NationStates Jolt Archive

Many popular clothing brands (Levis, etc.) have been confirmed to have some contracted factories which operate with sweatshop conditions.

Do you think it is unethical to wear clothing that you suspect is made in sweatshops, or is it simply an inevitable fact of the economy that you will come into products made in sweatshops or under unfair labour conditions?

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 abuse, or

• Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union.


Often times conditions are terrible it is reported, with wages as low or lower than $10.00 a week and many instances of abuse, 12 hour work days, etc.

Obviously worker conditions should be improved. But simply boycotting clothing made there won't do that. It'll just make the poor wretches unemployed and worsen their condition.

Many popular clothing brands (Levis, etc.) have been confirmed to have some contracted factories which operate with sweatshop conditions.

Do you think it is unethical to wear clothing that you suspect is made in sweatshops, or is it simply an inevitable fact of the economy that you will come into products made in sweatshops or under unfair labour conditions?

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 abuse, or

• Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union.


Often times conditions are terrible it is reported, with wages as low or lower than $10.00 a week and many instances of abuse, 12 hour work days, etc.

Of course it's unethical. But equally, it's capitalism, and therefore AOK!:rolleyes:

"Provides _some_ money for the people exploited; helps their countries economy a little; if _they_ didn't do it, some country round the corner would anyway; exploitation eventually promotes workers rights; if we didn't buy brandname clothes at low low prices, we'd put sweatshop workers out of a job; our economy in the west might suffer a little if we had to pay above a starvation wage for the workers; people have always exploited people, how d'you think the west got so good in the first place; I don't want to pay higher prices for my jeans."

It's a shitty mess, all of it, and I don't know how you can fix it for the poor souls involved here and now without radical, unacceptable changes to the world as we know it. It's probably the one argument in favour of a world government.

Yes it is unethical

Do you think it is unethical to wear clothing that you suspect is made in sweatshops..NO!
I don't think so.

it is the Agricultural subsidies..and all the Unfair-Trade-practices that keeps those countries very poor. That is our collective Crime.

wanna help the poor children over there? stop our ongoing Crime!

I think so. As such, I try to avoid wearing it where possible, although it is an increasingly difficult task.

Yes it is unethical, but it's way more unethical not doing anything to stop those kind of work conditions. It's even more unethical and hypocritical to allow trade with a country whose productions methods don't respect human rights - Chinese products are posing a competition issue not because of their quality (which isn't much) but because of their low price, something that other countries' production units could also achieve if they weren't regulated and forced to respect their workers and treat them like human beings.
But I can undestand that people with low income have to resort to buying that kind of products, it's a largely growing phenomenon where I live.

Obviously worker conditions should be improved. But simply boycotting clothing made there won't do that. It'll just make the poor wretches unemployed and worsen their condition.

It puts pressure on multicorps to up their standards and disclose their supply chain. Nike has already done that, reacting to bad publicity.

An international standard is being made by ISO, due in 2008. Until then, there is stuff like Sullivan code, ILO codes, etc. All are voluntary.

But I can undestand that people with low income have to resort to buying that kind of products, it's a largely growing phenomenon where I live.

The irony is that well known labels are usually far more expensive than their locally produced counterparts.

NO!
I don't think so.

it is the Agricultural subsidies..and all the Unfair-Trade-practices that keeps those countries very poor. That is our collective Crime.

wanna help the poor children over there? stop our ongoing Crime!


Bang on. But if course then we would have truly freemarket economics. And if we're honest in the West, that's the last thing even the most rabid NeoCon actually wants. Because we would get royally shafted.

Yes, yes it is.

The irony is that well known labels are usually far more expensive than their locally produced counterparts.
I was referring to cheaper general products (toys, clothing, household stuff, etc...) that are usually nothing more than poor copies.
But yes, it's even worse when a companie exploits cheap labour to produce things that are quite expensive to the average citizen.

I would also note that the op is wrong on one major point - in most of the places where these sweatshops operate they are NOT illegal. For instance, Malaysia has no such laws, and many "sweatshops".

I'd also question the "exploitative" quality of most of them. If they truly don't provide a living wage, then believe it or not, they don't get or keep workers - you have to offer better than subsistence farming, which people can live off of, and which is a viable choice in most of the third world.

Finally, and this is the hardest thing to convince people of, but by and large this is not our fault. None of these countries is by nature poor; many of them have significant natural resources, and none have had less than fifty years of independence in which to develop their economies. If their governments have been too incompetent or too corrupt to do so, that is up to their populations to make right.

I would also note that the op is wrong on one major point - in most of the places where these sweatshops operate they are NOT illegal. For instance, Malaysia has no such laws, and many "sweatshops".
Right, but I personally think it's pure hipocrisy for countries where that kind of action is illegal to maintain trade relations with nations that thrive from those situations. No EU member is allowed to permit human rights' violations but the EU welcomed China into the World Trading Organization :eek:

No EU member is allowed to permit human rights' violations but the EU welcomed China into the World Trading Organization :eek:Hey, we accept the US there too. We can't be too picky. If we didn't want to associate with any countries that occasionally or frequently violated human rights, there'd only be a handfull left.

Chinese products are posing a competition issue not because of their quality (which isn't much) but because of their low price, something that other countries' production units could also achieve if they weren't regulated and forced to respect their workers and treat them like human beings.

i think china would still be posing a competition issue even if it did improve working conditions in its private sector, though the gap would close a little.

the conditions are extremely unfair, but unfortunately western countries have democratic governments, and it would be intrinsically impossible for those governments to say "right, from now on, you have to pay five times as much for pretty much everything you buy because we're improving the working conditions of people who don't live here and didn't vote for us." democracy encourages people to look after their own interests. sad but true.

