Bangladesh Sweatshop

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 New York Times opinion column, “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream”, writer Nicholas D. Kristof uses his experience living in East Asia to argue his positive outlook on sweatshops. Kristof wants to persuade his audience, Obama and his team, along with others who are for “labor standards”, that the best way to help people in poor countries is to promote manufacturing there, not campaign against them. He uses Phnom Penh as an example to show why working in the sweatshops is a dream for the families there. They would rather work at a sweatshop than stay in the dangerous garbage dump, searching for something to recycle for change. The writer establishes credibility through his experience

It is close to 100 degrees; it has been at least ten hours since the last break. The woman working next to you severed her finger on the machine today, and the wage for one day of working will not be enough to buy a decent meal. How thrilling does it sound to work in a sweatshop? This is the only option for most women and children working in the third world, to support their family’s needs. There is very little, if anything being done to resolve this shocking situation. No person should be exposed to this type of work atmosphere. Sweatshops are inhumane working environments.

“Sweatshops still make your clothes” is an article written by Jake Blumgart. Blumgart’s article speaks about how the owners of sweatshops treat their workers. The article suggests that workers in sweatshops are treated as if they’re slaves with little pay and long hours. It also shows how many people buy their clothes without knowing where it came from. He explained how defeated it made a reporter named Charles Kernaghan feel who exposed the cruelty of this issue to the public on live television in an interview with Kathie Lee Gifford sixteen years ago.

Made in Bangladesh! Have you heard of bangladesh? Probably not right. Bangladesh is a country in southeast asia that makes the clothes that are purchased in our american society. It is the second leading garment exporters in the world , of course following china. Currently, there are currently 500 garment factories with over 3.2 million workers.Recently there have been many mishaps with the many collapsed buildings and fires leading to the deaths of the unfortunate and leading to the injury of the lucky.

Sweatshops have been a popular and serviceable “business,” although there are a lot of controversy on whether sweatshops should be banned and hows pay wages should be higher. Many people believe that sweatshops are unfair, cruel and unlawful, whereas others think that sweatshops are a second chance for many people living in developing countries. The dictionary definition of a sweatshop is factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions, it is defined by the US Department of Labor as a factory that violates 2 or more labor laws. Sweatshops are a frequent ordeal in many countries, all over the globe, with a variety of perspectives.

A sweatshop is a workplace that violates the law and where workers are subject to extreme exploitation (including the absence of a living wage or long work hours), poor working conditions such as health and safety hazards, arbitrary discipline such as verbal or physical discipline or fear and intimidation when they attempt to stand up for their rights or attempt to form a union.1 This paper explores the working conditions in sweatshops mainly located near the US-Mexican border and the results the production of sweatshops have caused. US companies import American parts into Mexico to assemble the parts in ‘maquiladoras’. Maquiladoras are best described as assembly plants run by foreign-based multinational corporations, most of which are headquartered in the United States and export the products back to the United States. The produced goods are then usually stamped ‘Assembled in Mexico or US Materials’.2

Sweatshop workers make the ultimate sacrifice for profit. Merchandise in the garment industry are outsourced and produced by slave labourers forced in working conditions that are cruel and exploitative, often in fear of punishment. "A "sweatshop" is defined by the US Department of Labor as a factory that violates two or more labor laws" (Do Something, 2016). Human trafficking in the garment industry is prevalent globally, but astronomical numbers are concentrated in developing countries such as Indonesia and Vietnam. Multimillion-dollar, globalized companies have no accountability and turn a blind eye to the exploitation towards trafficked victims occurring behind the scenes in fear of jeopardizing company reputations. This research

In his New York Times essay, “What Sweatshops Are a Dream,” writer Nicholas D. Kristof argues that the best way to help people who live in the poorest countries is not to campaign against sweatshops but instead promote manufacturing. (PA 109-111). Kristof’s opinion was influenced by the years he spent living in East Asia; he was able to personally observe how sweatshops affected people’s lives. His purpose was to inform the readers about the importance of sweatshops in other countries. Also, promoting manufacturing in sweatshops and how sweatshops can benefit the people and the economy.

