Introduction
Sweatshops have long been a contentious issue for consumers who seek to make ethical purchasing decisions. At first glance, it seems simple: sweatshops are immoral, and their products should be boycotted. However, as Rudi Garyfalakis discovered during his research on the topic, the issue could be more complex.
The subject of sweatshops is complex, and numerous issues render it morally dubious. While sweatshops undoubtedly violate the rights of their workers, they also provide economic opportunities in developing countries that would otherwise be unavailable. As such, the question of how to act as a moral, ethical consumer is difficult to answer.
Supporting Ideas
Firstly, the definition of a sweatshop confirms that these working environments are morally wrong. Sweatshops, according to Denis Arnold and Laura Hartman, are “any working environment in which the employees are subject to two or more of the following circumstances: systematic health and safety risks brought on by employer recklessness; systematic forced extra hours, force, or unpaid wages; or income for a 48-hour week of work that is below the amount required for basic survival needs” (2). For instance, hundreds of kids are forced to pick cotton in Uzbekistan while carrying pesticides in plastic water bottles, which causes skin burns.
Secondly, while it is true that sweatshops can provide economic opportunities for workers, it is crucial to recognize that these opportunities come at a steep cost. Sweatshop workers are exploited and subjected to dangerous working conditions that violate their fundamental human rights. Sweatshops, according to C. D. Meyers, violate “the commonsense moral presumption against economic exploitation, which is supported by the dominant moral theories of today” (1).. Fundamental labor rights, including the freedom from forced labor, the right to a set number of hours in a workday, and the right to reasonable and favorable working conditions, are often violated in sweatshops.
Third, despite the exploitative nature of sweatshops, there are some cases where workers report positive experiences. For instance, thousands of women are employed in sweatshops in Bangladesh’s textile sector to cut, sew, and package garments for retailers such as Walmart and Gap. While these women work long hours, are subject to harassment, and are denied labor rights, they also report that the job provides opportunities that they would not otherwise have had. A sweatshop job offers women a modest wage that affords them a certain level of freedom. Sweatshop jobs may not be ideal, but for many workers, they are a step towards economic self-sufficiency and an escape from extreme poverty.
Opponent’s View
Some might argue that sweatshops are necessary to create economic growth and that the workers in these environments choose to work there. In some cases, this is true. Developing countries can expand their exports by using sweatshops, which ultimately helps to improve their economies. Additionally, because sweatshops are the only way for women to achieve their goals, many employees opt to work in them. Women who labor in sweatshops receive a low wage, gain business knowledge, and gain access to better social and economic conditions brought about by economic progress.
Conclusion
The issue of sweatshops in the garment industry is complex and morally ambiguous. While sweatshops violate fundamental human rights and exploit workers, they also provide an opportunity for economic growth and social mobility in developing countries. The essay argues that, as ethical consumers, people must navigate this moral grey area and make difficult decisions that balance competing concerns. Rather than seeking a simple “right” or “wrong” solution, individuals must recognize the issue’s complexities and take practical actions that mitigate harm and promote positive change.
Reference
Garyfalakis, R. (2019). Chapter 8: Readings: 8-10 Farming It Out. In Essay Essentials with Readings. essay, Nelson Education Ltd.