Right, but I personally think it's pure hipocrisy for countries where that kind of action is illegal to maintain trade relations with nations that thrive from those situations. No EU member is allowed to permit human rights' violations but the EU welcomed China into the World Trading Organization :eek:

whether countries get into the wto depends on how much existing members think they can gain from it, not anything else. sort of the same rules that govern whether arms embargoes are lifted or not.

Buying sweatshop made clothes is pretty much inevitable, though there are a few things you can do...

Write to manufacturers to ask about their worker policies - if enough people did it might eventually encourage some to change. They are market driven after all.
Find fairly traded clothing outlets/internet sites (though there aren't too many that I know of... peopletree.com sometimes has stuff that's not too hippified... ;) )
Give up altogether and buy your clothes second-hand from Oxfam!

Well, public nudity is illegal, so I'm not sure I have many options but to buy such clothes.

How much money could they possibly lose if they payed their workers the minimum wage the Americans get and give them good working conditions? It would certainly encourage their workers to work well and the company can crow that they aren't a heartless corporation who has their workers in near slavery.

Obviously worker conditions should be improved. But simply boycotting clothing made there won't do that. It'll just make the poor wretches unemployed and worsen their condition.
I don't think that this translates, however into "buy the stuff anyway, because in a round about way it will help more than NOT buying it":) While it's true that boycotts alone, especially silent boycotts, do little, vocal ones are much more effective. The GAP and Levi has cleaned up their act somewhat because of very public pressure. It hasn't solved things...and it's true that in Levi's case, things are getting bad again...but it shows that pressure CAN make a difference. It can be as simple as asking the manager of a store if they can tell you where their products are produced and under what conditions. They usually don't know, and you're referred to a higher up. Who usually also does not know...but now the questions are being floated around, and someone eventually is going to have to come up with some answers. This has been pretty effective at times...and doesn't take a huge amount of effort on the individual's part.

I would also note that the op is wrong on one major point - in most of the places where these sweatshops operate they are NOT illegal. For instance, Malaysia has no such laws, and many "sweatshops".

I'd also question the "exploitative" quality of most of them. If they truly don't provide a living wage, then believe it or not, they don't get or keep workers - you have to offer better than subsistence farming, which people can live off of, and which is a viable choice in most of the third world.

Finally, and this is the hardest thing to convince people of, but by and large this is not our fault. None of these countries is by nature poor; many of them have significant natural resources, and none have had less than fifty years of independence in which to develop their economies. If their governments have been too incompetent or too corrupt to do so, that is up to their populations to make right.
Yes, but we CAN make a difference in our consumption patterns if we require that things be produced in a certain way. However, one thing that you've brought up is the legality of sweatshops...it's important to note that in most of our Western nations, we too have sweatshops. There are a fair number of them in Canada, notably in British Columbia, where mostly immigrant asian women are doing piece work, snippping the threads off jeans and shirts and such, in terrible working conditions at less than a living wage. They are usually also paying off debt incurred by being sponsored to come here. All perfectly legal...and what isn't legal is kept hush hush, because these people don't understand their rights here, or aren't protected to the same extent as permanent residents.

I'd like to focus on that kind of stuff FIRST...make sure this kind of explotation isn't going on in our own country..."Made in Canada" does not ensure it's sweatshop-free.

Yes, it is unethical.

One way to avoid this bad karma is to go nude. Don't have to buy clothes. Think about the savings and the clear conscience.

Allow public nudity!

It's only unethical if you can find clothes made under humane conditions that you can afford to wear. I wouldn't know where to find clothes that aren't made under sweatshop conditions. Most major retailers tend to sell stuff made in China and third world countries. Finding clothes made in countries with laws to protect the workers is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Buying sweatshop made clothes is pretty much inevitable, though there are a few things you can do...

Write to manufacturers to ask about their worker policies - if enough people did it might eventually encourage some to change. They are market driven after all.
Find fairly traded clothing outlets/internet sites (though there aren't too many that I know of... peopletree.com sometimes has stuff that's not too hippified... ;) )
Give up altogether and buy your clothes second-hand from Oxfam!
Hehehehe...it IS hard to avoid...and it's not just clothes, it's a wide range of goods. And it can be hard in terms of cost as well, because while it's true that brand names cost more, a lot of the goods produced by sweat-shop labour are not expensive brands. Fair trade goods are considerably more expensive, and it is easier to shop for deals and face your conscience later. But you can also trade cheap, poorly-made for well-made, more expensive goods and end up not replacing them so often. Buy local goods. Ask where your goods are produced. Consume less, or focus on quality instead. Reevalutate your habits...do you really wear all those clothes in your closet? If not...why keep buying enough to fill it? Just thinking about what you buy a bit more can help in some way.

How much money could they possibly lose if they payed their workers the minimum wage the Americans get and give them good working conditions? It would certainly encourage their workers to work well and the company can crow that they aren't a heartless corporation who has their workers in near slavery.
They'd lose a considerable profit.

And since they aren't in America in the first place, why should they pay them what Americans get? That defeats the whole point of what they're doing.

etc. etc.


I try not to think of the sweat and tears used to make my pants. I don't even know what companies practice this to try and avoid them. I mean, I kinda need pants.

Paying someone to commit a crime or wrong is the same as committing it yourself, in ethical terms.

