Should we abolish sweatshops? Asks Ella Spradbury

Should we abolish sweatshops? Asks Ella Spradbury.

Sweatshops are characterised as ‘workplaces with very poor, socially unacceptable or illegal working conditions’ – the work may be difficult, dangerous, climatically challenging or underpaid; in order to maximise the firms’ profits and consumer’s satisfaction. The ugly side of globalisation has revealed reputable brands, such as: Adidas, ASOS, Nike and Urban outfitters all use sweatshops in their manufacturing process. As a consumer who shops at all these brands, I speak on behalf of many people, when I say I feel guilty purchasing clothes, that have been unethically sourced. With our new jeans, comes the sweat, tears and frustration of an underpaid child or an abused mother, whom has no better choice but to slave away for 10 hours a day. Consumers face this ‘moral question’ of whether to support these brands and their cheap goods or pay a higher price for sustainability and fair conditions. However, is it the consumer that should have to do this moral rationing? I believe the change should come from the companies who are higher up in the production chain… the same companies who disregard and exploit these poor workers.

As controversial as sweatshops first seem, there is no doubt they play a fundamental role in the development of impovertised nations. They are the alternative of unemployment or subsistence farming (which is 1 of 3 most dangerous industries in the world). Sweatshops provide a chance, so be it a horrible chance, to escape extreme poverty. Keynesian economists and libertarian think tanks recognise the vital role sweatshops do play in improving people’s lives; Jeffrey Sachs even went as far to state in his Harvard panel discussion: “my concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but there are too few”. Although a typically counterintuitive statement, this does demonstrate there is thought to be enough of a right, to justify their existence. Furthermore- although, it may be underpaid work with long, tiresome hours – sweatshops do provide ‘stability’, which is a term that represents job comfort and safety in a lot of third world countries. A study published by the National Bureau of Economics Research, revealed there is a minor difference in the earnings between factory jobs, those with nothing and those informally employed. However, factory jobs stood out as a type of employment that provides crucial job stability, which is extremely important in countries like Ethiopia- who sadly don’t have a sufficient social safety net, for those mistreated by the system.

As previously discussed, sweatshops are the steppingstone for new possibilities and economic development, which can have a significant ‘ripple effect’ in society- subsequently improving the lives of many more people. Past success stories can illustrate this principle – Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore- with the use of sweatshops, have seen raised income from 10% of American levels, rise to 40%, in just 1 generation. On the surface, this improvement seems phenomenal, but the real question that needs to be asked is whether this is actually a positive improvement? The rise of 30% has sadly only happened as a result of underpaid, abused and mistreated employees working intense hours.

However, firm believers of the economic discipline sweatshops provide, argue they play an essential role in the journey towards development- in principle, they suggest the removal of sweatshops would be like trying to ascend a ladder, after knocking out a few rings.

Sir Arthur Lewis pioneered a theory – the “Lewis Model” – that attempts to explain the process of growth in emerging markets, by using the typical two economies of a developing market (traditional rural agricultural and modern urban manufacturing). With regards to the danger, threat and unproductivity posed by rural agriculture- Lewis displays in his model, that labour should move to the modern sector. As such, this would increase productivity per unit of labour and improve welfare. In essence, sweatshops will allow the transfer of low skill agricultural workers into city, thus providing the gateway to the heart of growth and development of nations.

Some 150 million people in China have left behind their previous lives, families and friends, to move across the country in hope of a ‘secure job’. Does this not exemplify the ‘desire’ to work in sweatshops? Or does it represent the 150 million people who feel like they have no better choice than working in these places? These figures don’t account for the unemployed fathers who will accept any jobs just to feed their families, or the children who are forced to work, or the abused women and girls who think sweatshops might provide a barrier to sexual exploitation. It is vital we conduct more research into why people choose to work in sweatshops. Do these people have a voice, or just simply no other choice?

I believe the discussion of sweatshops often doesn’t account for the perspective from which certain views, thoughts and opinions are raised. As a citizen from an economically advanced country (compared to the third world sweatshops employees) it is very easy for me to brand sweatshops as ‘socially unacceptable’ just because my country would not allow them. Firstly, I still buy from the brands that exploit these workers- I am funding the exploitation – therefore to voice my disagreement of sweatshops, my actions must match my words and I need to stop buying unethical clothing. Secondly, I live different lives to the workers. How can I actually empathise with them, when I live with privilege – a roof over my head and food in my fridge and these workers would kill for a life like mine? Your perspective is so crucial when conversing about the existence of such places- even, if on the surface they seem so controversial and wrong. What we don’t often think about, is the vital lifeline sweatshops provide people and whilst we would never dream of working in such places – we live a ‘privileged life’ and many of us will never experience the desperation these workers sadly feel. Sweatshops can reduce poverty, delay marriage/pregnancy and increase school enrolment – poor women, in third world countries, are among the most vulnerable in the world – therefore support of sweatshops can advocate your support for feminism and equal opportunities too. In addition, we must consider the impact of boycotting sweatshops – this could and most likely would lead to street hustling, store crushing and prostitution. Whilst it is an institution based off power and exploitation, sometimes it provides a better lifeline for these poor, desperate workers and that is something that we ‘privileged people’ need to understand.

