Exploiting+Vs+Empowering+The+Poor

Michelle Fenner Student Number:N8835675 Tutor: Judith Meiklejohn



http://jl10ll.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nike-sweatshop-cartoon.jpg

**//Cultural Artefact//**
Seen in this picture is a typical example of the attitude of rich westerners in their attempt to help the poor. Westerners protest and spend time and money trying to stop exploitation of the poor as the fat man in the picture indicates. Looking at the other side of the picture, the poor man wants an income and his bulging eyes show a look of shock at the announcement by the fat man. The fat man wants to “Save the Planet” and even though his intentions are honourable, they are not what the poor man wants or needs.

**//Public Health Issue//**
When approaching the issue of exploitation in sweatshops, there are two main issues that are observed. Firstly, that the people working there are working under conditions that most westerners would never consider unless they were desperate. This leads to the second issue: that of poverty. It is the desperation of poverty that brings people to work in sweatshops. Putting food on the table is more important than putting up with conditions most westerners would shudder at. When the effects of poverty are reduced, working conditions then become a higher priority. Shutting down sweatshops does not reduce poverty; it simply removes the exploitation occurring in those sweatshops. There is not a simple solution to this issue but the affects of anti-sweatshop campaigns will be explored as will the plight of the poor and why they continue working in these conditions.

**//Literature Review//**
A sweatshop as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is simply “a shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions.” To elaborate, according to the International Labor Rights Forum (2012) some sweatshops have their workers working on 20 ½ hour shifts 2 days a week, with only 2 days off per month. Health and Safety standards are not always enforced, and so they end up with situations where fires have occurred killing workers and building have collapsed, like in Bangladesh(Oxfam. n.d). Foxconn, that supplies Apple, workers’ conditions caused feelings of a “life without dignity”, which led to, some workers committing suicide (Lucas, Kang, & Li, 2012). It would seem that to produce the masses of product that consumers demand, some form of factory work is needed. The poor do need work opportunities like this to stop the spiral of poverty. Shutting down factories that grossly abuse human welfare would seem logical, until you look at what the workers will be returning to. To put thousands of people out of work, is a similar fate to working in these objectionable conditions, as some of the Foxconn employees would show. Skarbek et al. (2012) have also shown through interviews of sweatshop workers in El Salvador, that these workers prefer the work to what they were previously doing. They also refer to the terrible fate of children who having worked in sweatshops in Bangladesh, found themselves out of work due to the U.S. Anti-child labour legislation. Fifty thousand children were fired by the textile factories and reports by UNICEF (as cited in Skarbek et al.2012) showed that with little or no education or access to education, these children found themselves in much more hazardous employment, such as stone crushing, street hustling and prostitution.
 * What is a Sweatshop? **
 * Are Sweatshops Necessary? **

**// Apparel Industry Wages as a Percent of Average National Income //** When looking at the average national income from a variety of countries Powell and Skarbek (2006) showed that those working in the apparel industry had incomes that exceeded the National Average for a 40 hour week, for most of the countries shown. According to this table, those earning more than 100% are earning more than the average national income. This shows that financially the apparel workers were earning more than they would be earning in other jobs. So even though the income often fell below the minimum wages set for each country, apparel workers were still earning more than the average income, and if they worked longer hours, their income well exceeded the national average.
 * It's all about the Money! **

Powell and Zwolinski (2011), not only argue against raising the income of sweatshop workers, but also suggest that the only thing they can see that is detrimental to those workers is any form of physical abuse. They argue that any changes made to the regulations and laws that factories are under needs to be done by the large companies themselves, otherwise, once again it will “hurt those who can least afford to be hurt.” They argue that economic change jeopardises jobs, as once the profit margins for these companies fall to a certain point, they cease manufacturing the product or find a cheaper place to produce it.

Powell and Zwolinski point to an “empirical study of the effect of mandating increases in minimum wages” done in Indonesia in the 1990’s. The Indonesian government doubled the minimum wage, and found that unemployment rose by 12-36%. The increases in wages led to some exporters having to shut down their plants, once again leaving the poor jobless.