It's only unethical if you can find clothes made under humane conditions that you can afford to wear. I wouldn't know where to find clothes that aren't made under sweatshop conditions. Most major retailers tend to sell stuff made in China and third world countries. Finding clothes made in countries with laws to protect the workers is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
This is true...but it's not just one needle in that haystack. Once you find a series of outlets that provide fairly traded goods you like, be a loyal customer. There are more and more options all the time...it's not nearly as hard as it was even ten years ago to find sweat-shop free items. Thank you internet!

They'd lose a considerable profit.

And since they aren't in America in the first place, why should they pay them what Americans get? That defeats the whole point of what they're doing.

etc. etc. Activists usually lobby for a living wage in that country...not equal wages to Westerners. But more than the living wage is the issue of working conditions.


I try not to think of the sweat and tears used to make my pants. I don't even know what companies practice this to try and avoid them. I mean, I kinda need pants.
But you CAN get pants that aren't produced by sweat-shop labour. It doesn't take that much effort anymore to find them, though you're better off shopping online than hoping to find a store in the mall:)

It's tougher when you're a student, or not making much coin...but second hand goods are still a better deal and idea than buying them first-hand...though you're still consuming sweat-shop produced goods in many cases, it's a bit more diluted.

to be frank i dont care where my clothes come from as long as they keep me warm and i can afford them, if the only clothes i can afford come from a sweat shop so be it, i will get them!

This is true...but it's not just one needle in that haystack. Once you find a series of outlets that provide fairly traded goods you like, be a loyal customer. There are more and more options all the time...it's not nearly as hard as it was even ten years ago to find sweat-shop free items. Thank you internet!

Actually, as long as you are okay with dressing like a bit of a fuddy-duddy, it's fairly easy to find a variety of clothes still made in the US/UK.

It's more difficult for items like jeans, t-shirts and underwear however.

It's only unethical if you can find clothes made under humane conditions that you can afford to wear. I wouldn't know where to find clothes that aren't made under sweatshop conditions. Most major retailers tend to sell stuff made in China and third world countries. Finding clothes made in countries with laws to protect the workers is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
I buy all my clothes in charity shops. Which means that they are second hand. There's no need to buy new.

I'd like to focus on that kind of stuff FIRST...make sure this kind of explotation isn't going on in our own country..."Made in Canada" does not ensure it's sweatshop-free.
This is alarming indeed. I've always treated "made in [first-world country]" as sweatshop-free. Laws need to be enforced and loopholes must be closed.

I think so. As such, I try to avoid wearing it where possible, although it is an increasingly difficult task.
Again, charity shops, people!

When it's dicount, from the flea market, thrift shop, or otherwise cheap, it is perfectly ok. If it is a $300 Aeropostale jeans, well that's not acceptable at all.

Again, charity shops, people!

As in second hand stores?

I buy all my clothes in charity shops. Which means that they are second hand. There's no need to buy new.Someone has to fill second hand shops with clothes, so someone has to buy them new.

As in second hand stores?
Yes.

Someone has to fill second hand shops with clothes, so someone has to buy them new.
There is a surplus of new clothes in the western world. There is no risk of them running out. Obviously charity shops would collapse if nobody had any new clothes to give them, but if a few more people stopped pointlessly buying new clothes and checked out charity shops stock, they would be better off.

I'm not worried.

Mmm, I actually think the reverse of most are thinking; its probably more ethical to buy clothes made from sweatshops then those locally made.

I'd love a world where every country has a true equal footing on the world economy, where the world actually gives everyone a fair chance. Too bad this world is one tough place that doesn't like change.

So, considering the current situation, I'd rather buy clothes that at least have a small portion of the profits trickle down to the workers, ensuring that they have the basic necessities of life. Some would point out that the same thing would happen if I donated money but I don't really trust foreign aid; more often then not, it goes to corrupt gouvernment cats rather then the people.

Its better then buying from a local maker, which only ensures the maker a vaction to Hawaii or Alaska.

Mmm, I actually think the reverse of most are thinking; its probably more ethical to buy clothes made from sweatshops then those locally made.

I'd love a world where every country has a true equal footing on the world economy, where the world actually gives everyone a fair chance. Too bad this world is one tough place that doesn't like change.

So, considering the current situation, I'd rather buy clothes that at least have a small portion of the profits trickle down to the workers, ensuring that they have the basic necessities of life. Some would point out that the same thing would happen if I donated money but I don't really trust foreign aid; more often then not, it goes to corrupt gouvernment cats rather then the people.

Its better then buying from a local maker, which only ensures the maker a vaction to Hawaii or Alaska.


I think the last part would imply a bespoke or made-to-measure artistan.

If you wanted that kind of clothing, it would be impossible to buy things from sweatshops anyways.

The sort of jobs supported by buying local and 1st-world produced goods are old-fashion middle class manufacturing jobs. At least ideally.

This is alarming indeed. I've always treated "made in [first-world country]" as sweatshop-free. Laws need to be enforced and loopholes must be closed.

Make sure you're not just looking at the label:)
Labels don't tell you anything

Just because the label says "made in Canada" doesn't mean it wasn't made in a sweatshop. It's actually possible that the house next door is a sweatshop. Street Cents found a study done in 1999 by a professor at the University of Toronto. The report says, in Canada, close to 40,000 women work at home sewing for big companies. They're sometimes mistreated. And, sometimes make as little as $2/hr.

Likewise, just because the label says, "Made in China," doesn't necessarily mean it was made in a sweatshop. Some developing countries have factories with health clinics. Some even pay their employees fair wages.

