Analysis Of Sweat, Fire And Ethics By Bob Jeffcott

Sweatshops have been around for centuries, beginning around the late 1880’s. Sweatshops are classified by three main components, long work hours, very low pay and unsafe and unhealthy working environments. Sweatshops are usually found in manufacturing industries and the most highlighted production is clothing corporations, who take full advantage of the low production costs of their products. Many may think sweatshops are a thing of the past but they are still affecting many lives across the nations. There are many ways sweatshops affect lives, but a recent article titled “New study finds ‘more sweatshops than Starbucks’ in Chicago” explains that there are many low wage industry jobs that are violating labor laws in the United States alone. The article also reports how employees who are working in such conditions won’t speak up in fear of the retaliation employers will implement. Analyzing Sweatshops through the lens of the Sociological perspectives will help us better understand the illegal conditions of workplaces that still exist today.

In his opinion essay, “Sweatshop Oppression,” published in the student newspaper, The Lantern, at Ohio State University, writer Rajeev Ravisankar uses his article as a platform to raise awareness about the deplorable conditions in sweatshops. Ravisankar awakens his readers from their slumber and brings to light the fact that they are partly responsible for the problem. His first goal in the essay is to designate college students as conscious consumers who look to purchase goods at the lowest prices. Then he makes the connection between this type of low-cost consumerism and the high human cost that workers are forced to pay in sweatshops. His second goal is to place the real burden of responsibility directly with the companies that perpetuate this system of exploitation. Finally, he proposes what can be done about it. By establishing a relationship that includes himself in the audience, working to assign responsibility to the reader, and keeping them emotionally invested, Ravisankar makes a powerful argument that eventually prompts his student reader to take responsibility for their actions and make a change.

A majority of the clothing worn and purchased today in the United States has been manufactured overseas in sweatshops. Since the beginning of factories and businesses, owners have always looked for a way to cut production costs while still managing to produce large quantities of their product. It was found that the best way to cut costs was to utilize cheap labor in factories known as sweatshops. According to the US General Account Office, sweatshops are defined as a “business that regularly violates both wage or child labor and safety or health laws”. These sweatshops exploit their workers in various ways: making them work long hours in dangerous working conditions for little to no pay. Personally, I believe that the come up and employment of these sweatshops is unethical, but through my research I plan to find out if these shops produce more positive than negatives by giving these people in need a job despite the rough conditions.

In this paper, I chose to apply the works of Marx to the Nike Sweatshop situation that has been going on for decades. The Nike corporation has been criticized for a long time, ever since there has been evidence linking them to sweatshops that exist in factories all around the world where they have outsourced jobs to for cheaper labor. Individuals who want a job with one of the clothing factories are forced to sign a contract that binds them to work for a certain length of time and forces them to live in the arrangements provided by the factory. In some cases, the workers don’t even know the conditions of their employment as the contracts are written in a different language. The name “sweatshop” has come from the extremely high temperatures that have been reported from inside of the factories that workers are forced to endure every day.

Time and time again, there have been opposing views on just about every single possible topic one could fathom. From the most politically controversial topics of gun control and stem cell research to the more mundane transparent ones of brown or white rice and hat or no hat—it continues. Sweatshops and the controversy surrounding them is one that is unable to be put into simplistic terms, for sweatshops themselves are complex. The grand debate of opposing views in regards to sweatshops continues between two writers who both make convincing arguments as to why and how sweatshops should or should not be dealt with. In Sweat, Fire and Ethics, by Bob Jeffcott, he argues that more people ought to worry less about the outer layers of sweatshops and delve deeper into the real reason they exist and the unnecessariness of them. In contrast, Jeffrey D. Sachs writes of the urgent requirement of sweatshops needed during the industrialization time in a developing country, in his article of Bangladesh: On the Ladder of Development. The question is then asked: How do sweatshops positively and negatively affect people here in the United States of America and in other countries around the world?

Bob Jeffcott supports the effort of workers of the global supply chains in order to win improved wages and good working conditions and a better quality of life of those who work on sweatshops. He mentions and describes in detail how the conditions of the sweatshops are and how the people working in them are forced to long working hours for little money. He makes the question, “we think we can end sweatshops abuses by just changing our

You will use the critical thinking skills you have been developing to identify violations of the Universal Intellectual Standards and Logical Fallacies in the essay, “Sweatshirts from Sweatshops” on pages 406-408 of your textbook.