This paper makes the point that economic development in a country benefits the poor and helps lift them out of poverty as well. Enforcing economic changes on large companies, making their profit margin unviable, leads to shut downs and a downturn in the economy of a country. They point out that someone along the production line will end up paying for any changes made to the conditions in a factory, and that would most likely end up being those that benefit most from the changes, the workers. When asked if they would prefer better working conditions for a slight decrease in wages, the workers were choosing to keep their wage as they were (Skarbek et al., 2012).

Another issue Powell and Zwolinski (2011) addresses is the negative effect that consumer guides for buying anti-sweatshop made products, has on the poor. They point out that the companies that do pursue ethical standards are producing their product in countries that are relatively rich, like America and Canada. The question they pose is how this actually helps the poor when work is taken away from them and given to the not so poor.

Skarbek et al. (2012) also show through their interviews of sweatshop workers that these jobs are preferable to the other options, which included farm work, housekeeping and street vendors. From the research done (Skarbek et al.2012), it would appear that there are a lot of sweatshop factories doing the right thing by the poor. Even though the standards are not up to western standards, these people are much better off with these jobs than without them.

Preventing injuries in the workplace can lead to less loss of income to the employer (Michaels & Greene, 2013). This benefits both the workers and the company (ILO,2013). Companies are becoming more aware of these issues, and changes have begun in many parts of the world. Even the tragic fires and building collapses in sweatshops in Bangladesh over the past few years, can serve as examples to other factories as to the immense cost of loss, and the benefits of ensuring health and safety as a priority. Powell and Zwolinski present some convincing arguments in defence of the poor, which are worth considering when handing out judgement on sweatshops. It is difficult for people living in relative luxury to really understand what the poor want in terms of working conditions.

Research indicates that the more interference through legislation and laws passed by the rich western economies, leads to worse outcomes for the workers in sweatshops. To bring about a positive outcome for the workers, organisations like the International Labour Organisation (ILO), who entreat companies to improve conditions by choice may be the way forward. Boycotting certain companies known for sweatshop labour leads to negative outcomes for the sweatshop worker.

The limitations to the Skarbek et al. studies are that it is a fairly small study consisting of workers from two sweatshops in one country. To have a better understanding of the issues workers face in other sweatshops, a larger study, covering workers from other countries that are notorious for the unsafe conditions, like Bangladesh, would give a more rounded view and show if the opinions of those that were interviewed were universal or if they were specific to those two factories.
 * Are We Listening? **

**Cultural and Social Analysis**
Rich multinational companies offer menial work to desperately poor people with little or no obligation to the workers besides handing out the pay check for work done. The poor seem to have no choice but to take what work is available. This is a classic example of Marxist theory of the ruling classes lording it over the working classes, and exploiting them for their own purposes.

With all the benefits to society that capitalism has provided, the sad and disgraceful truth is that its other face is not so pretty. Greed and unethical behaviour throughout history have plagued capitalist society. Consumerism has fed the need for sweatshop labour, and globalisation has assisted its progressive growth.

It is the poor who are affected most and they seem to have little power to bring about change for themselves. This is where advocacy groups step in to be a voice for them. Yet the voice that is heard is not always beneficial. A culture of protest groups, like “United Students against Sweatshops” became a popular way of standing up against the injustices acted out on the poor in sweatshops. In some instances protests have hindered the cause of the poor rather than helped, due to drops in sales (3.6% decrease in annual sales for recognizable consumer products, as found by Bartley & Child (2012)),and thus production, which lead to losses of jobs. It is important to understand that the wider implications of protesting against sweatshop labour can lead to more poverty (Powell & Zwolinski, 2011). Even imposing regulations on countries, as discussed earlier, can lead to job losses, as the multinational companies leave the shores of one country in search of cheaper options (Powell & Zwolinski, 2011). So those advocating for them may end up advocating against what their real needs are.

The level of exploitation does vary a lot from company to company and from sweatshop to sweatshop. So while some workers are suffering from deplorable conditions, others are not (Skarbek et al. 2012).

