Sweatshops

Cianos

I was reading a book today that was addressing sweatshops. In summary, it was suggesting that sweatshops are actually a good thing.

The author argued that however bad sweatshops may be, people still go to work there voluntarily. This means that whatever their alternatives are have to be worse.

The workers choose to work even though the conditions are horrible and the hours ridiculously long. But to many, this is better than crime, prostitution, scavenging for scrap metal etc.

He continues that usually factories ran by international corporations usually have marginally better pay and conditions than local enterprises. Further, he says that anything to boost the local economy is a good thing and will eventually result in more jobs which will result in better pay and conditions as factories wish to attract the more skilled workers.

I wanted to get some more opinions on this, so would like to hear your thoughts..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred

I was in a market in Pattya with some friends, one of whom is Thai. I pointed out a girl who was sat in a small room in the middle of the market sewing dodgy labels on fake polo shirts. I commented that her working conditions were terrible and we shouldn't but from that store as they treated their workers badly. My friend said that if no one buys from the store, she will get sacked and she will have no job at all, in a manner that said "You are talking utter rubbish".

When you look at it like that it puts a different perspective on things.

Another one i heard from a Bishop was a breakdown on the cost of a pair of runners. If these runners cost €80, €40 would go to the shop selling them, €20 would go to the manufacturer, €10 would be material costs, €5 euro would be logistic costs and €5 would go to the company making them, of which €1 would go to the person who actually made the shoes.

Imagine if those shoes were sold for €20, how much would the person get then.

Cianos

No matter what the price of the product ends up being, you can always be sure that the workers will be paid the lowest possible amount (low, but high enough so that they don't quit).

Joey the lips

Read a brilliant book written by an economist. Have not got the title to hand but can find if someone is intetsted. it was called the true price of a cup of coffee or something

One of the discussions was on sweatshops. Many of these have open over the years. These usually open up in citys or on the ourskirts. They contain workers packed to the rafters usually in cramped conditions. Here is the strange thing. There is usually a que of people outside waiting to get in. Why? because as pointed out the alternative is far worse! Yes these are being exploited and yes they are working hard but if we do not buy the shoes/goods they wont have a job and they wont earn a living.

What is the solution? Perhaps buy fair trade! The book went on to discuss fair trade. Imagine you pay 2 euro for a "Normal" Cup of coffee and 250 for a "fair trade" cup of coffee. This implies that 50 cent extra goes to the farmer, right! Well you would be wrong. Many of fair trades standards do not define a specific amount that goes to the farmer. In fact sometimes it can be 2c more than the normal rate. So yes it might be more and yes the farmer might be better off by 2c but the real earnings is in the coffee company taking advantage of your willingness to part with more for perceived fairness. But again. if you do not buy this coffee the farmer suffers.

deadhead13

While there might be some merit in saying a job is better than no job in a 3rd World economy, if the products manufactured in the sweatshops are destained for western highstreets there will be large mark-ups and profits for the wholesalers, retailers and perhaps the manufacturers. I don't see anything wrong with putting pressure on wholesalers and retailers in an effort to try to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers. Or encouraging 3rd World Governments to enact and enforce legislation to safeguard their health and well-being.

Joey the lips

deadhead13 wrote: »

While there might be some merit in saying a job is better than no job in a 3rd World economy, if the products manufactured in the sweatshops are destained for western highstreets there will be large mark-ups and profits for the wholesalers, retailers and perhaps the manufacturers. I don't see anything wrong with putting pressure on wholesalers and retailers in an effort to try to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers. Or encouraging 3rd World Governments to enact and enforce legislation to safeguard their health and well-being.

The book i read also deals with this. Define an improvement. Is an improvement a safe working environment? 5c more per hour than everone else locally? Better hoildays? The one thing that is missed if this product can be made cheaper in the same place someone will take that oppertunity.

Ryanair is living proof of this in our society. We know the workers are treated poor compared to aer lingus but we still choose in many numbers to fly with them!

Cianos

deadhead13 wrote: »

While there might be some merit in saying a job is better than no job in a 3rd World economy, if the products manufactured in the sweatshops are destained for western highstreets there will be large mark-ups and profits for the wholesalers, retailers and perhaps the manufacturers. I don't see anything wrong with putting pressure on wholesalers and retailers in an effort to try to improve the pay and working conditions of the workers. Or encouraging 3rd World Governments to enact and enforce legislation to safeguard their health and well-being.

