• Are Sweatshops Ethical?
    43 replies, posted
So this literally just popped into my head right now. From the first time I heard about sweat shops I've only ever been taught that they're evil, unsanitary places that the workers despise being in. This being displayed by the television, my parents and hell even geography class at school. But if you look at a key few points it could seem that sweatshops are in fact a positive to lesser communities. Working in one is [i]optional[/i]. I mean, I know that there are very few job opportunities in LEDC's and that working in a sweatshop is sometimes the only option for the poorest, most lacking in skills civilians. But think about it, if the sweatshop wasn't there, they wouldn't have a job at all. At best another, crappier job (If this job was better they would be doing it, rather than working in the SS) You could also argue that sweatshops provide teaching of the skills and techniques one may need to get another job later in life, or perhaps around the home. In many the case I have heard that sweatshops don't stay inside the regulations of human rights. E.G below average age workers, not providing minimum wage pay, making people work extra hours without sufficient pay etc. But in the end these people are choosing to work here, and would otherwise not have a job. I'm not saying sweatshops aren't bad, I don't yet have an opinion on the matter. But I would like one. So Facepunch, what are your views? Are SS' really the unlaundered hell holes they're made out to be, or do they provide poor people who otherwise wouldn't have a job with one.
Ethics is a very murky field these days. I suppose it would depend on where said sweatshop was located in the world, different countries would have relatively better or worse conditions for workers. And of course, like you said, the workers have the option of being there.
While they're by no means as bad as they're made out to be (can't generalise though) at the end of the day people ahouldn't have to work there in the first place.
Working in one is not always optional. In many, many cases debtors and loan sharks in third world countries force parents to send their children to sweatshops for x number of years to pay off a debt. The conditions are unsanitary and unsafe, and loss of life or limb due to accidents in the sweat shops with machinery is very common. They get paid something like a couple of cents a week. It is, for all intents and purposes, slavery.
Up untill about the end of the second paragraph I read it as "Sweetshops" which was very confusing. I don't like the idea of sweatshops, but I think you have a point in saying it's still a job.
You have a point, it [I]can[/I] provide jobs, but it may be forced. We don't know. It has positive and negative effects, it "might" provide jobs, and it sends out products for communities to use. On the other hand, people might be forced to work endlessly to make said products, and get little to no pay.
Perfectly ethical, every country has them at some point during development.
There's the argument that sweatshops are better workplaces than all the other "work" possibilities that there are in LDCs ie. digging through the garbage dump for food and materials, subsistence farming, etc.
[QUOTE=Sitkero;22276443]Ethics is a very murky field these days.[/QUOTE] Keep this in mind.
Just because they're better than the conditions seen in other jobs in LEDCs (like picking through rubbish in landfills in Mumbai), doesn't mean the conditions are GOOD. They're just relatively better. The fact they could be the best available jobs to a local population doesn't make them more ethical, it just reflects the complete lack of employment opportunities for the people. Working in sweatshops usually won't provide an escape from the crappy quality of life the people endure either - as they're usually providing just enough money to feed their families. If sweatshops paid their workers more, it could help them (and their country) break out of the vicious cycle of poverty. But since most sweatshops are only concerned with profit, I would say, no, they're not ethical.
[QUOTE=cricket50;22276393]So this literally just popped into my head right now. From the first time I heard about sweat shops I've only ever been taught that they're evil, unsanitary places that the workers despise being in. This being displayed by the television, my parents and hell even geography class at school. But if you look at a key few points it could seem that sweatshops are in fact a positive to lesser communities. Working in one is [i]optional[/i]. I mean, I know that there are very few job opportunities in LEDC's and that working in a sweatshop is sometimes the only option for the poorest, most lacking in skills civilians. But think about it, if the sweatshop wasn't there, they wouldn't have a job at all. At best another, crappier job (If this job was better they would be doing it, rather than working in the SS) You could also argue that sweatshops provide teaching of the skills and techniques one may need to get another job later in life, or perhaps around the home. In many the case I have heard that sweatshops don't stay inside the regulations of human rights. E.G below average age workers, not providing minimum wage pay, making people work extra hours without sufficient pay etc. But in the end these people are choosing to work here, and would otherwise not have a job. I'm not saying sweatshops aren't bad, I don't yet have an opinion on the matter. But I would like one. So Facepunch, what are your views? Are SS' really the unlaundered hell holes they're made out to be, or do they provide poor people who otherwise wouldn't have a job with one.[/QUOTE] All true, but once the employer demands 60+ hours per week and does not pay your money from last month till you do it becomes a slippery slope.
