Is it ethically permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad? Why or why not?

Is it ethically permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad? Why or why not?

Introduction

Sweatshops are factories or workshops where manual workers are hired at very low wages, work for long hours, and are subject to poor working conditions. When someone mentions the term, ‘sweatshops’, different things come into one’s mind. These may include many workers huddled around a working station, paid less than three dollars, and work areas with low lighting, air condition, and other support features needed to host a large population. The formation of such an image is always not distant away from the actual truth. Sweatshops are commonly associated with the running of factories or workshops where many people are employed at low wages and provided poor working conditions. On one end, these shops have been appraised for creating many jobs for individuals who would have been unemployed. On the other, the realities of working in a sweatshop are of great concern. Workers attached to a sweatshop go through a lot of problems than one may imagine. These problems could include poor ventilation, limited working space, long working hours, decimal wages, and these issues affect their quality of life and those of their families. Sweatshops are not permissible on American soil. This paper argues that American companies should not operate sweatshops abroad.

Analysis and Discussion

American companies should not operate sweatshops abroad for these shops violate workers’ human rights. Workers’ human rights are critical in creating user engagement at the place of work. The value of work is not only on the productivity of the worker as a hired entity, but the value they bring to work as humans. Employees are first humans before taking on their tasks as workers. For this reason, employers should provide the minimum basic conditions that show the value they bring to the workplace. American companies should not take advantage of the weak legal frameworks abroad and create sweatshops that involve the violation of human rights. All employees as humans are entitled to the rights such as having enough food, water, shelter air, and rest. Sweatshops often abuse most of these rights by subjecting workers to extremely long hours of work (Theodore et al 42). Workers hired by sweatshops spend more than 8 hours of a day working. These workers are given large volumes of workers with shorter deadlines, making it necessary for them to spend long hours at works. Besides, most of the tasks in these sweatshops are repetitive and would lead to exhaustion when done over a long period. American companies should not operate sweatshops as a way to protect and safeguard the human rights of everyone. Human rights are important everywhere where there are people, and not only in the United States. American companies should be cognizant of the need to protect and safeguard these rights beyond their borders. To effectively safeguard these rights, then these companies must keep away from establishing sweatshops abroad.

Secondly, American companies should not operate sweatshops abroad for these shops violate labor laws. The United States labor department finds sweatshops as workshops or settings that violate at least two or more labor laws. The prohibition of the violation of labor laws locally does not warrant American companies to violate these laws abroad. Labor laws are critical in ensuring that the value of employees is not exploited. For instance, laws on the maximum number of hours an employee can work at ago is critical in ensuring that workers have enough time to rest. This legal provision ensures that employers do not take advantage of workers’ availability to exploit their time. Equally, laws on health and safety are critical in protecting the interests of employees and the employer from possible litigations related to workplace accidents. Based on the virtue that sweatshops violate at least two or more labor laws mean it would be unethical for American companies to invest and operate such shops (Miller 33). American companies should keep off from operating such ventures, for these institutions are not legally compliant with the American and foreign laws of the land (Snyder 193). Often, sweatshops will not only violate the laws as defined by the US labor department, but also those of their host countries. Operators of these shops would neglect complying with the law to make the cost of production law. Their pursuit to keep costs of production law is the opportunity cost for defying labor laws. On this account, American companies should not take part in running sweatshops, for this would be unethical. The violation of the laws of the land abroad is an unethical issue. A robber abroad is equally a robber if he committed a violent offense in his home country. For this reason, it would be unethical for these companies to disregard the labor laws and operate sweatshops abroad.