It's not that simple though. If a particular government enforces tighter legislation so much to the extent that working conditions and pay are significantly improved, the manufacturers will just ship out and establish themselves in the next country where labour can be found at the minimum costs. Thus the workers will be left without a job and will have to return to their alternative, less desirable ways of making a living. The drop in foreign investment will further hinder the economy and the people will be in worse conditions than they were with the sweatshops.

If ALL 3rd world countries brought in the same legislation at the same time, then conditions will be improved for everyone, but that's never going to happen in the real world.

deadhead13

I accept it is a complex issue and I was being overly-simplistic, but I don't accept doing nothing is the answer.

oeb

Out of interest, what would happen to an area if the wages in once specific industry were bumped up to be much higher than the others? Especially in a situation where these jobs (despite the conditions) are very much in desire. Keep in mind that other non-multinational factories etc that produce for local populations would more than likely be unable to improve conditions to the same degree.

Cianos

deadhead13 wrote: »

I accept it is a complex issue and I was being overly-simplistic, but I don't accept doing nothing is the answer.

I agree. I think there should remain an awareness of the conditions faced by workers in 3rd world countries. But knee jerk reactions such as banning trade from countries that allow sweatshops usually do a lot more harm than good, and as a previous poster said are usually pioneered by groups who benefit from such trade being restricted, such as domestic industries who don't want the competition.

oeb wrote: »

Out of interest, what would happen to an area if the wages in once specific industry were bumped up to be much higher than the others? Especially in a situation where these jobs (despite the conditions) are very much in desire. Keep in mind that other non-multinational factories etc that produce for local populations would more than likely be unable to improve conditions to the same degree.

That would only happen if the workers had scarcity power, as in, if the labour couldn't be found cheaper elsewhere. But if it did happen, it'd be a great boost to the economy of the surrounding area. The better paid workers would want to spend their extra income, and so new amenities and services would grow to cater for this, providing extra jobs and more economic diversity. With a better skilled work force, education and further investment would be a higher priority and so schools and commercial stability would be more achievable.

oeb

Cianos wrote: »

That would only happen if the workers had scarcity power, as in, if the labour couldn't be found cheaper elsewhere. But if it did happen, it'd be a great boost to the economy of the surrounding area. The better paid workers would want to spend their extra income, and so new amenities and services would grow to cater for this, providing extra jobs and more economic diversity. With a better skilled work force, education and further investment would be a higher priority and so schools and commercial stability would be more achievable.

I am more responding to the calls for multinationals who use these sweatshops to up the wages. So finding cheaper labour (assuming they are remaining in the same country) is not that relevant to my point. (I know feck all about economics etc, I just saw this thread on the home page, so please correct me anywhere I am making mistakes).

These third world countries/communities where sweatshops are typically found commonly have relativity similar economic conditions. High crime rates, high poverty rates, high unemployment, extremely low income rates, high population density etc. Would that, broadly speaking, be a fair statement?

If so, unless people who work in manufacturing for multinational companies (Whos only reason for being in the country is cheap labour) make up a reasonably large percentage of the population, I am of the opinion that a large increase in wages (to a minority) would be negligible or even detrimental to the area. (This is going off about the comment earlier on relating to the assumption that if Fair Trade coffee is 50c more expensive, then people may take that to mean that an extra 50c goes to the farmers).

Would this not make it a very attractive target to the crime element?

(As I mentioned, I don't have the background to know if I am just rambling on here, but I really would appreciate it if you steered me in the right direction)

Cianos

oeb wrote: »

I am more responding to the calls for multinationals who use these sweatshops to up the wages. So finding cheaper labour (assuming they are remaining in the same country) is not that relevant to my point. (I know feck all about economics etc, I just saw this thread on the home page, so please correct me anywhere I am making mistakes).

These third world countries/communities where sweatshops are typically found commonly have relativity similar economic conditions. High crime rates, high poverty rates, high unemployment, extremely low income rates, high population density etc. Would that, broadly speaking, be a fair statement?

If so, unless people who work in manufacturing for multinational companies (Whos only reason for being in the country is cheap labour) make up a reasonably large percentage of the population, I am of the opinion that a large increase in wages (to a minority) would be negligible or even detrimental to the area. (This is going off about the comment earlier on relating to the assumption that if Fair Trade coffee is 50c more expensive, then people may take that to mean that an extra 50c goes to the farmers).

Would this not make it a very attractive target to the crime element?

