19 September 2008
Sweatshops, Part Two
Posted by admin under: Uncategorized .
Author’s Note: This is the second in a series about sweatshops. To check out the first part, click here.
*****************************************************************************************
In yesterday’s post, we had an introduction to what sweatshops are and why they exist. Today I’m going to talk a bit about reader Joe’s comments and questions.
Joe said:
“ok, here’s a thought that has been troubling me for sometime:
I am a sting [sic] supporter of fair treatment of worker’s rights in
the Third World. However, when a company runs a sweat shop it provides
indigenous people with jobs and income that they would otherwise
not have, even if it is an unfair wage or poor working conditions.
If I fight against such an atrocity, and the company reacts by closing
the sweat shop, then my attempt to help has really caused more harm
than good…So, do I choose the lesser of two evils, or are there other options?”
Joe asks some excellent questions. But I think that he’s making a very common mistake about third-world countries: imposing his own views of what a successful society looks like onto a completely different society. The first question we need to ask about a sweatshop in Honduras, for example, is this: What does the sweatshop represent?
I think it represents a move to further industrialization, and a move further away from traditional ways of life. And a Western-Industrialized culture is not necessarily the epitome of civilization (quite the opposite, in my opinion). So, we need to ask “what benefit do the workers gain from having this income, no matter how small?” Does it improve the quality of life? Are the people healthier and happier this way? Or are there better ways to give them opportunities to improve the quality of life (which may mean something different to others than it does to us)?
The answer is that yes, there are better options. First, much of the reason indigenous peoples need an income is because their society has already been invaded by Western ideas about money and profit. Second, instead of exploiting them (every time we purchase an item that has been produced unfairly, we take a hand in exploiting the worker!), we can help them break the cycle of poverty. A great way to do this is through micro-lending. Micro-loans are small loans given to people in developing nations for education, start-up capital for a small business, or capital to expand a small business. Most micro-lenders have stipulations on the loan such as required attendance at financial management classes or training opportunities to ensure the success of the borrower. Kiva is one that I really like, because you get to choose to whom you lend. Then you get email updates on the status of the loan, and how the borrower is progressing in his or her business or education. I really like this because it adds a personal dimension to the process. Here is an article from the New York Times about micro-lending. Another option is Microplace.com, which is owned by eBay. The concept is the same, but lenders can earn interest through this site. Currently, you cannot with Kiva (due to complex SEC regulations).
So there is one way to fight back against sweatshops. On Monday, we’ll look at some more ways, and address another of Joe’s questions. Thanks for reading!
4 Comments so far...
nathan Says:
19 September 2008 at 10:54 am.
I had literally NEVER thought about this much before. But here’s some thoughts that came to mind whilst reading this:
How do we determine ‘unfair wage’?
If it was really an unfair wage, wouldn’t nobody be working?
Does a 40-hour workweek with a 30 minute unpaid lunch break and a couple paid breaks throughout the day really constitute fairness in every culture?
By declaring what we determine to be sweatshops, aren’t we imposing his own views of what a successful society looks like onto a completely different society?
I’m completely still processing…
Todd Helmkamp Says:
19 September 2008 at 11:15 am.
Those are good questions, Nathan. A fair wage is determined by what is needed to buy the necessities of life, like food or shelter. Often, the people being exploited in these sweatshops make so little that they actually become indebted to their employers for food, tools, etc., making the downward spiral of poverty even worse.
As to your question about if it wasn’t fair, why are they working, it’s because they simply have no choice. There are no other jobs available; they have no capital to purchase equipment or land. It’s important to remember that many of these people have literally nothing; they live in shacks, and have little to eat. Think of all the coal miners in Appalachia in the early part of this century: so many of them died of Black Lung, children went to work in the mines as early as 12, but that was all they had available to them. Does that make it right? Absolutely not.
And I would argue that a 40-hour work week is not fair. 
And although I understand what you mean in your last comment about cultural biases, your main argument is a bit skewed. Those of us who are anti-sweatshop are not trying to re-create the American working class in developing nations; we are trying to ensure that the people who produce the goods we use are treated humanely and fairly (and remember, a fair wage, etc. is determined by local conditions).
Basically, it comes down to the Golden Rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated (my paraphrase). I certainly don’t want to work 17-hour shifts to make barely enough to buy a bowl of rice so that some (comparatively) rich person in another nation can buy a cheap t-shirt.
joe Says:
20 September 2008 at 11:39 pm.
Nathan, I’ve spent the last few days considering your questions, because they are good questions, but Todd has done such an excellent job of answering them (exactly what I was thinking, but far better delivery!) that I really have nothing more to say…
Also, Todd, I didn’t intend to impose my views of success onto others…I guess I should have defined what I meant by unfair wage and poor working conditions. My definition fits almost exactly with your definition.
For the record, I do not think that the American society even remotely represents success! Not even close! I guess I see success as the progressive realization of an ideal, and to me the only ideal worth realizing is the one that is more than just an ideal, i.e. “Christ in [us], the hope of glory” (see if you can find the reference!) and seeing Christ’s banner lifted up throughout the world, and God’s just kingdom established in and through Christ.
joe Says:
21 September 2008 at 7:48 pm.
Oh…and Kiva just started repaying on loans as they are paid back! They made this change about a month ago.
The way it used to work, was you got your investment back once the full amount of the loan was repaid, but now you get repaid as the loan is repaid…which is nice…