Mmm, I actually think the reverse of most are thinking; its probably more ethical to buy clothes made from sweatshops then those locally made.

Its better then buying from a local maker, which only ensures the maker a vaction to Hawaii or Alaska.
This really confounds me. You'd prefer to support sweatshop labour...because despite the nice dream of trickle-down, it really isn't profitting the workers...in some cases, it's essentially slave labour (after assorted costs are taken out of the wage...costs like paying off the fee the bosses paid for you, then paying off the rent for sleeping in the factory, etc, etc, etc). Anyway, you'd prefer to do that, instead of making sure that local business can actually prosper? Now, there is a difference between only buying domestic products out of some misguided patriotism...and buying local because you don't want the corner store to go out of business and be replaced by a WalMart.

This really confounds me. You'd prefer to support sweatshop labour...because despite the nice dream of trickle-down, it really isn't profitting the workers...in some cases, it's essentially slave labour (after assorted costs are taken out of the wage...costs like paying off the fee the bosses paid for you, then paying off the rent for sleeping in the factory, etc, etc, etc). Anyway, you'd prefer to do that, instead of making sure that local business can actually prosper? Now, there is a difference between only buying domestic products out of some misguided patriotism...and buying local because you don't want the corner store to go out of business and be replaced by a WalMart.

True, it profits the workers little...but it still gives them shelter. Food. A purpose. A way to survive. Why are they in a sweatshop in the first place? Becasue they need to feed thier families; money does not fall from the sky. Yes, multinationals suck very hard and rape the profits like hell to the point where the workers almost get nothing but at the end of it, I'd rather support someone who needs money for food rather then someone who needs money for say a new car. Yes, some people in the United States are also reeling under the heels of poverty, but at the end, they have ample oppurtunities for employment elsewhere and also a welfare system. Many third-world citizens do not have these luxeries.

I wouldn't go on a bingefest to buy Adidas (personally hate multinationals...ironically though, if only because sometimes they are the only ones who give the basterds a damn chance at employment, I support them.) but I'd still pick a "sweatshop" shirt over a local middle-class produced shirt.

Make sure you're not just looking at the label:)
Then how can I ever know?

True, it profits the workers little...but it still gives them shelter. Food. A purpose. A way to survive. Why are they in a sweatshop in the first place? Becasue they need to feed thier families; money does not fall from the sky. Yes, multinationals suck very hard and rape the profits like hell to the point where the workers almost get nothing but at the end of it, I'd rather support someone who needs money for food rather then someone who needs money for say a new car. Yes, some people in the United States are also reeling under the heels of poverty, but at the end, they have ample oppurtunities for employment elsewhere and also a welfare system. Many third-world citizens do not have these luxeries.

I wouldn't go on a bingefest to buy Adidas (personally hate multinationals...ironically though, if only because sometimes they are the only ones who give the basterds a damn chance at employment, I support them.) but I'd still pick a "sweatshop" shirt over a local middle-class produced shirt.
I think I just blinked most at the term 'more ethical'. One of the biggest problem with sweatshops is that people opposing them don’t really look very deeply into them. There are sweatshops, and then there are sweatshops. Some are much more abusive than others. As I mentioned, the label alone (made in Vietnam, made in Pakistan) don't tell you what you need to know. As well, boycotts and public pressure sometimes just cause a company to pack up and move…leaving people suddenly unemployed. Not really the best solution, when the choice was backbreaking work for little wage versus no work and no wage. As well, sweat-shops are not new…the West used them too. Children, men and women, working in terrible conditions, long hours, for little wages…but things improved as the social systems improved and the West gained prosperity. But we had the advantage of certain protectionist tariffs and taxes, and we were able to develop our social systems. Under IMF regulations, many developing nations are denied the chance to develop social systems, and are forbidden any form of protectionism…meaning it’s going to take them a hell of a lot longer to gain our kind of ‘prosperity’ than it did us. A lot longer.

A balance needs to be struck between human rights and profits. Go too hard on the human rights issue, and companies just flip you the bird and leave for a country that doesn’t give a shit about such things. Give these companies completely free reign, and they have little incentive to change. Make it PROFITABLE to respect human rights, and you’re more successful. Reward companies that improve the treatment of their workers…and that includes not abandoning them to seek lower wages elsewhere.

This really confounds me. You'd prefer to support sweatshop labour...because despite the nice dream of trickle-down, it really isn't profitting the workers...in some cases, it's essentially slave labour (after assorted costs are taken out of the wage...costs like paying off the fee the bosses paid for you, then paying off the rent for sleeping in the factory, etc, etc, etc). Anyway, you'd prefer to do that, instead of making sure that local business can actually prosper? Now, there is a difference between only buying domestic products out of some misguided patriotism...and buying local because you don't want the corner store to go out of business and be replaced by a WalMart.
Yes, but consider the alternate: no job, you probably go starving and eventually die. As much as I find the practice disgusting, the workers also need to be able to feed their familys.

If a buisness doesn''t make enough profit, they'll start employing the workers for even cheaper prices.

I'm not worried.
But don't you think it's wrong to treat workers in such a cruel and heartless fashion?

