From the Hands of Workers to the Pockets of Business Owners

Historical Context

            Foxconn, a massive electronics producer in China and Taiwan, was recently accused of mistreating their workers by paying them about 60 cents per hour, forcing many of them to work overtime for no extra compensation, and in some cases, physical and verbal abuse.(McGlaughlin). Though this is clearly injustice, these conditions are actually very common among factories in the developing and even the developed world. However, the abundance of these sweatshops does not make the plight of working any easier on individual workers and Foxconn has had dozens of suicide attempts over the course of several months. Clearly, the situation most employees are forced into involves abuse, and many feel as if their cries for help are not heard. In many companies, those who complain about conditions are often put in danger; According to the New York Times Iqbal Masih, a former child laborer in Pakistan who chose to speak at an international labor conference in Sweden, was murdered in the street while riding his bicycle with his friends(“Child Labor”). These workers have nowhere to voice their concerns without dealing with the possibility of being punished. Since the need for policy reform is evident, it must be handled by concerned citizens who have the opportunity to speak freely.

Though sweatshops originally emerged during the industrial revolution when most products could be manufactured rather than created, they have endured the new century and have increased since technology improved, which has significantly expanded outsourcing. Easier communication between the United States and foreign countries allows for easier business. Also, many companies take advantage of the differences in governments and policies around the world. For example, in China there is no set minimum wage, therefore each individual factory can choose what to pay their workers without being concerned with being persecuted. According to Sweatshop Watch’s 2003 report, a journal and awareness organization, the majority of American businesses get away with having sweatshops abroad by claiming they are not responsible for what their subcontractors do (2). Most companies see this as an initiative to outsourcing; they can much more easily avoid the responsibility of protecting their employees.

Some efforts have been made by concerned American citizens to better the conditions for sweatshop workers not only in the US but in other parts of the world. In California, landmark legislation AB633 was passed to compensate workers for the wages they earned but were not given and to hold companies liable for their involvement in the exploitation of their workers. Sweatshop Watch kept close accounts of how the legislation was carried out and found that “wage paid almost 30% of the total amount paid to workers… But on average, workers were still denied two-thirds of total wages owed”(“Globalization”). This is a step in the right direction, but there is still much more that needs to be done. Many contractors simply did not take it seriously and “records provided were incomplete almost 90% of the time” (7). It is very easy to cover up underpaying workers when the majority of the records are not even present. AB633 didn’t do much more than bring to companies’ attention that reform is wanted by the American public.

The other legislation that has been repeatedly suggested is banning sweatshop created products into the United States. According to the Christian Science Monitor, “Senator Tom Hankin (D) of Iowa [proposed a bill] that would prohibit the entry of products made by children under 15”(Epstein). However, this form of legislation makes foreign affairs far more complicated because this would mean oftentimes not accepting products from an ally. This is also working from the wrong end of the problem; not accepting the products produced by sweatshops diminishes their profits and only leads to even lower wages for workers.

Suggested legislation should work to prevent the maltreatment of workers so that business may continue to grow, along with the standard of living for factory employees, not simply punishing the contractors after the fact. Any new legislation that will be passed needs to come in a very easily applied and straightforward manner in order to ensure companies will comply. American business owners need to allocate specific human resources to the supervision and maintenance of human rights in each of their operating facilities in order to end the injustice and forever disassociate America from sweatshops.

 

Proposal With Reasons
             Each individual business has to comply with the local, regional, and national regulations for business in order to continue to operate in America; As a national regulation, all producers hoping to manufacture goods to sell should dedicate personnel to be actively present in every factory ensuring that the workers are not only being treated correctly but are compensated for their work. Not only should they have separate managers to verify wages and safety, but in addition to this regulation, factory inspectors should be employed nationally for random inspections of factories’ operations. The manager in charge of human resources should dedicate his or her time to ensuring the staff in charge of the workers is behaving properly and scheduling work hours that are reasonable and allow for overtime if the conditions call for it. As a separate occupation, a manager in charge of workers compensation will account for all of the wages workers will be paid, and guarantee that the money is not going elsewhere.

A minimum wage should be enforced, and the only leeway in determining this will be due to promotions in which workers are paid more. These two positions should be installed into every factory currently producing goods, and will be mandatory. Any company who chooses to outsource their production to another company will still have to comply with this, so that any factory with an American origin is one of integrity and dignity.

Some companies may not want to dedicate their own staff to work overseas; these companies always have the option to manufacture in America so that its’ personnel does not have to be uprooted. If businesses choose not to complete this requirement, they will not be allowed to send out any merchandise until the problem is corrected. If the managers themselves are misusing their power or not truly complying with the requirements, they may be replaced. As far as the inspections go, this is to make the managers accountable and encourage them to fulfill their positions correctly. Inspections will occur without warning and if signs of maltreatment are present, the factory will be put on probation so that the problem may be corrected. Inspections will occur more frequently for these factories and continuously. If factories do not correct their issues within 6 months, the factory will not be allowed to manufacture any further, though workers will be compensated for losing their jobs. Overall, surveillance is the key to ridding America of its’ ties to sweatshops.

