Bella Mescall's essay discusses the negative impacts of sweatshops. It summarizes that sweatshops strip workers of basic rights by treating necessities like bathroom breaks as privileges. They also pay extremely low wages despite long work hours. Finally, sweatshops are often the only option for employment in impoverished areas, forcing people to accept dangerous working conditions. While some argue sweatshops help economies, the essay concludes that human rights and livable conditions should be the top priority.
Bella Mescall's essay discusses the negative impacts of sweatshops. It summarizes that sweatshops strip workers of basic rights by treating necessities like bathroom breaks as privileges. They also pay extremely low wages despite long work hours. Finally, sweatshops are often the only option for employment in impoverished areas, forcing people to accept dangerous working conditions. While some argue sweatshops help economies, the essay concludes that human rights and livable conditions should be the top priority.
Bella Mescall's essay discusses the negative impacts of sweatshops. It summarizes that sweatshops strip workers of basic rights by treating necessities like bathroom breaks as privileges. They also pay extremely low wages despite long work hours. Finally, sweatshops are often the only option for employment in impoverished areas, forcing people to accept dangerous working conditions. While some argue sweatshops help economies, the essay concludes that human rights and livable conditions should be the top priority.
Bella Mescall's essay discusses the negative impacts of sweatshops. It summarizes that sweatshops strip workers of basic rights by treating necessities like bathroom breaks as privileges. They also pay extremely low wages despite long work hours. Finally, sweatshops are often the only option for employment in impoverished areas, forcing people to accept dangerous working conditions. While some argue sweatshops help economies, the essay concludes that human rights and livable conditions should be the top priority.
Have you ever ordered some “free” socks off a website with a name you couldn’t
pronounce? Did those socks take weeks and weeks to arrive as they were being delivered from
some third world country? There’s a high possibility that you just ordered an article of clothing
made by a child in a sweatshop. Sweatshops can injure employees by being dangerous to work
in, not supplying enough cash flow for a family to live on, and by preying on poverty-stricken
families as their only hope for a job.
Sweatshops, factories located in most third world countries, are known for their long
hours and low wages. These labor practices take place in factories that defy domestic laws and
are usually ignored by the government. Many companies are scolded by customers because of
their use of sweatshops, yet the exploitative practices continue along with the psychological
harm the workers endure. Sweatshops became common during the Industrial Revolution and
persisted into the twentieth century; At this time, workers took part in labor movements and grew
concerned about workers’ rights. This eventually led to a slight decline in sweatshops, but they
weren’t gone for good. Many companies left the United States so they could continue their
practices in places with less environmental and safety regulations. Originally, Mexico was on the
map as the go to place due to its proximity to the United States, but this idea was scrapped in Mescall 2 favor of eastern Asia and Central America. Companies defended the use of sweatshops by
claiming it was the only way they could compete with imported goods, but labor union officials
argued that the labor harms the economy by lowering standards of living and causing job losses.
Yet some may believe that these manufacturing practices actually benefit impoverished members
of the labor force. Many arguments state that sweatshops deliver the jobs that nobody else wants
and allows workers to earn meager wages opposed to staying unemployed. Sweatshops are
commonly used to meet the consumer demand for affordable clothing. (A Sewing Machine
Operator)
To begin, sweatshops strip workers of their basic rights by treating necessities as
privileges. One example of this is revealed in Robert J. S. Ross’ paper on the poor working
conditions of the fashion industry, “You have to use the toilet, but the washroom makes you
nauseous and you are scared of the dark corridor and of catching some disease. The bathroom is
filthy. The boss screams if you take enough time to try to clean it yourself.” (Ross). This quote
shows the struggle workers can have on the job when it comes to hygiene and using the
bathroom in general. It argues that uncleanliness can cause workers to fear using a restroom and
fear of their boss. This showcases sweatshops as believing bathrooms shouldn’t be used on
company time and it is almost a punishment due to the squalor. Another example of necessities
being treated as privilege is showcased in Sonia Sodha’s paper titled Worry less about robots
and more about sweatshops, “The intense nature of her work had given her chronic back
problems, but she had no option but to continue working as she gets no sick pay. Her experience
is far from atypical.” (Sodha). This quote shows how workers don’t get the ability to call in sick
without the risk of losing their job. Sweatshop jobs usually require little skill, so workers are Mescall 3 easy to replace if injured. This initiates a fear of getting sick or hurt and most workers will work
while injured so they don’t lose their jobs. Thus, sweatshops prey on necessary causes and treats
them as privileges as a way to dehumanize workers and make them value their job over their
wellbeing.
