Sweat Shops (no spam)

[Mr Sleep]

What is the general opinion of sweat shops?

There are two sides to this argument, on the one hand you have workers who are treated badly and paid a pittance and on the other hand they are getting paid a wage which lets them live, okay it isn't great but if it keeps them alive then it has a purpose, so what is the solution and is it such a problem?

[CM]

Sweat shops are not a good thing. However they are far different than child labor and the likes. Sweat shops are factories were people work in the third world, which could have been established in the developed nations. It is purely a cost cut strategy. However not only with cutting costs also cut down on human rights and the like. That is not right.

If you just had sweat shops with out the human rights violations - i dont consider child labor a violation - then i see nothing wrong with them at all. Can we also discuss child labor with this as well?

[KidD01]

Gotta agree on Fas point, most sweat shops located in third world nations. And usually employee below managerial layer are the main target of this kind of thing. I happen to know several company which oddly are joint venture between a multinational wide companies. Their motto, which used to be told to their employee are : Dedication & Loyalty. Now this might be a little strong : can their empolyee feed their family members only by loyalty and dedication ?

Solution ? If you're thinking about labour organisation do some talk with management or perform a strike it's useless. Those capital owner simply shut the labour rep guy with money or give extra pressure for those employee involved in labour organisation. It's a "no win situation" here

Yet I'm thinkning if this such of company can be brought to lawsuit based on human rights violation.

[CM]

If they can be brought to courts, they wont be. For a fair judgement you would require that these companies are tried by their national courts, in this case the developed countries and they arent going too shoot themselves in the foot by sueing the companies that employee their own people and pay large amounts of taxes for human rights in the third world. Harsh i agree. But i also deem it is realistic.

Whoops edit: The was against Phillp Morris was in the EU and not the third world. The nicotine levels were two high by EU standards so they told Phillp morris to change their ways.

[Weasel]

I follow the belief the government of a country should enforce the min. wage. If a government allows a company to come in and (IMHO) take advantage of its own people, they are at fault. If the labor (and people) of said countries were treated fairly by their own representives, most sweat shops would dry up. I cannot see blaming a company for going along with the rules set up by the government.


Company = Goal of making money for the company.

Government =Should be to protect its citzens.

[KidD01]

@Weasel : Sadly the third worlds only know one language : MONEY If you sue the company using national court those corporate capitalist simply bought their way off.

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by KidD01 @Weasel : Sadly the third worlds only know one language : MONEY

I believe most believe they will run the companies out...I have the opposite thinking on the matter.

Even if some closed, and moved back to the West (Or US) the increase in labor need will force some to still go to thrid world countries for labor. In the long run this will help the third world with an increase in pay...leading to more money from their own people going back in to their own country (and their own pockets). With this will come privately owed companies from their own citzens...(Self-employed)

[Mr Sleep]

At the same time though, as I alluded to earlier, having some money is better than having no money at all.

[KidD01]

Ther's also option number 2 as I have mentioned, give more pressure on employee who report the matter. Some company even ask the employee to resign "Forcefully" - if the empployee don't comply they'll be transferred into a division which is very stressfull - hence the employee then resign

[Weasel]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr Sleep At the same time though, as I alluded to earlier, having some money is better than having no money at all.

In the short term yes, a little is alot better than none. In the long term this cycle most be broken, and as with most things in this world...its going to be hard to break it.


I for one could not ask a person to go without so that in the long run he or she will be better off...but I believe (or can only see) only way to do it and it is going without for some, so the others can move ahead. (Sad real sad..)

[KidD01]

Right to the point, mate. Yet most people in third world suffer from poverty, insecurity and lack of flair. All they can think is how to work as employee and they can't survive if the're out of work since it's a fierce competition in the job market. Some of those jobless finally "join the dark side" becoming small time drug dealer, criminals (robbers, thiefs, etc). Only tiny bits of people think how to create new area of business - yet \most of them stuck with financial and lack of market trust.

I agree on how " a little is alot better than none" must be erased from their vision Yet it's a tough task.

[fable]

Sweat shops are inherently a great social evil, IMO, even if they are a demonstrable economic good. Sweat shop conditions are terrible; workers keep incredibly long hours (sometimes as much as 16/day) for incredibly low wages; there are no benefits; child labor laws, when they exist, are not enforced; disease spreads rapidly. Although sweat shops are poorly documented in Asia, there's a huge, well-papered history of them in the West, particularly 19th century Industrial Britain and the early 20th century US.

I wish my uncle was still around. He actually worked in the Garment District of New York City during the early unionizing days, when it was possible to see non-unionized sweat shops alongside those that had already forced employers into accepting union demands. He used to speak occasionally of the great differences, such as the thugs the non-unionized shops would hire to "protect" their workers from being "antagonized" by union employees. Mind, I am *not* saying that unions are an unalloyed blessing. Today, for instance, there are attempts to unionize nurses in the US, but the people doing it are actually offering fewer benefits and lower wages to nurses than what they can get without: unions have become fat cats. But they did serve the immediate need of dealing with sweat shops, and there are a lot of books describing the terrible conditions that employers get away with in such establishments. I strongly suggest reading one or two, just to see what these places are like.

[KidD01]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable <SNIP>unions have become fat cats. But they did serve the immediate need of dealing with sweat shops, and there are a lot of books describing the terrible conditions that employers get away with in such establishments. I strongly suggest reading one or two, just to see what these places are like.

Can't agree more Labour unions can be a two headed snake. It's all depend on people running it. Yet who can resist the power of money ? All of my live I only see tiny percent of people who can resist the power of money (and some fat juicy promotion - if I may add).

[Scayde]

@ Weasel...Well put Weasels....I would add something but I think you covered all of my points better than I could have......

@ Fable: You are correct (IMO) in what you say..Unions served a noble purpose once, but today..I am skeptical of there motives.
I can say this..
as nurse, I would give up my job before joining a union...

I value the freedome of making my own deal with the Devil,
rather than
letting the Devil make the deal for me "on my behalf"

[fable]

@ Fable: You are correct (IMO) in what you say..Unions served a noble purpose once, but today..I am skeptical of there motives.

I do think unions could serve that same purpose once more in many third world nations, where employers are allowed to exploit horrible working conditions as long as corrupt officials get a cut of the proceedings. In such cases, a union would not only serve a social good, but an economic good, as well, since money channeled back into the hands of employees actually fuels economic development. The opposite, I think, is true of systemized government corruption.