much as the company may make huge sums of money annually, it is ethically wrong to assume that the poor employees they exploit are of insignificant importance. Working conditions ought to be an important consideration to alter future fatalities.
Mainstream economists argue that the law should be used as an effective tool to impose strict rules towards the facilitation of sweatshops. They argue that sweatshops should not be compelled to better their services so as to improve the living conditions of the employees but instead to allow the economy to self-adjust itself and development will be self-led. The use of the law, however, could be unfair for the developing countries. Imposing standards and regulations similar to those of the developed world would be unjust as the economic standards would not match at all. All the same, regulations ought to tie the sweatshops into paying a minimum wage that is nothing less than the living wage, as argued by the opponents.
Mainstream economists argue that the employees’ entry into sweatshops is purely voluntarily and that they agree to the terms of work willingly. However, this is not always the case since there have been cases in which employees, especially immigrant women and children are held captive by employers (Miller, 2003). This is a violation of the most elaborate of the labor standards. The cases that have been publicized are only a few; no one knows how much more employers are doing just to have their work done. All the same, with an assumption that employees choose their jobs without coercion, mainstream economists could redefine sweatshops and validate their actions as justified. This kind of argument would, however, be only theoretical but oblivious of the real issues on the ground. In sweatshops, employees are forced to overwork themselves by working long hours and getting very little in return. The returns are subjected to unfair fines and deductions. This is not to mention that the environments in which they work in are very unsafe for the employees and they could be said to actually be endangering their lives by working in such places.
The issue of wages is one that brings about tension between the countering groups. Mainstream economists hold onto the studies that report that most multinational companies and subcontractors pay their employees amounts that are not lower than the prevailing wage levels. The prevailing wages ought not to be confused with living wages as the earlier is only based by the wage levels that are present in a certain region for a certain period of time. In this case, the prevailing wages could be anything; even far less that the poverty level. Opponents claim that the living wage ought to be the standard measure for the floor wages that employees ought to get. They also look into how much impact that an increase in the wages of employees would impact on the price of the final products (Miller, 2003). The difference is mild and customers are willing to take it up as research has proven that they would be more willing to buy commodities that have been justly produced than the other way round.
The case of Bangladesh is a good example to describe how bad things are in the developing countries. The costs of procurement and damages are passed onto the employee instead of consumer. Multinational corporations, and subcontractors alike, are only focused on quality production while neglecting the plight of its hardworking employees and yet will claim to exercise good corporate and social responsibility. The garment industry in Bangladesh is one in which people run to in a bid to better their lives; with the hope of good pays. They, however, have nothing very remarkable to report. Those who roam the streets jobless, or even with jobs like selling scrap metal will long to join sweatshops not aware of the misery there is. All the same sweatshops have availed an avenue through which citizens make something little for themselves. However, the industry has to undergo an overhaul, however expensive it would be.
In order to reform the garment industry in Bangladesh, there ought to be important considerations. To begin with, and as both opponents and proponents would agree, there ought to be effective legislation. What they do not agree on is the content that ought to be enacted to influence the economic behavior in su...