Then how can I ever know?
A little bit of research. And bless the Internet, because it's easier than you think. Take for example, Roots Canada. All made in Canada, right? Google Roots Canada sweatshop, just to see if you get any hits. The first hit you'll get is some contraversy over their Olympic line, when it was discovered that Made in Canada sometimes means Made in Taiwan or China (http://www.maquilasolidarity.org/campaigns/olympics/). Now don't jump to conclusions...that doesn't necessarily mean they were produced in sweatshops...but I for one am bothered at the deception. Dig just a tad deeper...you'll find that because of the focus, more information on the standards subcontracters was demanded...but not yet provided. When in doubt, do without. If they can't be up front about their methods, you need to question why. More and more companies are voluntarily creating a code of conduct with independent verification that they must follow, down to their lowliest subcontracter. It's a step in the right direction. Just poke around a bit if you're not sure...if something slips by you, don't beat yourself up about it, just try to avoid it in the future.

No Sweat Apparel (http://www.nosweatapparel.com/index.html) contracts out to workers in Jakarta, and elsewhere, at fair wages and so on. Detailed information on how the goods were produced, and under what conditions are provided to the customer. Ditto with One Village (http://www.onevillage.org/) on their variety of goods. You get good quality stuff, though sometimes it can be a bit pricey. The point is, it's profitable. The problem is...it will be profitable for a smaller amount of people than if the wages were lower, and spread out among many. The demand for accountability needs to be there, and currently it isn't. If more people said, "You know, I want to be okay about buying Nike...I'd be willing to buy those great shoes if they could assure me they were produced at a fair wage in good working conditions". You better believe if the demand was there, Nike would fill it. Make human rights profitable...it's the only way I can see human rights fitting into capitalism.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ; anything but this pity-party again.

Look, 100 years ago, the United Goddamn States had these same working conditions, and we got out of it. Progress doesn't come at the drop of a hat, be it social, ethical, or industrial progress. Factories in America were able to grow and advance because the people who owned them were not afraid of our government nationalizing (!) the facility and taking over its production--a possibility that is still very real for them today in the third world. Once that threat disappears in other countries, these conditions stand a much better chance of finally ending. A decrease in manufacturing jobs is [under the right circumstances] a sign of a growing economy, as technology progresses and better jobs appear elsewhere.

A lot of liberals love to forget that if the Asian [or other] markets were as large as they could potentially be, as the result of widespread affluence, their profits would be much larger than they are right now. If you want to blame someone, blame the governments (!) of these nations, since they're the ones who are allowing these conditions to remain legal. Busting a corporation's balls for looking for cheap labor is like yelling at a kid for eating candy or strangling your dog for pissing on a fire hydrant. Payroll expenses are the largest expense for any corporation, with the possible exception of some highly specialized fields--most of which are probably an American phenomenon anyway. You can't possibly expect these people to satify a demand like this without looking to cut down on their overhead in the process. Do you really think for a second that if some amazing shoe/shirt/pants-making machine were invented, that the companies just wouldn't want to put them in these factories, doubling their efficiency and making conditions safer in the process? The problem, as it stands now, is that if such a machine were to be put to use, the government in question might just want to subsidize the goddamn thing for the "public good." They'd become a clothing export powerhouse overnight, at the simple cost of someone else's wasted investment.

The corporation/government dichotomy presents itself once again, and once again the government proves to be the greater evil. The corporation is at least honest with itself; it acknowledges that it holds a responsibility to its shareholders and to itself; whereas the governments of these nations [who ostensibly exist to "protect" their citizens] are allowing them to employ disenfranchised folks for a pittance. It's better than slavery, but not by much. Corporate corruption isn't the issue here: these people will always seek out the most cost-effective labor they can find, and when your job is something menial like running a sewing machine or something else that anyone can do, that usually also means finding the cheapest labor available.

The corporation/government dichotomy presents itself once again, and once again the government proves to be the greater evil. The corporation is at least honest with itself; it acknowledges that it holds a responsibility to its shareholders and to itself; whereas the governments of these nations [who ostensibly exist to "protect" their citizens] are allowing them to employ disenfranchised folks for a pittance. It's better than slavery, but not by much. Corporate corruption isn't the issue here: these people will always seek out the most cost-effective labor they can find, and when your job is something menial like running a sewing machine or something else that anyone can do, that usually also means finding the cheapest labor available.
It can't be up to the governments alone either though...not when there will always be some government willing to do whatever it takes to attract investment. So if bugging the corporations, and bugging the governments is not enough, what's the next step? Bugging the consumer, who generally just wants the cheapest available product. It can't be a singular approach.

Jesus tap-dancing Christ; anything but this pity-party again.

Look, 100 years ago, the United Goddamn States had these same working conditions, and we got out of it. Progress doesn't come at the drop of a hat, be it social, ethical, or industrial progress. Factories in America were able to grow and advance because the people who owned them were not afraid of our government nationalizing (!) the facility and taking over its production--a possibility that is still very real for them today in the third world. Once that threat disappears in other countries, these conditions stand a much better chance of finally ending. A decrease in manufacturing jobs is [under the right circumstances] a sign of a growing economy, as technology progresses and better jobs appear elsewhere.

A lot of liberals love to forget that if the Asian [or other] markets were as large as they could potentially be, as the result of widespread affluence, their profits would be much larger than they are right now. If you want to blame someone, blame the governments (!) of these nations, since they're the ones who are allowing these conditions to remain legal. Busting a corporation's balls for looking for cheap labor is like yelling at a kid for eating candy or strangling your dog for pissing on a fire hydrant. Payroll expenses are the largest expense for any corporation, with the possible exception of some highly specialized fields--most of which are probably an American phenomenon anyway. You can't possibly expect these people to satify a demand like this without looking to cut down on their overhead in the process. Do you really think for a second that if some amazing shoe/shirt/pants-making machine were invented, that the companies just wouldn't want to put them in these factories, doubling their efficiency and making conditions safer in the process? The problem, as it stands now, is that if such a machine were to be put to use, the government in question might just want to subsidize the goddamn thing for the "public good." They'd become a clothing export powerhouse overnight, at the simple cost of someone else's wasted investment.