“Creative destruction” creates winners and losers in trade. “Creative destruction” is when a new product or way of production comes is created and has the capability to destroy other entities. For example, American factory workers’ jobs are being outsourced to Asia. American factory workers are more educated and demand a decent amount of money. On the other hand, a worker in an Asian sweatshop isn’t as educated as the American worker, but this is outweighing by the wage the Asia workers are willing to take. The Asian sweatshop is a new way of production that costs less money and lowers the price of the products. The workers in America lose their jobs, while the Asian factory workers get jobs and the plant owners make more money. Overall, “Creative

This text became immediately implemented to a target market that has slender view of that sweatshops equal unfair pay and unfair remedy, but Kristof's article helps explains to his audience that sweatshops are an exceedingly safe and efficient process to households in growing international locations. The author attempts to persuade the audience to inspire greater sweatshops to be constructed in third world countries. Kristof

Nike, Victoria’s Secret, GAP, Levis, Nordstrom, Calvin Klein. Other than their status as large fashion retailers, they all have one thing in common: the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers’ Federation condemns their use of overseas sweatshops. Goods manufactured in Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and many other Asian and African countries are often made in less-than-ideal conditions for low wages. While opponents of overseas labor champion stricter trading laws, this form of supply-and-demand economics remains a vital part of the global economy, as it enables prices to remain low in developed countries and employs many individuals in distant, poorer areas.

Introduction Have you ever imagined working in a place where employees are subjected to dangerous working conditions, including unfair salaries and arbitrary punishments, such as physical and mental abuse? Since the hourly rate of sweatshop workers is less than their everyday expenses, these workers never have a chance to improve their quality of life. Ken Silverstein’s 2010 magazine article “Shopping for Sweat: The human cost of a two-dollar T-Shirt” outlines the harsh working conditions for many garment workers living in Cambodia. The topics discussed are slavery, ethical sourcing, public relations, productivity, poverty, and competitiveness.

However, in the non-developed countries sweatshop workers cannot even afford their needs for themselves and their family. People who work in sweatshops have their own obvious reason to work in the factories, these reasons are regularly to support their families with food, clothes and shelter. Workers have no-choice except working in the sweatshops frequently because there are low opportunities for any other employment and a poor education level meaning not going to the school because lack of money in other words having low living skills. Sweatshop factories are located in the countries which have a great deal of unemployment, meaning no-competition regard to wages where, the sweatshop worker only earns $1.26 per day. Sweatshop factories take the advantage of workers who have a poor educational level by violating the Human Rights, such as Article 23 whereas, the workers are not paid equal amount of salaries and also Article 24 while, the sweatshop workers work 14 hours a day or 16 hours for overtime. Workers are often locked in the factories, forced to work through the night (WarOnWant, 2016). This has impacted the conditions of living for the sweatshop

Kristof begins his essay by offering Obama and his team a tour of Phnom Penh before talking about labor standards. The problem that he identifies is that Americans are often shocked to hear that sweatshops exploit people, but are flabbergasted when they find out that they do not exploit enough. Kristof explains to the readers why sweatshops play a vital role in the lives of many people who live in foreign countries. Kristof’s first goal is to leave the reader with a visual of what it is like to live in Phnom Penh. From the examples of children digging for recyclable items to sell, to the statement of even the rats looking forlorn, Kristof uses the appeal to emotion for readers to sympathize with the people of Phnom Penh. Kristof’s second goal is to provide the reader’s information about how the citizens of poorer countries would much rather be working in sweatshops than ambling on the streets looking for recyclable goods to sell. By slowly establishing credibility and trust, and appealing to both emotions and logic, Kristof is able to prosper in writing a thought-provoking and enlightening argument.