            Though it is indisputable that manufacturers will have to spend more resources in order to enact this policy, proper treatment of workers will lead to more profit for companies and significantly increase the standard of living for thousands of people around the world. In order to help account for the resources that will be redirected towards accountability, companies have the option to simply charge more for their goods; products that are labeled as “sweat free” are considered more valuable by most. In a study conducted by Harvard University published by the Labor Studies Journal , socks were sold with the label “Good Working Conditions” and prices were steadily increased throughout a period of five months. They were placed next to identical socks with a consistent base level price that had no label. The study showed that only after the price had risen by 40% did consumers start to choose the normal socks over the labeled ones (40). This shows that many companies could profit off of removing their affiliations with sweatshops.

Another manner in which companies could benefit from this legislation is by choosing to develop their factories in the United States instead of off shoring them to foreign nations. According to “Reinventing the Union” from the Wall Street Journal, “3 million factory jobs were lost between 2000 and 2003 due to outsourcing”(Fields). Through this policy, it would become very difficult for US producers to continue to exploit workers by offering them abysmally low wages. Therefore there won’t be the extra initiative of saving on their wages and companies will be more encouraged to simply develop locally. In general, recessions are associated with high unemployment rates; with the creation of lots more industry within the United States, not only factory positions, but managers, inspectors, directors and other positions will be created nearby. With more of America working, more of America will be spending, therefore lifting America of its’ lower GDP period.

 

Investing in America’s workforce will not only allow businesses to make additional revenue but will provide for many across the country who currently cannot make a living. The other aspect of this policy that would be beneficiary is if companies continued to send jobs across seas and truly allotted them the benefits they deserve. Many employees of sweatshops around the globe, though they are making money some money working, still live in extreme poverty. As stated in Daniel Viederman’s Businessweek article “Overseas Sweatshops are a US Responsibility,” “Businesses that respect labor rights put more money in the hands of workers, helping them to educate their children and live healthier lives”. It would be incredible if in the mist of poverty, an American company could provide income and opportunities for generations who do not currently have adequate healthcare or nourishment, not to mention anyone who has excess money can become a consumer of American goods and also contribute to stimulating the economy. Regardless of if companies choose to reopen factories on American soil or continue training others overseas, higher wages and proper treatment will allow for healthier people and more fulfilled lives. In the end, the idea of money should not lead humans to exploit one another, and even if it doesn’t yield a profit, helping others live a more satisfying life is a worthwhile pursuit.

 Objections
            The only party that will originally pay for this policy would be the corporation owners, who would have to not only spend more sources on supervision, but will have to spend much more on worker’s wages. However, as argued above, this spending can be seen as an investment. Respect for worker’s wages and working conditions will lead to an increase in the value of goods, more consumers with more free money to spend, and in general, a boost to the American economy. Also, many companies have the room in their profits to make this investment; According to Forbes article “America’s Highest Paid Chief Executive”, the CEO alone at the average company makes around 10 million dollars. This is just one person’s salary, and it only seems fair that each worker be allowed their 7 dollars per hour. The other legislation that tries to eradicate sweatshops involves punishing corporations for their actions after workers have been mistreated, but it seems much more productive to try to avoid the issue in the first place.

There may be some unintended consequences throughout this policy that could lead to factories being shut down due to failing inspections, and jobs in America and overseas may be lost. However, if the standard of work conditions overall is raised, then these unemployed workers could find a job with better treatment and pay. The goal is to not settle for less than deserved simply because it is already in place. Another possibility is that managers may abuse their power and allow for unsatisfactory conditions or detained pay in order to accumulate wealth for themselves. In an effort to counteract that, the unannounced inspections must also be a part of this legislation. Shifting power from one abusive person to another won’t help the situation; only holding everyone accountable for their actions will hopefully eradicate the horrific actions that are normally swept under the rug. Each manager will have to answer personally to the actions they are responsible for or allow to happen.

            Sweatshops are an absolute exploitation of human rights in order to further benefit businesses. It will always be cheaper to force others to work for days straight and barely pay them, but clearly this is not the proper way to run a business. Though the majority of sweatshop workers are not in America and will never get to voice their concern directly, they are definitely being mistreated and deserve the proper treatment from an employer. America should not continue to be tied to sweatshops, but should be an example for the world that profit and care don’t have to be separate. Americans can use this opportunity to not only prevent employees from attempting suicide due to a stressful environment but to genuinely enrich the standard of living for all of its’ workers. By taking responsibility and initiative, America can be the leading figure, and maybe our generation can be the last to know what sweatshops are.