Sweatshops: Are The Ethical? Are They Justified?

This is what I have so far:

Robert J. S. Ross paints the story of a young mother working in the garment industry:

You arrive at work in a cramped and mean little shop at seven in the morning. The boss has told you not to punch in until eight. He or his wife screams at you all day—“Hurry up, you idiot!” “Can’t you sew a straight line?” “You’re as clumsy as a dog.” At five he punches out your time card, but you work until six or even later past evening and into the night. Paid by the piece, you have been a bit slower today, bothered by a puncture from a needle last week. If the multiplication was done you did not make the $5.15 an hour that is the legal minimum wage—though the official records will show you did because two of your hours are not recorded. The work is boring, repetitive, extremely uncomfortable, but it requires absolute attention. (2)

Just like the young mother in this story, those that work in sweatshops are often exploited, abused, and even withheld much of their pay (meager as it may be) because of the greediness of their employers. Employers take advantage of the desperation of their workers to earn money and support their families. Because of this, money is often said to be “sweated” from the workers to the employers and ultimately to the multinational companies that are behind the sweatshop industry itself. In this sense, a sweatshop is defined as a factory that takes extreme advantage of its laborers financially, physically, and ethically.

It is a well-known fact that sweatshops exist overseas. Third world countries such as Bangladesh and China have many women, and in many cases even children, working under the conditions defined for sweatshop labor. However, many people do not realize that sweatshops, as defined above, are often found in the United States—a country that prides itself in upholding the rights and liberties granted by humanity. In 1996 President Clinton addressed the press about a garment factory in El Monte, California that was forcing undocumented immigrants to work in “virtual slavery” under “deplorable conditions”(Clinton, 1389). These immigrants worked under much of the same conditions as the young mother in the story above. It was Clinton’s conclusion that, “Our Nation has always stood for human dignity and the fundamental rights of working people…Human and labor rights are not brand names. They are the most basic products of our democracy” (Clinton, 1389). As Clinton points out, fashion cannot put a price on people’s basic rights. It is the responsibility, maybe even the duty, of America and Americans to protect these most basic and precious rights.

There are many difficulties in totally eliminating sweatshop labor. The economic problems it would cause, both for the workers and the companies, are too important to simply overlook. However, something still needs to be done about the issue of the exploitation of rights and thus, the answer lies in small improvements and regulation rather than a complete overhaul of the entire industry. We have a moral responsibility to look out for the welfare of others; it is our obligation to make sure something changes. The rights of others cannot simply be overlooked and put on the back burner. “In New York and Bangladesh, in Los Angeles and Managua, hearts starve for the finer things in life as we slaves to fashion reap the product of those enslaved to fashion” (Ross, 3). This can no longer be the case.