: :
: : :
: : : I'm suppose to do a project for my OAC(grade 13) class on why
: : : sweatshops are a positive thing. I may not agree with them and neither does my teacher but I must present the pro side to them while my partner presents the con side to them so that not only one side is presented. I'm having a great difficulty finding information on the pro side of sweatshops. Can anyone help?
: : : Thanks: : Have you thought about doing the obvious and looking at the advantages by the profits that they earn, it actually helps developed countries keep there wealth. If it hurts the poor country then thats ok because the people who work in the sweatshops are used to being 27c per hour and if you were to pay them more then the cost of living would go up.
: On the contrary; such plants are usually subcontractors of large Western or Japanese firms, which is where the profits go. The countries concerned pretty much have to accept the factories because they are trying to claw their way into a market already dominated by the Western world - and the only way they can do that is by cutting down on staff overheads.
: With regard to "sweatshops", the amount the workers are paid isn't a living wage - that's part of the whole abhorrent affair. Our large corporations are turning a blind eye to various "humanitarian" documents like the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights in the name of maximising their profits. Since it takes place a comfortably long way away from the PR people, it doesn't get broadcast to the world that Happy Meal toys are being made by people who couldn't afford a Happy Meal - because it would cost rather more than a week's wages for them. Similarly, Nike's Vietnamese workers will never own a pair of Nike Airs, as it would require a totally unrealistic saving effort on the worker's part.
: Sweatshops are where the West's corporations can treat foreigners like dirt, for no better reason than that they are foreigners living in a Third World country and have to eat somehow. So much for the Brotherhood of Man or the Dignity of Labour.
: Gideon.
I talked to a friend of mine from China about this. Before the coming of sweatshops in China, there was a fairly large farming population. Large numbers of farms meant large amounts of farming produce, chiefly rice. "Supply and Demand" leads one to correctly conclude that price of rice was fairly low, and as a result, the farmers remained poor.
Now, let's put Company A on the scene. Company A realizes that there is a surplus workforce, therefore it is possible to offer a low wage. Since no one is forced to accept this wage/job, the job must offer a better means of life than what previously existed.
In China, workers swarmed to the sweatshops (not by force). They sought a better means of living. They chose to work in a factory all day and be paid more, rather than work in the field all day and be paid less.
Now comes the tricky part. The workers signed a contract. For justice to prevail, this contract must list every detail that the job will require, including wages, benefits (if any), hours, how many breaks...etc. If such a contract was signed in good faith, then we must conclude that Company A's proposal was found acceptable. For justice to continue to prevail, a breach of contract (whether by the signer or Company A) must be brought to light and dealt with accordingly.
This sounds nasty considering the workers' conditions. However, Company A is not the only company that knows where to find labor surpluses. Eventually, Company B will come along, and Company B will have to compete with Company A for the workforce by making a better offer. But once again, the workers are never forced to sign anything. They are merely made offers that they have the right to accept or reject.
In China, the prices of rice (last I heard at least) are going up. Why? Less people farming rice. We conclude that the remaining farmers have also had an increase in their standard of living.
None.