The corporation/government dichotomy presents itself once again, and once again the government proves to be the greater evil. The corporation is at least honest with itself; it acknowledges that it holds a responsibility to its shareholders and to itself; whereas the governments of these nations [who ostensibly exist to "protect" their citizens] are allowing them to employ disenfranchised folks for a pittance. It's better than slavery, but not by much. Corporate corruption isn't the issue here: these people will always seek out the most cost-effective labor they can find, and when your job is something menial like running a sewing machine or something else that anyone can do, that usually also means finding the cheapest labor available.

The whole bit about nationalizing and taking over production... we a little bit confused between capatalism and communism? Capatalism is the laissez-faire side of the spectrum, where gouvernment influence is supposed to be kept out. Not that I'm too big into economic affairs, but I seriously doubt America was nationalizing its companies in the early 1900s.

The true reason why America rose to economic dominance? Simply because it already had a good base to being with (strong economic ties with several European powers, most notably the British Empire as well as a strong commercial market), its protectionism and the complete olibteration of Old Europe in the World Wars, circumstances that are impossible for Third World countries today (largely because of ironically, the tarrifs of a protectionist America and the profiliration of exploitative gouvernments and corporations.)

Anyways, we're not arguing the logical reasons why corporations are hiring dirt-cheap workers but the moral reasons behind them; is it right or wrong to buy these clothes knowing the suffering that has gone into them?

Is it objectivly fair that a child born in the United States has a guaranteed chance at education while one that is born in Nepal has to struggle for it?

Likewise, is it objectivly moral that companies should exploit those who sturggle just for the "responsiblity to thier shareholders" (and nobody is kidding anyone that corporations are out there looking for the cheapest labor for their responsibility to shareholders) and for profits that will go into nothing but material extras while the workers' money goes into their damn food?

That is what this thread is concerned about, not the profitability of exporting shoemaking to Chinese sweatshops.

And the fact is, that as a consumer, you have very limited power alone. Very limited power in terms of affecting government policy through your purchases, very little power in terms of affecting corporate policy. However, when the bulk of consumers are fine with the status quo of sweatshops, either out of ignorance, or a belief that in the long run, their purchases will actually help more than harm, you have little to no incentive for any sort of change. It's going to take more than a peppering of consumer here and there to demand changes. We can not rely on the market alone to make things better. Wait for that kind of change and you won't see it in your lifetime. But being a smart consumer is more than just boycotting everything. It's being informed, pushing buttons on many different levels, and re-examining your own wants and needs. If it's going to cost a company more to treat its workers humanely, you better be ready to cough up more money for the final product. If in the end you decide that you'd rather get your deals cheap than fair, that's fine. But make that choice with open eyes.

The whole bit about nationalizing and taking over production... we a little bit confused between capatalism and communism? Capatalism is the laissez-faire side of the spectrum, where gouvernment influence is supposed to be kept out. Not that I'm too big into economic affairs, but I seriously doubt America was nationalizing its companies in the early 1900s. I believe Melkor is referring to the fear that nations in the third world might turn around and nationalise industries. But outside of isolated cases, and isolated sectors, I don't think this is really much of a threat. It's one thing to nationalise the energy sector...and another completely to nationalise the textile industry. In any case, perhaps it is a risk companies face, but that doesn't change the fact that a better way can be found. Just because the US did it a certain way doesn't mean that's the only way progress can happen. There are plenty of things the US did that encouraged progress...and many human rights that were trampeled along the way. We don't need to repeat history if we work to find other solutions.

Obviously worker conditions should be improved. But simply boycotting clothing made there won't do that. It'll just make the poor wretches unemployed and worsen their condition.That's partially true. The boycott is an option, and should be used at times, but it is not the only option. Bad publicity in and of itself is sometimes enough to get a company to change its ways.

I would also note that the op is wrong on one major point - in most of the places where these sweatshops operate they are NOT illegal. For instance, Malaysia has no such laws, and many "sweatshops".This is partially true, but mostly not, for reasons that I will get into.

it's important to note that in most of our Western nations, we too have sweatshops. There are a fair number of them in Canada, notably in British Columbia, where mostly immigrant asian women are doing piece work, snippping the threads off jeans and shirts and such, in terrible working conditions at less than a living wage. They are usually also paying off debt incurred by being sponsored to come here. All perfectly legal...and what isn't legal is kept hush hush, because these people don't understand their rights here, or aren't protected to the same extent as permanent residents.The same is true here in the U.S. We also have outside territories, such as Okinawa, which are part of the U.S., so clothing made in Okinawa gets to have a "made in America" label. But surprise, surprise, Okinawa doesn't have a minimum wage or other labor rights that people here on the mainland take for granted.

Then how can I ever know?Well, for starters, there's www.nlcnet.org which is an anti-sweatshop site.

(The National Labor Commission is headed by Charlie Kernaghan, most famous for exposing the Kathie Lee Gifford sweatshop scandal.)

Some of the things that the NLC is fighting for:
A union bug on clothing labels.
Certified payroll. Think of the paychecks that you get. Your employer's address is on the paychecks, right? People in sweatshops don't have this. This is useful to companies because whenever an employee complains to the authorities about working conditions, the company can say "they can't prove they worked here"...and without certified payroll, the employee really can't.
Enforcement of national minimum wages. Most countries do have minimum wages, but they aren't being enforced for various reasons, partially due to corrupt governments, partially due to a lack of certified payroll, and partially due to other reasons.
Location of the factory, other than just the country on clothing labels, so conditions can be more easily monitored.
And other things, as well.