Empowering the workers to understand their human rights with an education to know how to use the power that they do have, to refuse to work (Burgmann, 2013) when the conditions are inhumane, would be a key area for public health experts to explore further. Following on from that, educating the factory owners as to the benefit __to them__ to have healthy workers, in mind and body (Shaw, 2009), would potentially bring about a change in attitude to the importance of their labour force and thus an improvement of conditions.

Society and culture are crucial in trying to remedy the injustices occurring in sweatshops. When society understands the real needs of the sweatshop workers, and not the perceived needs, lasting change has a chance of becoming a reality. The culture of businesses also needs to change so that all companies follow the same rules of ethical practice (Shaw, 2009). In business, if another business “cheats”, then it is unlikely other businesses will work with them again. The same business culture ideals for ethical practice could very easily translate to becoming the “norm” in sweatshops. This would play out, with big companies only choosing factories to manufacture their product based on the ethical behaviour of the overseers and conditions the workers are subject to.

Ethics education at universities is changing the mindsets of business graduates (Cubie, 2010). With ethics as a compulsory subject in business education, young business men and women are more aware of human rights issues, and the flow down effect should become apparent over time.

**Analysis of the Artefact and learning reflections**
The artefact I chose represents the ignorance of westerners who want to help sweatshop workers, but go about it the wrong way. If we shut down factories that exploit human life, we are putting the workers into a worse situation than they were in previously. It concerns me greatly that many people who want to help these people are actually causing more harm. I don’t believe that doing nothing is an option either, but through my research I have come to the conclusion that it is important to have a well rounded understanding of issues, looking at peer reviewed research, before we make judgements on what needs to be done. When we presume to know what is important to people we can inadvertently cause more harm than good, as the fat man in the artefact has done.

It is encouraging to see that there are businesses like “Empower”, in country Victoria, who buy and sell handmade items from a variety of countries, and in their own small way are empowering people to find a way out of the poverty cycle. With a maxim that helping even one person is better than none, it shows that even small steps are important (see “Starfish” parable).

This assessment piece has helped me to be open to being wrong about preconceived ideas, and will help me to be more thorough when making judgements on issues.

** //References// ** Bartley, T., & Child, C. (2012). Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of Anti-Sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993-2000.Social Forces, 90(2), 425-451. Doi: 10.1093/sf/sor010 Burgmann, V. (2013). The Multitude and the Many-Headed Hydra: Autonomist Marxist Theory and Labor History. International Labor and Working –Class History, Inc, 83, 170-190. Doi: 10.1017/S0147547913000100

Cubie, L. (2010). A Step Forward: Ethics Education Matters! Journal of Business Ethics, 92(4), 565-584. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0173-2

Empower. (2011). Retrieved from []

International Labor Rights Forum. (2012). Factory Profiles. Retrieved from []

Lucas, K., Kang, D., & Li, Z. (2012). Workplace Dignity in a Total Institution: Examining the Experiences of Foxconn’s Migrant Workforce. Journal of Business Ethics, 114, 91-106. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1328-0

Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. (2013). Merriam-Webster Dictionaries. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster website []

Michaels, C. & Greene, A. (2013) Worksite Wellness: Increasing Adoption of Workplace Health Promotion Programs. Health Promotion Practice, 14(4), 473-479. Doi: 10.1177/1524839913480800

Oxfam Australia. (n.d).Bangladesh Fire and Safety Accord. Retrieved from: [] Powell, B. & Skarbek, D. (2006). Sweatshops and third world living standards: Are the jobs worth the sweat? Journal of Labor Research, 27(2).263-274. Doi: 10.1007/s12122-006-1006-z

Powell, B. & Zwolinski, M. (2011). The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 449-472. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-1058-8

Shaw, W. H. (2009). Marxism, business ethics, and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(4), 565-576. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9725-0

Skarbek, D., Skarbek, E., Skarbek, B., & Skarbek, E. (2012). Sweatshops, Opportunity Costs, and Non-Monetary Compensation: Evidence from El Salvador. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 71(3), 539-561. Doi: 10.1111/j.1536-7150.2012.00827.x

The World Bank. (2013). World Development Reports: Jobs. Retrieved from the World Bank website http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?contentMDK=23044836&theSitePK=8258025&piPK=8258412&pagePK=8258258

** Reflection ** []

[]