Thirdly, it is not ethically permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad, because these shops are associated with unfair wages and a lack of benefits for workers. Here in the United States, strict labor regulations have put employers on the spot when they violate minimum wage requirements. For this reason, America has made significant progress in ensuring workers have a decent wage allocation. A decent wage is a basic requirement and needs among casual laborers. Through wages, manual workers can sustain their livelihood and those of their family dependants. Livelihood is a primary reason why employees go to work. However, there is more to earning a livelihood, where employees have other secondary and tertiary needs. Sweatshop operators are mute to the demand and livelihood burdens of their workers by fixing low wages. It is unethical for these employers to pay laborers low wages up to less than US$3 per day. These extremely low wages have a net effect on the workers by suppressing them into poverty. Most workers abroad, especially those in low and emerging economies battle with economic problems that cannot be addressed through the law wages (Theodore, et al 38). On this account, it is unethical to operate sweatshops that would contribute to difficulties of workers finding their livelihood. It is unethical for American companies to operate sweatshops where employees are poorly paid, yet these companies can establish good companies that pay staff fairly. American companies must keep off establishing and running sweatshops that could subject workers to low pay, below the industry standards. In the same ways these companies would not have paid low wages for their staff locally, it is unethical for them to create jobs abroad and allocate low worker’s wages.

Also, it is ethically not permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad, because these shops are run in settings that are lacking in offering the best working conditions for employees. The conceptualization of sweatshops is based on the idea of reducing costs of operations and increasing profits. For instance, sweatshop operators are highly likely to bundle many workers on a single desk or table and place many of these pieces of furniture in a small room. In doing so, sweatshop employers have saved the costs of building more spacious offices or garages. Also, they have saved resources such as the costs of maintaining large spaces. On the other end, these sweatshops create a new problem by subjecting employees to poor working conditions. Poor working conditions associated with sweatshops include overcrowding and use poorly ventilated rooms. Sweatshops are unethical for they involve bundling employees into rooms where they have to stay for long hours working. Poor working conditions such as inadequate ventilation, spacing, and lighting often affects the quality of life of workers who spend many hours in their desk. American companies should not be blind to the suffering that employees who are currently working in sweatshops go through. It is unethical for American companies to operate shops that intentionally subject workers to poor ventilation, overcrowding, and long hours of stay doing repetitive jobs (Pollin 57). American companies should be alive to the fact that workers in sweatshops work in these conditions because they have no alternative. These workers attend to work to find their livelihood. Instead, American companies should lead the way by creating firms abroad that offer better and conducive workplace conditions for staff.

Operating sweatshops abroad is unethical for most of these shops are attractive to children who are receptive to low wages. Child labor is a major concern among many of the countries with sweatshops. A significant number of children undertaking child labor are absorbed by sweatshops. Sweatshops are a soft landing for children seeking job opportunities because they are easily exploited through the low-wage offers. As earlier noted, the low wage is a major characteristic of many sweatshops. Adults are less likely than children to accept low wages, and this explains why many children find themselves as workers in these shops. By all means, to effectively fight child labor, then sweatshops should be closed. American companies can only advance ethics on the issue of child labor by delinking themselves from sweatshops. It would be unethical for American companies to operate sweatshops that often have undocumented children as their workers. Child labor is outrightly unethical. It is unethical to hire a child at work, yet they should be pursuing schools and other educational pursuits. Hiring children at work denies them the opportunity for their healthy development. Besides, it denies the affected children the right to education in their early developmental. Considering these issues as part of the sweatshop conceptualization, then it is unethical for American workers to operate such shops. Companies operating these shops cannot pass the integrity test (International Labor Organization 4). Currently, an estimated 168 million children between the age of 5-14 years are forcefully taken into child labor.

Moreover, it is ethically not permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad, for this reveals the value of selfishness for profits. Proper ethics demands for companies to be outward towards the community. On the contrary, the conceptualization of operating sweatshops abroad is selfish, for operators of these shops neglect all other factors to maximize profits. Operating a sweatshop abroad is selfish in the sense that it denies the American people good work opportunities and exploits the poor desperate people who are willing to under deplorable conditions. Operating a sweatshop abroad is a selfish act because the move focuses on exploiting others outside American soil. American companies should not take on this unethical practice that is selfish by nature. American companies operate in a context where they are encouraged to act outward for the benefit of the community (Miller 39). For this reason, they should not take on the selfish practice of pursuing higher profitability at the cost of thousands or millions of workers who would be exploited. In the current age, there is a need to have more companies in the United States, promoting decent employment. All workers globally are entitled to finding decent employment, meaning these companies should not create jobs outside to cause harm to other populations. The high level of selfishness for more profit is the primary reason for sustaining sweatshops abroad. For this reason, it would be unethical for American companies to consider operating these shops abroad as a measure of boosting their profitability. The focus of American companies should be on creating decent jobs for the American and global communities. In this light, these companies should channel their energy and resources into creating decent jobs for humans globally.