Look, 100 years ago, the United Goddamn States had these same working conditions, and we got out of it. Yes, though we have many advantages that some of these other countries don't have. Other people named some of them, but there are others. For instance, we didn't have the governments of other countries telling us that we wouldn't receive aid from them if we didn't accept their products. We didn't have the WTO and WTO-established "free trade zones" established here. (Free trade zones are another reason that minimum wages aren't enforced, as free trade zones are exempt from minimum wage laws.)

If you want to blame someone, blame the governments (!) of these nations, since they're the ones who are allowing these conditions to remain legal.Yes, you have a point, a lot of the sweatshop problem does have to deal with corrupt governments. (Not so much the fear of nationalization, though.)

Yes, but consider the alternate: no job, you probably go starving and eventually die. As much as I find the practice disgusting, the workers also need to be able to feed their familys.

If a buisness doesn''t make enough profit, they'll start employing the workers for even cheaper prices.

We all agree it's terrible for workers to be treated badly, but their only viable alternative is to have an equally bad job, or more likely no job at all. I think our responsibility is not to take away what they DO have, but, if anything, to try to help their country to provide more jobs for those people, or jobs that pay more. If there were better jobs available to these people, I'm sure they'd have them, and sweatshops wouldn't exist anymore. So the solution is not to boycott the ones who are providing lousy jobs, but to encourage the ones who could provide better jobs and make the lousy ones no longer viable options.

The simple fact is, these governments are bending over backwards to get foreign investment, but then squandering the results.

A country does not become wealthy by exporting. It becoms wealthy by reinvesting it's profits into creating a middle class consumer base domestically, satisfying that, and then exporting the excess.

Why? Because exports are almost always of the products of primary or secondary industies. The real profits are made by the Tertiary industries, i.e. retail.

If you can't sell your product domestically because no one is wealthy enough to aford it, you're just exporting your wealth overseas.

I thought tertiary was more like the research sector? Is retail actually tertiary? For some reason that sounds odd.

'Ethical' is a very ambiguous word. Perhaps you should specify which ethical system you want this question to be analysed under? Not that it matters. Ethical views are different, however slightly or vastly, for every person due to the influence of their emotion. Therefore any ethical statement produced by a person will be their emotion, not their rationality, talking and won't uncover any truths in regards to the universe. Ethical statements mean nothing.

Yes it is unethical, but it's way more unethical not doing anything to stop those kind of work conditions. It's even more unethical and hypocritical to allow trade with a country whose productions methods don't respect human rights - Chinese products are posing a competition issue not because of their quality (which isn't much) but because of their low price, something that other countries' production units could also achieve if they weren't regulated and forced to respect their workers and treat them like human beings.
But I can undestand that people with low income have to resort to buying that kind of products, it's a largely growing phenomenon where I live.
You should take a longer veiw. Amost all newly industrialized nations had labor abuses of one sort or another at first. It takes time for the general populace to realize that this is unacceptable. If you have a personal problem with buying things made by businesses in countries where "sweatshops" are permitted, then don't buy the clothes. But keep in mind that by not doing so, you are delaying the point in time when those abuses will cease.

[QUOTE=Aerion]

• 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 abuse, or

• Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union.
QUOTE]
i do have a problem with people being exploited, however none of what you say is exploitation, explotation is using force or coercion to make them work there, and i am not adverse to sweat shops unless people are being forced to work.
wages are between and employee and employer and if an employee can get higherwages else where, then they will go. that can be applied to each condition there, and as people become more productive (if someones,most likey the owner, is getting rich, then other people are moving into the industry, you cant argue with that so dont try), conditions will improve. eg new factories will open, and will begin to compete for workers,
its called the free market and when there is a free market things like unemployement dont exist! (note the name)

You should take a longer veiw. Amost all newly industrialized nations had labor abuses of one sort or another at first. It takes time for the general populace to realize that this is unacceptable.

All countries experience labor abuses, obviously, but their governments tend to regulate to eliminate them; China, however, has had them eversince...


If you have a personal problem with buying things made by businesses in countries where "sweatshops" are permitted, then don't buy the clothes.

I try not to.


But keep in mind that by not doing so, you are delaying the point in time when those abuses will cease.
I don't agree...

explotation is using force or coercion to make them work thereThe lack of any other options is what coerces them to work there.

when there is a free market things like unemployement dont exist! (note the name)Except for the fact that capitalism requires unemployment to exist.

It is perhaps unethical and unfair but the poor who work in the sweatshops are a necessary part of the global economy. There will always be those who have to do the very badly paid jobs in third world countrys and there will always be rich people taking advantage of cheap production costs. No economy could exist where everybody is 'well off', you need a very broad spectrum of income with all the different layers for an economy to thrive. It might upset some winging lefties to think this but its a fact that will not change within the lifetimes of any of us here. :(

I thought tertiary was more like the research sector? Is retail actually tertiary? For some reason that sounds odd.

My understanding is that Primary Industry is the harvesting/mining of Raw materials and processing them into usable form, Secondary is turning them into components, and Tertiary is assembling the components into a finished item (with the usual buy/sell sequence between each stage).

Research is outside the Primary/Secondary/Tertiary spectrum.