Britain itself suffered when the industrial revolution came around, deal with it. Oh and by suffered I mean children dieing from massive amounts of pollution.
[QUOTE=Hunterbrute;22276535]Perfectly ethical, every country has them at some point during development.[/QUOTE] That argument is fallable, just because every country had them it can't imply that thay're ethical.
Never seen one, but we can only imagine that the conditions are absolutely dreadful. Be thankful you have what you have folks, sitting here in front of our personal computers discussing topics such as these is a frivolous activity.
The reason they're bad isn't because of the conditions they're in, because it;s better than any alternative they have, but rather the fact that all those jobs are there means this can go on, rather than the country's government actually overhauling it's infrastructure to bring the country up to scratch (which is debatable as to whether governments would do this anyway)
[img]http://xbox360portal.online-games-live.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tropico3-demo.jpg[/img] El Presidente! Your sweatshops are unethical!
[QUOTE=archangel125;22276453]Working in one is not always optional. In many, many cases debtors and loan sharks in third world countries force parents to send their children to sweatshops for x number of years to pay off a debt. The conditions are unsanitary and unsafe, and loss of life or limb due to accidents in the sweat shops with machinery is very common. They get paid something like a couple of cents a week. It is, for all intents and purposes, slavery.[/QUOTE] This pretty much is my opinion. Even though they might have the choice to be there... They don't really have a choice. I would say that they're economically prisoned. They don't have money to go anywhere, or possibility to do anything else nearby in countries like China, possibly India, and probably a lot other countries.
It's a tough choice. Many people blindly say that sweatshops are horrible and need to be shut down. They are pretty damn bad, but for many, the only other option is not working at all, or subsistence farming. They are terrible and they aren't going to change anytime soon, but for many people, it's the only option.
Of course they are. Where else would we get our fine selection of t-shirts and other various, hilarious, collections of toys etc? Actually, they are fucking terrible. So no.
As said before ethics are no longer clear. There are many arguments on both sides of this topic as there are on many other "ethical" or "non-ethical" topics. I guess that everyone has an opinion. I just realized that what I have wrote makes no sense.
is genocide ethical? the answer is of course
They are unethical not only because of the conditions that they work in, but also because the multinational companies that are usually running them can easily afford to pay the workers a decent wage.
ITT: a typical general studies lesson.
Of course they are Ethical. It's capitalism for you. While you live safe at home all comfy being white and middle class people will suffer for your luxuries. So unless you demolish Capitalism it'll always be ethical because you'll do it what ever the case.
[QUOTE=Clever_Balls;22280666]Of course they are Ethical. It's capitalism for you. While you live safe at home all comfy being white and middle class people will suffer for your luxuries. So unless you demolish Capitalism it'll always be ethical because you'll do it what ever the case.[/QUOTE] It's not so much an inherent problem with capitalism itself as it is a problem with the values of many capitalist businesses.
England started out with sweatshops, just as America. I'd say it's pretty bad, but it's needed for an economy to slowly evolve. We all gotta start somewhere, not to mention that in most bad countries, there are little jobs to be had, and the minors working in them uses it as an alternative to being homeless and prostitution, and if you ask me, minors working in a sweatshop, or minors working as prostitutes, well... Call me old-fashioned, but I'd say the sweatshops are the lesser of two evils.
Sweatshops are unethical. When your country has no minimum wage laws, it makes it so just about all factories pay you 60c a day, so that way they can save money. Well there are no other jobs besides sweatshops, so people are forced to work in them. I swear to god, how dare china call themselves communist, America has a more controlled economy then they do.
No, they are not ethical. Sweatshops are in third world countries because they can pay the people extremely low wages and they don't have to follow safety and building standards. People lose limbs, become crippled, and die at these places, the owners know what goes on, yet they do nothing to change it as long as the cash flows in. They are [I]not[/I] ethical [I]at all.[/I] They take advantage of the fact that there are less jobs in third world countries, they don't do it out of selflessness.
Yes, compared to alternatives that the children would have to do for money in those countries. Lesser of two evils.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;22285922]Yes, compared to alternatives that the children would have to do for money in those countries. Lesser of two evils.[/QUOTE] Yes, I'd actually rather see a kid working in a factory than being raped
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.