Comments on: Three Cheers For Sweatshops?

By: How to Dress Green

How to Dress Green — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:10:10 +0000

[...] and boutiques where their work is sold, most workers in the garment industry toil in dangerous and oppressive conditions. They are forced to pull long shifts and take on large loads under the shadow of violence; for [...]

By: Juliane Huang

Juliane Huang — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:56:03 +0000

“…until there are better educational resources, professional opportunities for all (including women), and opportunities for people of third world countries to own their own businesses, it’s not going to make a huge difference. At the end of the day, corporations care about the bottom line, and not the people.”

* Stands up and starts clapping *

By: Juliane Huang

Juliane Huang — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:47:48 +0000

You make some good points, Turner. I especially agree with you on the 'banning them in other countries' point (We still let Walmart run rampant here in the US despite what their workers have said). I don't think an overall ban is the answer, though, much like everyone else, I also don't agree with horrific sweatshop working conditions. Thanks for commenting!

By: Juliane Huang

Juliane Huang — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:28:18 +0000

I definitely agree Neha. I think that what Kristof is trying to emphasize (albeit a bit insufficiently) is that there shouldn’t be one universal idea of exploitation as each culture/nation has its own standard of doing things and to take away sweatshop job opportunities from developing countries is actually doing them a bigger disservice. To be honest, I’m torn on this issue. I do, however, very much appreciate Timmerman’s stance. His response to Kristof’s column is sensitive and intelligent.

By: Gabriela Garcia

Gabriela Garcia — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:16:34 +0000

Great article that raises some important points. I read an Op Ed in the NY Times a few years ago that took a similar position to Kristof’s, arguing that in one country (I don’t remember which exactly) children were offered lunches in sweatshops that they weren’t offered in school and that oftentimes this was enough of an incentive to leave schooling in favor of work. The article felt that rather than fight against sweatshops, people should work to provide greater resources for education, including free lunches. I think I take a similar position. While I don’t support the oppressive tactics of sweatshops and agree that we should use our consumer power to communicate that point, I think that until there are better educational resources, professional opportunities for all (including women), and opportunities for people of third world countries to own their own businesses, it’s not going to make a huge difference. At the end of the day, corporations care about the bottom line, and not the people.

By: Turner

Turner — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:34:31 +0000

As you say, it’s definitely beyond a “good vs. bad” issue. When you look at the economies of first world nations (e.g. Japan and the US, to name a few), it’s a miracle more of their citizens aren’t in the same state as sweatshop workers, as though that initial leg-up in world economics is enough to support its status as a prosperous nation for all time… at least, I’m sure some people hope so.

Banning them in other countries would have the same effect as shutting down a major chain store in the US: more unemployed, and fewer jobs to go around.

Where is the grey on this issue? Is there a way for both sides to have what they want, sweatshops shut down without adversely affecting their workers? It’s hardly the first time western nations have stepped into impoverished nations’ affairs, spouting moral agendas and disregarding the practicalities. Take banning DDT: as much as we’d like to say there were medical risks and such (and there are), never was there such a cheap and effective way of reducing the risk of mosquito bites. For you, that may just be the small inconvenience of itching. For many more, that means preventing malaria.

By: Abbie

Abbie — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:39:16 +0000

I agree, Neha. That’s exactly the point I would make in this discussion.

By: neha

neha — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:20:32 +0000

I don’t think there are any arguments against workshops that generate employment for the poor. The problem revolves around the horrendous working conditions, the well below minimum wage salaries and the outright exploitation of labour that takes place in these sweatshops. Job creation doesn’t justify exploitation, especially given the profit margins most of these brands register annually.

By: Juliane Huang

Juliane Huang — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:46:51 +0000

Yup. I agree that it’s unrealistic to demand certain lifestyles for other nations based on only what we know or believe from our own cultural perspective. Though, while I think Kristof is brave for stepping out there with his unpopular views, Kristof’s blanket support of sweatshops is a bit extreme for me. This issue is very much significantly more gray than we’ve previously accepted. Thanks for commenting!

By: Juliane Huang

Juliane Huang — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:30:53 +0000

Thanks Eric. I think in situations as complex as these, context really matters. Without getting a holistic view, we as consumers could be doing a disservice to factory workers by contributing to the removal of their financial opportunities. Thanks for commenting!