I feel like the abuses and lack of standards are rather wrong in sweatshops. Just because these people live in a poor country, and this is the only wage they can make does not mean that we should not try to give them a voice for their rights.

But if we impose our standards on them, Aerion, then are we not simply practicing the same gunboat diplomacy and colonialism that inflicted so much misery in the 19th and 20th centuries?

We have the right to choose where we buy, for whatever reasons we choose. We have NO right to tell others how to live.

We have NO right to tell others how to live.So freedom of speech isn't a right?

We have the right to choose where we buy, for whatever reasons we choose. We have NO right to tell others how to live.

No, that's not true. Otherwise, we'd be totally unable to maintain law and order, since laws ultimately impose one type of lifestyle on everyone within the society under threat of punishment.

It's not unethical because these people have to work too. In their countries, it may be one of the safest (monetarily) jobs they can get. The other options are often farming which relies on having a good season and minimal competition or prostitution which not everyone want to do. By boycotting these clothes because the factories don't meet absolute perfection, you're taking money and jobs away from people who would otherwise be forced into less steady jobs.

If you plan to boycott shirts made in Cambodia, you should at least buy all your rice from there...

That would depend on whether or not you believe sweatshops are ethical or not. If you don't, then wearing clothes made in them is, if not unethical, at least very hypocritical.

Many popular clothing brands (Levis, etc.) have been confirmed to have some contracted factories which operate with sweatshop conditions.

Do you think it is unethical to wear clothing that you suspect is made in sweatshops, or is it simply an inevitable fact of the economy that you will come into products made in sweatshops or under unfair labour conditions?

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 abuse, or

• Fear and intimidation when they speak out, organize, or attempt to form a union.


Often times conditions are terrible it is reported, with wages as low or lower than $10.00 a week and many instances of abuse, 12 hour work days, etc.


What about countries where all of that is Not Against the Law?

Gee, I remember when I was a teenager, and worked in a McDonald's, making 3.65 an hour, working 12 hour shifts, getting verbal abuse on a regular basis, and being told up front that we would be fired if we tried to organize a union.

Did people suddenly stop eating fast food?

As I recall, on some days, the lines were incredible.

Probably but how does one know?
Can't we just not buy from Aisa and solve the problem?

and being told up front that we would be fired if we tried to organize a union.This is beside the point, but the law protects against this type of thing if it's collective action, meaning you and one other coworker. So if you were fired you could file an NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) report. Though the NLRB doesn't do a lot, if you win (and you would) you would get back all of the lost wages that you had.
I realize that you yourself are no longer working there, but there may be other people in the U.S. who don't know this info.

This is beside the point, but the law protects against this type of thing if it's collective action, meaning you and one other coworker. So if you were fired you could file an NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) report. Though the NLRB doesn't do a lot, if you win (and you would) you would get back all of the lost wages that you had.
I realize that you yourself are no longer working there, but there may be other people in the U.S. who don't know this info.

Unfortunatly, corparations usually cover their asses very well on this sort of stuff. I new a guy who tried to organise a union at walmart. He and the four other guys were fired for "constantly using profanity" something they most definatly did not do, but was impossible to prove wrong.

Yes, yes it is unethical. Sleazy, even. Callow, certainly.

No, that's not true. Otherwise, we'd be totally unable to maintain law and order, since laws ultimately impose one type of lifestyle on everyone within the society under threat of punishment.

I was speaking of the international situation, but even within a country, there is no reason laws must do this. The epitome of a free society would be one wherin the legal system promoted no one lifestyle, but merely protected the individual and allowed him or her to make their own lifestyle choices.

So freedom of speech isn't a right?

Certainly it is. And like all rights, limited. Your right to throw a punch ends at my nose.

I concur on all accounts. The future of a nation is left completely to the people that are its citizens. In the United States we were once a fledgling democracy, struggling to compete with numerous world powers, but due to our hard work and intelligent decision making we are now one of the world's most pwerful nations. The reality, is that these third world countries are in control of their own fate. On another note, on the issue at hand, "sweat shops" as they are so interestingly coined, are not in any way forced labor. The labor that works in sweat shops faces the same options that American workers face on a daily basis, a choice of ocupation. Granted, their situations are different, and a surplus in the workforce allows for employers to evade the standard consequences of a pitiful work environment. The only hope for the future of these sweat shop workers, is to enstill a sense of entrepreneurship, which allows for a growth not dependent on anyone else. Otherwise, by buying these products, whether it be levi's, lacoste shirts. or kb toys, we are allowing these men and women of the sweat shops to put food on their table and continue on with their lives.

The above is in response to Dododecapod post earlier on.

What about countries where all of that is Not Against the Law?

Gee, I remember when I was a teenager, and worked in a McDonald's, making 3.65 an hour, working 12 hour shifts, getting verbal abuse on a regular basis, and being told up front that we would be fired if we tried to organize a union.

Did people suddenly stop eating fast food?

I have.

The only hope for the future of these sweat shop workers, is to enstill a sense of entrepreneurshipI disagree. An increase in foreign aid combined with foreign controls making sure that the money reaches the people would be helpful, particularly if that aid is in the form of education.

It is unethical if you think sweatshops are unethical.

It's only unethical if you can find clothes made under humane conditions that you can afford to wear. I wouldn't know where to find clothes that aren't made under sweatshop conditions. Most major retailers tend to sell stuff made in China and third world countries. Finding clothes made in countries with laws to protect the workers is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

It's fairly easy here
Made in Australia.
Admittedly I can not do it as much as I like due to size, as I have not found Australian goods that go up to 3-4XL