In this essay, I choose to play devil’s advocate and defend the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide. My argument is based on an alternative reality in which sweat shops failed to exist, and that the becoming of these workers will be worse than the harsh conditions they currently face at these sweat shops. Though this argument becomes one that questions the morality of the author, and questions the humanity of anyone who pens an essay in support of sweatshops, I implore the reader to understand my point of view.
The popular belief that if sweatshops were to be banned, workers would be better off, is mostly made by individuals who do not understand the severity of poverty in third world countries where sweatshops are more likely to be established. In a two way argument between having more sweatshops which give workers an opportunity to earn a living—though under harsh conditions—or banning these sweatshops and leaving them to a scenario where their skills are not needed, subjecting them to harsher living conditions; I go with the latter.
This essay would guide you through the history of sweatshops in order to understand its proliferation and then explain why the author defends its proliferation. Reaching a conclusion that shows why though working conditions at sweatshops need to be improved incrementally, an outright ban would be the wrong move to make.
Sweat Shops are defined as “ Work environments that possess three major characteristics—long hours, low pay, and unsafe or unhealthy working conditions (referenceforbusiness.com). ” The earliest examples of sweatshops were at the harsh textile mills of Ecuador. There, Spanish conquers enslaved native population to produce garments, cloth and different textile products. Though Sweatshops have its roots in slave practices, the earliest use of the term can be traced to the conditions workers faced in England’s early manufacturing industries, where children and women worked under horrible conditions. These jobs were often monotonous, stressful and had to do with a lot of sweating, as the hours were very long and the pay very low. High immigration into the United States in the late Eighties, led to Sweatshops being common in American east coast cities. Immigrants from Eastern & Southern Europe became easy prey for manufacturers who paid miserably low wages and provided horrid overcrowded working conditions for the production of their goods.
The basis of my argument in favor of the proliferation of sweatshops is based on placing my self in the shoes of these workers. In many instances, these immigrants face a lot of difficulty in their home countries, and travel out in search of greener pastures. On arrival in America, they begin to look for anything as a means of survival and they see these sweat shops as safe havens. An important statement is that in most situations where sweatshops thrive, right from the earliest days till today, is because they have been located in areas where workers had no other option but to accept the low pay and harsh working conditions. Let’s understand how sweatshops operate today.
Sweatshops continue to thrive today, with most garment manufacturers escaping the abolishment in the United States, and manufacturing their goods in other countries. The low labor costs in countries in South and Central America and Asia, provided fertile land for the cultivation of sweatshops. Companies like The Gap, Nike, Liz Claiborne & Kathie Lee Gifford; have all come under criticism for manufacturing their clothing in sweatshops. They became recipients of negative attention nationally, with advocacy groups advising customers against shopping at their stores. However, despite the negative press, continued efforts by advocacy groups such as sweatshopwatch.com, the proliferation of sweatshops continue.
In 1998, when representatives of the American National Labor Committee—based in New York—travelled out to witness working conditions first hand in El Salvador; they were met with appalling work conditions. Workers worked for over 14 hours daily, they were permitted only two bathroom breaks and all of this for a meager sixty cents an hour. Overtime work hours were enforced and suspensions without pay were common. Despite these terrible conditions and the meager pay these workers have been exposed to, I still argue that the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide does more harm than good to sweatshop workers. As I mentioned earlier in this essay, though it seems a heartless path to thread, it leaves workers better off.
We must understand that the economic situations, which sweatshops thrive in, are situations in which the workers have no other option to. In other words, the proliferation of sweatshops in places where they continue to spring up is due to the availability of human capital in those areas.
As a Nigerian, I understand that the sort of extreme poverty that exists here is the sort of conditions that lead to sweats shops being established. To the many who look for jobs everyday and continue to survive under less than a dollar a day, a job at a sweat shop—despite the harsh working condition—and low pay would be a life saver for many. In a situation where your options are limited, and all you want to do is to find that first source of income that helps you fend for family and make ends meet, you are limited to little options. You may either work on a farm, on a construction site, on a mine or in a sweatshop. The conditions of each of these workplaces are just as gruesome and some will argue that they are worse than the conditions found in sweatshops.
If sweatshops were banned, it would surely lead to more unemployment, loss of forex and a violation of human rights. In a situation where sweatshops were to be outlawed, due to their harsh working conditions. We would be faced with a harsh reality, whereby a lot of workers will be laid off, leading to more unemployment. With high unemployment often correlating with an increase in crime, it would simply be a little less of an adverse situation and more of another. Also in countries where sweatshops are practiced, a lot of the money, which circulates in their economies, are from the deals struck with companies for the production of clothes. Therefore, losing these deals will leave these economies worse off, as the loss of foreign currency exchange in these economies will adversely affect other parts of the society. It is also important to note, that for the most part, sweatshop workers are employed voluntarily. Do we consider where these sweatshop workers go to, if these sweat shops were banned? Do we have a safe alternative, which would occupy and reward these workers in a better way? No, therefore it takes away and violates the basic human rights of those who choose to willingly work at sweatshops, leaving them without a suitable replacement or source of income.
In conclusion, though it is clear that the pay workers receive could be more and working conditions should be better in sweatshops; it’s proliferation is better than it’s out right ban. Having studied economics, I believe that as more sweatshops pop up the working conditions will become better as the demand for sweatshop workers, exceed the supply of sweatshop workers. Leaving these sweatshops to incrementally increase their pay and working conditions in order to attract workers. It becomes clear, that the best way to ensure that sweat shop workers receive better pay and better working conditions is that the amount of sweatshops continue to increase, hence why I choose to play the devils advocate and believe that the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide is good, and not a bad thing in the long run for sweat shop workers.