The next negative effect of sweatshops involves the income of workers. Most of the jobs
consist of long hours which, to some people, equals high wages; this is not the case for jobs in
sweatshops. Robert J. S. Ross’ paper on poor working conditions in factories highlights an
example of insanely long hours a worker can face. The quote states “In China’s privately owned
export factories they may work twenty-seven of thirty days, eleven hours a day.” (Ross). Many
people wouldn’t mind working overtime if they were making minimum wage, but these workers
make maybe two or three dollars an hour. So to them, this is seen as an inhumane burden that
will only hurt them physically as opposed to helping them financially. An example of pay being
reduced by a cause not of the workers is once again mentioned in Robert J. S. Ross’ article. It
states, “In January 1912 textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, struck against a cut in their
pay. The mill owners had lowered their pay in response to a Massachusetts law that reduced the
workweek from fifty-six to fifty-four hours.” (Ross). The reduced workload would seem like a
win for workers, but it is treated as a setback for bosses who lowered the already nonexistent pay
of the workers. It seems like there is no way for the middle man to win. Wrapping up, these
sources and examples show just a few ways that unfair wages can affect already poverty-struck
workers.
Finally, sweatshops being the only workplace in poverty-stricken areas causes fast
fashion to prey on poor civilians and give them no choice but to work themselves to death. Now, Mescall 4 it would be very brash to just blame poverty as if that’s going to fix something, but it would be
less brash to put the blame in the hands of the government who doesn’t bat an eye in the
direction of these dangerous workplaces. In Anna Yesilevsky’s paper titled The U.S. Government
Should Ban Sweatshop Products, she discusses a “strong force” that could be used to shut down
sweatshops: “This justification, however, lacks empirical support. After all, what incentive
would companies have to change their practices if the path to profit maximization lay in
minimizing labor costs? A strong force would be required to keep these capitalistic impulses in
check.” (Yesilevsky). This strong force can be interpreted as the governmental power, as it has
the authority to shut down such abusive workspaces. Sweatshops may try to be discreet, but a
higher power can always find them and even force new laws and policies to benefit workers.
Some may argue that sweatshops benefit the economy and provides poor people with a
steady income, but human rights and livable conditions should come first. The opposing side
could use such argument from Brittany Hunter’s article titled Banning Sweatshops only Hurts the
Poor: “However, for some families in underdeveloped countries, child labor is necessary for
mere survival. And if these factories did not exist, many of these children would be forced to
take jobs that put them in more danger than sweatshops.” (Hunter). While some may see these as
a valid argument that protects our youth, can we ignore the squalor and danger these kids already
face in sweatshops? These kids will never learn how to have fun with their friends or how to do
more than just thread a needle. Yes there could be worst positions, but isn’t no child labor a
better option that a childhood full of it?
In conclusion, sweatshops may not be the biggest buzz in America, but that doesn’t mean
we should turn our shoulders to the obvious abuse third world country employees can face. The Mescall 5 dangerous conditions, low wages, and lack of better options can negatively impact the workers
and their families. It’s time to slow down fast fashion.
"A Sewing Machine Operator." Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. G ale In Context: Opposing
Yesilevsky, Anna. "The U.S. Government Should Ban Sweatshop Products." C
hild Labor and Sweatshops, edited
by Ann Manheimer, Greenhaven Press, 2006. At Issue. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010005217/OVIC?u=lom_accessmich&sid=OVIC&xid=ce62df93. Mescall 6 Accessed 28 Dec. 2019. Originally published as "The Case Against Sweatshops," The Humanist, vol. 64,