It is unethical for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad because this would reflect double standards on the part of the management in their commitment to human dignity. American companies have in the recent past scored exemplary scores in regards to their practices defending human dignity. Employees as workers deserve to be treated with all human dignity. The treatment of humans with human dignity is not only part of the labor laws, but also natural law. The natural states that humans should treat their peers with dignity as humans with a body, soul, and spirit. The human person is the most significant being on earth for she has power over everything through the auctioning of the mind. American companies should not embrace double standards in running their operations, for this is unethical. These companies run many operations and employ many people locally by giving them decent jobs. Why should they not give other workers outside the country decent jobs as opposed to running sweatshops? Operating sweatshops abroad would be directly practicing double standards, an unethical practice. All humans deserve dignity by being provided the best working conditions that befits them as humans. When companies choose to embrace the right standards on one end and ignore the other, this amounts to the practice of double standards (Pollin 54). The application of double standards would further mean that the leaders of these companies are lacking in integrity. Integrity is an ethical practice where one is true to self, honest and keeps her word. American companies should not critique sweatshops and develop good working conditions locally while subjecting their workers abroad to poor working conditions. Instead, they should be committed to keeping integrity by sticking to their word and deeds against sweatshops locally and globally.

Equally, it is ethically not permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad because these shops keep workers in a cycle of poverty. Poverty is real for many families living in underdeveloped countries in Africa and Asia. Poverty creates challenges for individuals and families as they fend for their living. One of the goals of finding a job is to alleviate poverty. Decent jobs have been proven to alleviate poverty by giving workers a good paycheck that supports their needs and those of their families. An unfortunate thing about sweatshop is that it does not alleviate poverty. Instead, it subjects the workers to a cycle of poverty (Coren, 2016). Any practice that promotes or sustains poverty could be deemed unethical for such a practice demeans the workers. American companies should not operate sweatshops abroad because these shops fail to alleviate poverty. Sweatshops increasingly pay low wages to workers. Low wage payment to workers has a direct implication on their livelihood. Many workers in sweatshops can hardly sustain themselves and their families. With some sweatshops paying as little as US$3 per day, it is evident that these workers would have to battle between food and mouth. The entire work they do at the workplace is focused on survival. American companies should not be associated with such practices that demean the human person. The virtue that sweatshops fail to help poverty but create a bigger problem makes it an unethical practice. American companies should lead the way in creating solutions for the world. These companies need to set a high bar for other foreign companies by keeping away from investing, associating, and operating sweatshops abroad.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is ethically not permissible for American companies to operate sweatshops abroad. This paper has made plain the host of reasons why American companies should not consider operating sweatshops abroad. Sweatshops abroad violate the basic human rights of their workers. These shops are also proven for promulgating the physical and mental abuse of workers. A majority of the sweatshops contravene America’s basic morality standards entitled to all persons. Furthermore, sweatshops abroad abuse the human rights entitlement of workers. Based on the findings of this study, American companies should keep off from operating sweatshops abroad.

Works Cited

Coren, J. New research finds sweatshops may be a necessary evil in the development of economies. June 1, 2016. Retrieved from https://qz.com/800707/new-research-finds-sweatshops-may-be-a-necessary-evil-in-the-development-of-economies/

International Labor Organization. Global Estimates on Child Labour. International Labour Conference, 2013. Web Accessed March 2, 2014.

Theodore, Nik. et al. Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers. National Employment Law Project, 2009. Web Accessed February 19, 2014.

Pollin, Robert. Global apparel production and sweatshop labour. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2004. Web Accessed February 19, 2014.

Miller, John. Why economists are wrong about sweatshops and the anti-sweatshop movement. The Magazine of Economic Affairs, 2003. Web Accessed February 19, 2014.

Snyder, J. Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol.20, No.2, 2010, pp. 187-213.