In the essay, “Sweatshop Oppression,” written by Rajeev Ravisankar, portrays how consumers seem to live in a “low-cost driven consumerism” (para. 2) based society, which unfortunately allows many companies such as Nike, Adidas, Gap, and many more to take advantage of their employees. In addition, Ravisankar uses many both pathos and logo appeals throughout his argument in order to persuade the audience. For example, in paragraph 3 due to the vigorous amounts of labor each employee may work in a sweatshop, “70-80 hours per week making pennies per hour”, (para. 3) the compensation that’s earned at the end of the day does not equate to the intense amount of hours that have been executed. By deliberately offering an extremely low wage to their

Ravisankar begins his essay by relating to his audience with a connection of being poor college students, who look for the bargain deals. The problem he identifies is that consumerism and the obsession for low priced goods caused the demand for sweatshop labor. He assumes readers have some familiarity with the term sweatshop, but do not fully understand how horrible the conditions and hours in a sweatshop truly are. His purpose is to convince students at Ohio State University to take action against Sweatshop labor. In order to accomplish this purpose, he mainly appeals to readers sense of ethics.

Nike’s sweatshops had many positive effects on the developing countries that they were located even though the workers in the sweatshops were mistreated. The company created jobs and this is one of the main reasons that developing countries welcome the formulation of sweatshops. By Nike opening sweatshops in these countries they pay taxes and provide revenue for the host country’s government. In order for Nike to produce more goods in less time the company has to supply the sweat shops with high-tech machinery which improved the production process and raised productivity levels. The countries that allowed Nike to have sweatshops had no restrictions on the sweatshops or any forms of foreign direct investments so they were able to achieve high rates of GDP growth, reduction of the inflation rate and swell up the country’s trade surplus. Although most sweatshops were thought of as whole sale manipulators, human rights violators, and the work conditions were noticeably poor. The workers suffered from the absence of safety procedures and quality equipment because the sweatshops were not

Sweatshops. The image the word provokes isn’t a pleasant one. A factory where people work long hours for only a small amount of money isn’t something we like to think about. The article published by The New York Times in 2009 entitled “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream” however, proposes a different view of these grueling working conditions. The article seeks to transform the view of most Americans from disgust to support for so called sweatshops. When the article was first published in 2009, the Obama administration was considering labor standards, something the author Nicholas Kristof believes is detrimental to undeveloped countries. As he argues, “Sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty… and banning them closes off one route out of

Two works adequately address the increasing critical discourse of sweatshop labor. The two works are titled "Beyond Sweatshops: Positive Deviancy and Global Labour Practices" and "The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment". The former was authored in July 2005 by Denis Arnold and Laura Hartman. The latter was written in September 2011 by Benjamin Powell and Matt Zwolinski. The authors of both works are undeniably qualified and are experts in their respective fields.

By definition a sweatshop is a “negatively connoted term for any working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous. Sweatshop workers often work long hours for very low pay in horrible conditions, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay and or minimum wage”. Many corporations in the United States use sweatshop labor in countries over seas such as China to produce their products at a lower cost. As entailed in the letter from a man born in China, many citizens on these countries resort to factory labor to support themselves to escape other sources on income such as prostitution. Without these corporations usage of oversea sweatshops these employees would be forced to return to self-demeaning jobs such as these.

The Sweatshop Watch, established in the year 1995 in Los Angeles, is a syndicate dedicated to advocating for the rights of sweatshop workers. In an article released by the Sweatshop Watch entitled, “Supporting Mexican Garment Workers at the Tarrant Ajalpan Factory,” they delineate the repeatedly ignored endeavors of the sweatshop workers to resist the relentless abuse they endure from the Ajalpan factory in Tarrant, Mexico. The Ajalpan factory, began operation in 1999 and distributes products to numerous brand name clothing companies including Polo Ralph Lauren. On June 10, 2003, as an attempt to ensure that the factory would mitigate the abysmal conditions that they experience everyday, 800 workers stood in protest and refused to work (Sweatshop

Imagine only seeing your family for one day once a year. Having to compete for a ticket home with millions of other workers in order to see your family that you haven’t seen in a year. This is the life of 130 million migrant workers in china. These workers make most of the things we own. Most of us don’t think about the people who make our clothes, our phones, our computers; items that we use everyday. Our way of life revolves on mass consumerism, where we value the article more than the person or persons who made it. Mass media and multi million dollar industries keep the conditions on how these people work as a total mystery. Some brands have been exposed for sweatshop and