The Impact Of Sweatshops Rules And Regulations

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.

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.

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?

They often use child labor, lack workers’ benefits, and use intimidation as means of controlling workers (Boal, Mark). Typically, sweatshops are found in developing countries, however, they are also a prevalent problem in many first world countries including the United States. Many manufacturers claim that sweatshops exist in order to keep prices down for consumers, while allowing profit. On the contrary, there is also substantial evidence that goes against these beliefs. For instance, a study showed that while doubling the wage of sweatshop workers would increase consumer price by 1.8%, consumers are willing to pay 15% more with the assurance that the product was made with fair labor (11 Facts About). This, however, is a hard argument seeing as the circumstance was hypothetical and if prices were actually raised, there is no way to assure that consumers would react the same way. Either way, both sides of the argument can agree that the conditions are not good, it is just a matter of analysing the cost vs. the benefit to determine their necessity. This leads to several questions: Are sweatshops a necessary evil, how could they be abolished, and what realistic goals regarding the bettering of worker conditions can be met? Through the answering of these questions, it is easy to see that despite claims of sweatshops bringing opportunities to

“My concern isn’t that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few” (Stossel, 586). This theory holds that developing countries improve their condition by charging less but do the same work. Also developed countries will be better off, because their workers can shift to jobs that they can do better at (561). These are the jobs that some economists say usually show a certain level of education and training that can be difficult to obtain in the developing world (579). Consequently, developing countries get factories that provide multiple jobs that they would not otherwise; therefore improving the technology and capital. With this situation occurring, developing countries try to keep low constant wages, because sweatshops tend to just get moved on to another location that is more willing, for fear of losing investments and boosting gross domestic product (GDP). This only means average wages will increase at a steady rate around the world; a nation gets left behind if it demands wages are higher than the current market price asked for (Ross, 566).

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

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.

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.

The last source I used to answer my question was from Practical Argument called “Sweatshop Oppression” by Rajeev Ravisankar. Ravisankar wrote the article because many people don't know what it takes for sweatshops to function. His purpose is to let his readers know how sweatshops treat their workers. For example, with long working hours, less pay and harmful working conditions. To summarize Ravisankar story, he addresses what it takes for sweatshop labors to go through for consumers to get low prices.

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.

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

largely beneficial in the lives of the working people. While workers in sweatshops are extremely willing to work in sweatshops, individuals in western nations often advocate for the abolishment of sweatshops. Individuals in the west who argue against sweatshops are often arguing for the interest of dominant groups in society. Arguing against developing countries trying to build their living standards and happiness through low wage production and manufacturing, is actually individuals and groups wanting jobs to stay in the wealthy nations instead of being sent off to low cost nations (Spath, 2002, pg. 125). Advocating for the abolishment of sweatshops is placing a barrier on an individual’s right to work (Danaher & Henderson, 2001, pg. 128).

Abstract: Many countries, industries and people are becoming more affected by sweatshops in different ways because of they’re continuous increase in growth. Sweatshops benefit many developing countries as they provide opportunities of employment to the people living in poverty and benefit the community at large by creating an economic infrastructure that utilizes the country’s resources and increases their tax base. These institutions first came into existence in the early 1800’s and were referred to as dwelling houses, which were local factories that generally had the same idea of the sweatshop that we have in today’s society. There

A sweatshop is a workplace, often a factory, in which employees work long hours at low wages under poor conditions. First of all what is a sweatshop? The dictionary meaning of a sweatshop is; a factory or workshop, especially in the clothing industry, where manual workers are employed at very low wages for long hours and under poor conditions. We would not be as rich or as affluent had it not been for sweatshops in 3rd world and developing countries. One could argue that the first sweatshops were created in our very own country(The industrial revolution)Furthermore one could also say that for a country to become a developed nation one of the steps is to create sweatshops to invigorate the manufacturing sector. This is hoe western Europe and North America became successful and powerful by exploiting their lower class population(agricultural workers).What we have seen