(As I mentioned, I don't have the background to know if I am just rambling on here, but I really would appreciate it if you steered me in the right direction)

I'm guessing that yes, most developing countries would be economically similar from a business perspective in terms of workforce, unemployment rates, population density etc. And the primary reason international corporations choose to produce in developing countries is because of the cheap labour. If legislation in one country changes to mean they have to increase wages then it's very likely that they would close up the plant and move to another country, so long as other factors are similar (infrastructure, political stability etc).

I don't think an increase in wages to one sector of workers would result in a big increase in crime. Firstly, for there to be the possibility of a workforce gaining the skills to warrant an increase in wages would require them to be more established than alternative workforces. ie, why should a factory in country A pay $2/hour when in country B they can pay $1/hour. In order for the factory to be operating in country A, employing workers at $2/hour, the workers must have better skills in order for it to be worth it. And for them to have better skills usually means better education, better infrastructure, better political stability, and in turn a more effective police force.

Further, a workforce earning better wages will encourage further economic growth which itself brings more stability and security.

Húrin

Correct, working in a sweatshop is better than picking through a landfill to survive.

However both are a result of rural third world people being driven off the land (often for resource extraction or foreign agribusiness) and into the cities. That is the real injustice here.

Cianos

Húrin wrote: »

Correct, working in a sweatshop is better than picking through a landfill to survive.

However both are a result of rural third world people being driven off the land (often for resource extraction or foreign agribusiness) and into the cities. That is the real injustice here.

Don't you think these farmers who were poor enough to be driven off the land by foreign businesses would have been victims of exploitation from their own government or local land baron? For their land to be so easily sold off they mustn't have had any say or influence whatsoever in the first place.

fly_agaric

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, you would prefer that every country should be full of "so-called" sweatshops rather than have state/collective intervention put a stop to it. No doubt you think you and yours woud always be running the sweatshops/buying the products they produce!

Given that, it's hard not to find your defence of companies exploiting cheap labour in the 3rd world as better than possible alternatives to be sickening, even if you have a point.

Joey the lips

fly_agaric wrote: »

Of course, you would prefer that every country should be full of "so-called" sweatshops rather than have state/collective intervention put a stop to it. No doubt you think you and yours woud always be running the sweatshops/buying the products they produce!

Given that, it's hard not to find your defence of companies exploiting cheap labour in the 3rd world as better than possible alternatives to be sickening, even if you have a point.

I dont think the poster said he would rather sweat shops. The only way sweat shops can be stopped is to stop free trade and this will never happen. This is dealt with in a major way in economics classes

clartharlear

I'm reading No Logo at the moment and it's really filling up all my thoughts. I feel so impotently guilty. I agree that the sweatshops are better than the alternative for most girls (because it seems to be mostly girls employed) because they work under the terror of losing their jobs. What they need is not for the sweatshops to be closed down, but to be opened up to international scrutiny and fair rules without scaring off the multinationals.

But in the day to day - what should *I* do when I see a nice jumper for €4 in Dunnes? Buy it because (a) consumer demand for these products might create supplier security and (b) I'm not that well off myself? Or not buy it because it came from the coerced hands of a teenage girl?

Cianos

clartharlear wrote: »

I'm reading No Logo at the moment and it's really filling up all my thoughts. I feel so impotently guilty. I agree that the sweatshops are better than the alternative for most girls (because it seems to be mostly girls employed) because they work under the terror of losing their jobs. What they need is not for the sweatshops to be closed down, but to be opened up to international scrutiny and fair rules without scaring off the multinationals.

But in the day to day - what should *I* do when I see a nice jumper for €4 in Dunnes? Buy it because (a) consumer demand for these products might create supplier security and (b) I'm not that well off myself? Or not buy it because it came from the coerced hands of a teenage girl?

Unfortunately, not buying because it came from the coerced hands of a teenage girl will be doing that girl a disservice because you buying it is keeping her employed. At the end of the day she is choosing to work in the sweatshop because her alternatives such as scavenging or prostitution are worse.

The only way a country can raise itself beyond the tolerance of sweatshops is to improve its economy. Sweatshops are a nasty step on that ladder but eventually should lead to better things as the workforce becomes more skilled, infrastructure improves etc.

deco05ie

Isn't there a chance people who went to work in sweat shops didn't know what they were getting themselves into. In china people from rural communities travel hundreds of miles to cities to work in these sweatshops so it isn't a simple case of quitting and going home. Sweatshops often withhold wages which prevents people from quitting saving money to be able to travel home and in the case of workers in Dubai passports are taken from the workers(who are from carious Asian countries) so they are left with no choice but to carry on working.