Nike And Sweatshop Practices During Asian Pacific Region

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?

Large corporations such as Nike, Gap, and Reebok and many others from the United States have moved their factories to undeveloped nations; barely pay their employees enough to live on. Countries such as China, Indonesia, and Haiti have readily abundant cheap labor. There should be labor laws or an obligation of respecting workers to provide decent working conditions, fair wages, and safety standards.

In the third world countries such as Vietnam, China, South Korea and Taiwan, we are provided with an example of cheap labour. These corporations could now achieve the benefit of the United States consumer market8, while keeping their costs extremely low in offshore production. The working conditions in the United States were poor for centuries, often little to nothing was done unless a tragedy occurred to influence worker rights by the public. This was the issue during the Industrial Revolution and in the late 20th century. In the United states, improvements have been made and these conditions have disappeared, with the privilege in some agricultural areas. Companies from the United States have moved a considerable amount of their factories

As a major contributor to the global economy, Mexico’s sweatshops have contributed to the United States’ wealth and economic growth. It is the unfortunate truth that many individual workers have suffered as a result of this prosperity. The sweatshops, known as maquiladoras, are in debate because of the ethical and lawful reasoning behind their existence and conditions. How can we, as a First-world nation, allow such industries to exist where people are denied basic and fundamental human rights? What, if any, laws and regulations are put into place for the maquiladoras? Are these laws and regulations hindering, harmful, or helpful? Are they enforced emphatically? If not, how does this affect development? After

I am writing this letter to express my concerns over Nike's labor practices in Asia. There has been much debate and controversy recently concerning Nike's Asian labor practices. It is very difficult to determine which side of the argument to defend, as both acknowledge the problems yet put a completely different spin on the facts. I will try to show that Nike has created a cloud of smoke in Asia that the public cannot see through.

Generally, globalism has been attributed to better worldwide communication, advanced technological development, and a higher international standard of living, and rightfully so. However, with all these new worldwide advantages comes a new type of human exploitation. Many companies, specifically American ones, have been quick to take advantage of the cheap and dangerous labor available in most of the undeveloped world. Countries who are working through their period of Industrialization are being siphoned off and used to maintain America’s economy, while their developing country reaps no reward from the low paying, dehumanizing jobs that American companies offer their low class workers. This type of inhumane job outsourcing can only be compared

In the past decade, a pattern has emerged of large corporations choosing to contract their labour to foreign countries in order to remain competitive. However, companies tend to relocate production to the poorest nations where labour is cheap and output is chief. As a result, outsourcing labour has made multinational companies subject to criticism for their immoral practices. This has created the classic ethical debate as to whether it is possible for multinationals to engage in developing nations in both an ethical and lucrative manner. For businesses, the difficulty is if one of these values should be favoured over the other.

“Globalization means different things to different people,” so therefore individuals have their own standpoints regarding various things. In this case, an issue that has arisen is the allegation of mistreatment of employees in developing countries. Slimline is an apparel manufacturer in Sri Lanka, which does business disparately. The company employs 5000+ employees, whom help produced $50 million worth of apparel annually. In this company, the entry level wages are set higher than the local markets and to mention that some of their employees have undergraduate and graduate degrees. Slimline does not have the typical

Should Nike be held responsible for working conditions in foreign factories that it does not own but where subcontractors make products for Nike?

Nike is a worldwide global corporation that has its shoes manufactured on a contract basis in places like Asia, China, and Vietnam. Although it does not actually own any of the manufacturing locations, it has long been accused of having its products manufactured in facilities that exploit workers. Although Nike admits some wrongdoing in the manufacturing facilities of its contractors, it claims to have started a commitment to improve working conditions in those facilities.

Multinational companies have been criticised for focusing on their global responsibility in relation to their business style and not about reforming their labour conditions that support sweatshops. Scherer, Palazzo & Baumann (2006) look at an example of Nike which in 1998-2001 had received worldwide backlash due to its exercising of negative labour laws that portrayed negative and an infringement of human rights- creating sweatshops. With Nike being a powerful multinational company, it took a

A large majority of Americans do not realize where the clothes they purchase are produced. Unethically made goods are predominantly less expensive than goods made outside of sweatshops. With the increase in investigations, it is apparent major brands such as Nike, Disney, Reebok, the Gap and others are involved in the use of sweatshops. Sweatshops are commonly known for having poor working conditions, unfair wages, unreasonable hours, child labor, and a lack of benefits for workers. In foreign countries, sweatshops have around 168 million children ages 5 to 14 forced into child labor (“11 Facts”). Labor conditions are violated, and are often ignored by the US Department of Labor. Sweatshops are still ongoing due to the ignorance or lack of care for the people involved in a sweatshop corporation. With the awareness of where the majority of inexpensive clothing is manufactured, the public and major American companies should reconsider supporting sweatshops.

Globalization can be seen as a major threat for manufacturing jobs in the developed world, however, can also be a benefit for developing world citizens who receive thousands of jobs a year although they don’t receive a high salary. Maurice Allais, a French economist states that this unemployment, of course, has only been able to develop because of the existence of low salaries and insufficient flexibility in the labor market (April 10th, 1999). This indicates that globalization has jeopardized Western countries jobs because companies are moving their establishments to developing countries where they don’t need to pay employees as much and where land is cheaper so overall businesses benefit from this. Also, employees in the developed world are at risk of becoming redundant as they are susceptible to face pay cuts in jobs. Employees are less skilled in the developing world as they don’t receive the benefit of an education like developed countries do. So a company may want to build factories in these countries because environmental laws aren’t as strict. Establishments in these areas provides promising jobs for the local people and allows them to learn new skills, however they are set on minimum wage which in developed world countries, this would not be enough to live on, wherein third world countries this is still a low amount so this is not enough to bring them out of poverty meaning that the only one who benefits from this is the company. Although there have been several arguments against exploitation and oppression, the majority of developing countries do not have existing laws which take minimum wage

The Pou Chen factory is located in a place where the minimum wage is far below the national average. It has 10,000 workers who make Converse sneakers. Most of the workers are women, and they earn only 50 cents an hour. The amount that they earn is not even enough to cover their food and very poor housing. In this factory, the women are both physically and verbally abused. Nike’s own investigations have proved these complaints to be true. The company made a statement saying that immediate actions would be taken to deal with the situation. It is interesting to note that, “an internal Nike report, released to the Associated Press after it inquired about the abuse, showed that nearly two-thirds of 168 factories making Converse products worldwide failed to meet Nike’s own standards for contract manufacturers. Twelve are in the most serious category, ranging from illegally long work hours to

Substandard working conditions in the less developed world are usually described as terrible places where employees are subjected to both mental and physical abuse, near impossible quotas, long hours, extremely low wages, and unsafe working conditions compared to western standards. All of this within an uninhabitable environment that corporations knowingly force the world’s impoverished people to submit to. Through pure ignorance, complete disregard, or lack of moral direction, many corporations have taken the concept of