Negatives Of Sweatshops

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.

Cambridge dictionary defines sweatshop as a small factory where workers are paid very little and work many hours under bad conditions. People working there are deprived of any kind of worker’s benefit. Child labor is very common in sweatshops. Workers in sweatshops are often missing key pieces of safety equipment such as face masks to ensure safe breathing or work in environments with insufficient means of emergency exit since employers may lock the doors and windows to prevent theft during working hours (Hartman ). The workers are abused, beaten, kicked, and shoved, even if they are sick or pregnant. Sweatshop is nothing but a modern form of slavery, because the workers are forced to work in harsh condition for a little wage, and they are denied any fundamental human rights .

Firstly, if sweatshops were not as low paid and the working conditions were not as pleasant compared to first world countries, then companies might as well employ citizens of first world countries, who would probably be healthier. This would not benefit the people in the third world countries, who would slip into poverty and starvation.

Imagine a world where trade was not allowed. If someone wanted an apple, then they would have to wander until they found an apple seed, plant and grow the tree using the rain they gathered from hand-made cups or barrels, and wait for years until the tree brought forth fruit. In order to build a house, this person would have to cut down trees with an axe that they forged and built themselves, then they would have to make mud to hold the lumber together so that they could build the house. Forget about electricity, cars, cell phones, most modern technology, because none of these things would be possible without trade. Fortunately, we live in a time when trade is widely accepted across the world. Charles Wheelan, an international economist, notes

Sweatshops greatly impact the lives of people all across the world; people are forced into incredibly tough labor along with unbearable working conditions. According to the writer of English Blog, “22 million children die annually due to the hazardous conditions in the sweatshops.” (English Blog RSS) Besides the low pay and awfully long working hours, the

There are many views with the problem of utilizing sweatshops in developing economies. Many insist that utilizing sweatshops in developing economies composes exploitation. In certain circumstances, this may be true, but not all. It is an ongoing controversy of demolishing sweatshops and changing the laws of labor. Many anti-sweatshop activist supports the idea of demolishing sweatshops. Activist commonly focus on work conditions and low wages causing them to be ill – formed of the economy as a whole. Taking a deeper look into these developing countries, it is with out of doubt that these countries benefit from sweatshops. Sweatshops should not be demolished because the employees are benefited with income, their economy receives growth and

It is important, however, to take a panoramic view on these factories to avoid bias, just as one would do for any other topic. Author Nicholas Kristof of the op-ed article “Where Sweatshops Are A Dream,” successfully and effectively does this in his article, in which he examines the lives of Asian factory workers and how they are affected by the presence of sweatshops. First off, Kristoff argues that from the perspective of someone living in extreme poverty such as this, any job would drastically improve one’s quality of life. He believes, to some extent, it comes down to the lesser of two evils: a paying job, no

In “Where Sweatshops Are a Dream”, Nicholas Kristof states sweatshops may be too harsh in America’s eyes, but a dream for many families in poverty. Phnom Penh, Cambodia is a city where, in some places, the trash pile high and smoke fills the air. For the people who live there, scavenging through the trash, finding plastic and, selling it is just a way of life. Many Americans believe that labor laws should be improved to try to help them. However, what they do not see is that many want to work in sweat shops. To work in a sweatshop and get out of the trash collecting life is a goal for many people living there. Kristof defends his statement by saying sewing machine jobs would be a more preferable job then what people do in Phnom Penh. On the

Sweatshops are manufacturing facilities run by larger corporations where employees work under poor conditions, long hours, and are paid low wages. Workers in sweatshops often manufacture a majority of the products that consumers purchase in the Global North (This term refers to wealthier nations in the Northern Hemisphere, as opposed to the Global South, which refers to poorer nations in the Southern Hemisphere.) In a piece titled “Women Shopping and Women Sweatshopping: Individual Responsibility for Consumerism”, Lisa Cassidy describes three senses of responsibility that dictate a connected world such as ours today.

Sweatshops are characterized by such things as: “physical working conditions that may have detrimental health and safety consequences for the worker, an intensity of work that is higher than would be found in similar facilities in the developed world, long hours of work with mandatory overtime, low rates of remuneration and uncertainty that the

Almost everyone knows sweatshops are not acceptable places to work or support. Sweatshops, per definition from the International Labor Organization are organizations that violate more than two labor laws (Venkidaslam). There are several arguments against sweatshops. First, is that these organizations exploit their workers. They provide them low wages and some pay below the minimum wage of the home nation. Moreover, these workers are forced to work more than 60 hours per week and are mandated to work overtime. In addition, workers are subjected to unsafe environments and sexual abuse. Finally, sweatshops are known for their child labor, where children below the legal working age are paid extremely small wages. Anyone who is against sweatshops will say, choosing to partner with these organizations are unethical.

Sweatshops are factories that are used around the world that major brand companies use to make products. These factories have gained media attention and controversy for the long hours and low pay given to the workers. Many people say to boycott these factories because of the latter reasons, but consumers shouldn’t boycott companies that make sweatshop products. The first reason consumers shouldn’t boycott these products would be people actually deliberately take these jobs because in developing countries most jobs don’t pay that much. The second reason consumers shouldn’t boycott sweatshop products would be that it allows a lot of people in the developing worlds to rise out of poverty.

Nicholas D Kristof begins his essay by exploring the ideas that factory jobs in poor countries are actually a means of reduce poverty. As noted in his article, “sweatshops are only a symptom of poverty, not a cause” (paragraph 8, pge 110). Although sweatshop may be harsh, present a better alternative for workers for in poor countries than what is already available to them. The problem he identifies in his article is the fact that many families would rather work at a sweatshop than stay in a dangerous garbage dumps, searching for something to recycle for a change (Kristof). He assumes that his readers know little about sweatshops; furthermore, how difficult and awful the living conditions are. He goes on to say that some of those workers have

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.

In 2006, the Mail on Sunday alleged that sweatshop conditions existed in factories in China, where the contract manufacturer Foxconn, operate the factories that produce the iPod. The article stated that one iPod factory, as an example, employed over 200,000 workers who lived and worked in the factory, and regularly performed more than 60 hours of labor per week. The article also reported that workers made around US$100 per month and were required to live on the premises and pay for rent and food from the company. Living expenses—a requirement of keeping the job—typically required that employees spend a little over half of their earnings. The article also said that workers were given buckets to wash their clothes in.