UK economist David Ricardo, talks about sweatshops’ existence in terms of ‘comparative advantage’ – which refers to when a country specialises in the economic production of something, they have a ‘natural advantage’ in. In turn, this lowers costs but maximises the efficiency and productivity – which is very relevant in the time-space compression we are seeing, as a result of globalisation. This theory helps justify sweatshops’ existence because countries, such as Bangladesh, have a natural surplus of low skilled labour, therefore aligning with Ricardo’s theory, ‘they should be the country that produce goods on a cheaper basis’. This would lower the prices, for countries who specialise in higher skilled industries – consequently raising these countries’ purchasing power. The idea of moving ‘sweatshops’ and the type of labour associated with them, to more economically advanced countries, is thought to have negative repercussions, as it would hinder global development on a wider scale. Therefore, it can not only be argued there is justification for sweatshops to not be abolished but it is thought to be sensible to keep them in the countries that they are already prominent in.

However, there appears to be a clear trade-off between moral labour standards and economic development; which causes the question of ‘why can’t we have both?’ to arise. The implementation of basic and cheap safety equipment would make sweatshops a much better working environment. In turn, this may actually increase productivity and output – so any costs associated with bringing in these measures would surely be reimbursed. Furthermore, it is clear that the TNC’s have the ability to fund these safety precautions, through the profit they make from the exploitation of workers – it would be as simple as reinvesting this ‘unethical’ profit to fund these small changes. But these small changes can be the difference between life and death- as shown in 2012 in Dhaka, Bangladesh when 111 workers sadly lost their lives due to a fire in a garment factory. Their deaths came as a result of an insufficient number of fire exits, which demonstrates how this is an unnecessary tragedy, that can and should be avoided. These poor working conditions are further highlighted, as less than a year later in Bangladesh the Rana Plaza factory collapsed, as a result of instability and poor infrastructure. This time, 2500 people were pulled from the ruins and 1100 were killed. It is very easy for these numbers to become meaningless statistics – to the TNC’s that employ these workers, it is the thought of less factory productivity that will probably upset them – but we must remember with every death, comes a grieving mother, father, son, daughter, wife or husband. We must ensure we do not become complacent and forget the repercussions of sweatshops. Tragic events, like those in Bangladesh, are a mere reminder to the magnitude of catastrophe sweatshops can cause.

Is it too much of an ask that every citizen has access to their basic human rights?

Sweatshops fundamentally ignore, disregard and break many rights that we are entitled to. Article 23 of UDHR states we have the ‘right to work, free choice of employment; just and favourable conditions of work and protection against unemployment’. For a world that is so crazily advanced it seems completely absurd – and ultimately inhumane- that we have institutions that still exploit their workers and their workers’ rights. Furthermore, Article 32 quotes that a ‘child should be protected from economic exploitation and performing any work that’s likely to be hazardous or to interfere with a child’s education’. Well to make it clear, in sweatshops, children are not protected from economic exploitation, nor are they protected from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or interfere with their education. Instead, children are dying as a result of dangerous work, children are starving from the low wages they receive, and children are not getting an education whilst working at sweatshops.

However, this begs the need to look at it from both angles. Whilst sweatshops fundamentally break many human rights- when it states ‘protection from performing any work that is harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development’ – there is controversy as to whether sweatshops diminish or actually enhance these particular set of rights. Drawing back on the idea of vulnerable females in third world countries, sweatshops can provide a safety net to stop them from turning to prostitution – in this instance, helping their physical/mental health and social development. However, it goes without saying there are also countless examples of child labour in sweatshops that massively infringe on these basic human rights – it is a question of what is more significant in size – sweatshops supporting these rights or being a contributor to the diminishing of them? I believe the latter.

One distinctive characteristic of sweatshops are the extremely low wages that are paid to the workers. Despite working abnormally long hours and putting themselves at extreme risk by even just turning up to work, they are still paid an insufficient sum. A study (conducted by Robert Pollin, Justine Burns and James Heinz 2004) showed that doubling the wages of sweatshop employees would only increase the consumer cost of an item by a mere 1.8%. This demonstrates and reflects the capitalist and greedy ideology from which sweatshops originate from. In essence, sweatshops are exploiting millions of workers, to profit a few ‘big beasts’ who own TNC’s. Yet, we can’t disregard the consumers’ demands for these cheap products – but I am sure many of us would happily pay an additional 1.8%, if we knew that would double the salary of a hungry and tired worker.

To conclude, on ethical and moral grounds the justification of sweatshops is not satisfactory – they abuse human rights, lead to tragic deaths and provide apalling working environments- in principle, they should be abolished. However, in practise we must consider the ‘economic rung’ these institutions provide for development and the alternative option to unemployment. Yet, it goes without saying we need better alternatives to ‘sweatshops’- as it shouldn’t just be a choice of unemployment or exploitation.

In the short term, we must immediately provide a higher standard of safety and protection for these workers and as the figures show, we can afford to increase their wages and implement precautions, to help avoid such tragedies.

Essentially, by improving the conditions of sweatshops, we are abolishing them- as they are characterised as being ‘workplaces with very poor, socially unacceptable or illegal working conditions’. Therefore, I am proposing keeping the economic stability and structure they provide but hugely reforming the moral, ethics and appalling standards that are currently in place, or not in place, in some instances. This means the definition of ‘sweatshops’ will theoretically be abolished, but not the jobs or certain prosperity associated with it.

In the long term, we must work on giving these workers a better voice and platform, as whilst mass factory work (even with improved conditions) will mean they can escape extreme poverty- they still are trapped in a rigid capitalist system, with less opportunities than the modern, developed world.  Consumers and firms need to unite and both realise these workers are human too.