Anti-sweatshop movement

Last updated

Anti-sweatshop movement refers to campaigns to improve the conditions of workers in sweatshops, i.e. manufacturing places characterized by low wages, poor working conditions and often child labor. It started in the 19th century in industrialized countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to improve the conditions of workers in those countries. [1] These campaigns are meant to improve the working conditions through advocacy for higher wages, safer conditions, unionization and other protections. [2] While they are meant to undermine the reputation of companies using sweatshop labor, they are not statistically significant as intended.

Contents

History

Some of the earliest sweatshop critics were found in the 19th-century abolitionist movement that had originally coalesced in opposition to chattel slavery, and many abolitionists saw similarities between slavery and sweatshop work. As slavery was successively outlawed in industrial countries between 1794 (in France) and 1865 (in the United States), some abolitionists sought to broaden the anti-slavery consensus to include other forms of harsh labor, including sweatshops. As it happened, the first significant law to address sweatshops (the Factory Act 1833) was passed in the United Kingdom at the same time that the slave trade (1807) and ownership of slaves (1833) were made illegal. [3]

Ultimately, the abolitionist movement split apart. Some advocates focused on working conditions and found common cause with trade unions and Marxists and socialist political groups, or progressive movement and the muckrakers. Others focused on the continued slave trade and involuntary servitude in the colonial world. For those groups that remained focused on slavery, sweatshops became one of the primary objects of controversy. Workplaces across multiple sectors of the economy were categorized as sweatshops. However, there were fundamental philosophical disagreements about what constituted slavery. Unable to agree on the status of sweatshops, the abolitionists working with the League of Nations and the United Nations ultimately backed away from efforts to define slavery, and focused instead on a common precursor of slavery – human trafficking. [3]

Those focused on working conditions included Friedrich Engels, whose book The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844 would inspire the Marxist movement named for his collaborator, Karl Marx. In the United Kingdom the Factory Act was revised six further times between 1844 and 1878 to help improve the condition of workers by limiting work hours and the use of child labor. The formation of the International Labour Organization in 1919 under the League of Nations and then the United Nations sought to address the plight of workers the world over. Concern over working conditions as described by muckraker journalists during the Progressive Era in the United States saw the passage of new workers rights laws and ultimately resulted in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, passed during the New Deal. [4]

In the late 20th century, with the advent of globalization, movements were formed to protest the exploitation of workers in poorer countries by companies based in wealthy countries. Noam Chomsky said in The Nation that the anti-sweatshop movement is in some ways, he said, "like the Anti-Apartheid Movement, except that in this case it's striking at the core of the relations of exploitation. It's another example of how different constituencies are working together." [5] On February 4, 1997, Mayor Ed Boyle of North Olmsted, Ohio, introduced the first piece of legislation actually prohibiting the government of purchasing, renting, or taking on consignment any and all goods made under sweatshop conditions and including in the definition those goods made by political prisoners. This legislation was copied by other American cities such as Detroit, New York, and San Francisco. Later Mayor Boyle introduced the legislation to the Mayors and Managers Association where it was immediately passed and he was invited by President Clinton to address a panel studying the subject in Washington, DC.

People working in a sweatshop. Sweatshop project.jpeg
People working in a sweatshop.

With the rise of globalization and transnational corporations (TNCs) such as Nike or Gap, many sweatshop laborers have lost autonomy and corporations have gained in their invincibility to anti-sweatshop laws within a particular country. [6] Corporations have the ability to move their production to another country when the laws become too restricting. As corporations globalize, many sweatshop movements have begun to see "worker internationalization" as one of the only viable solution; however, this requires strong labor movements, sufficient resources, and a commitment to mobilizing all workers, including women, which can be difficult to do at an international scale, as has been the case in the Americas. [6]

#WhoMadeMyClothes

The #WhoMadeMyClothes hashtag was launched in 2013 by Fashion Revolution co-founders, Carry Somers and Orsola de Castro. [7] Celebrities including Emma Watson, Kelly Slater, and Fernanda Paes Leme used the hashtag on Twitter to support the issue. [8]

The movement also utilized YouTube to spread awareness. To promote the hashtag in 2015, Fashion Revolution released a video titled “The 2 Euro T-Shirt - A Social Experiment". [9] The video showed a vending machine selling T-shirts for 2 Euros. When people went to purchase the shirt, a video played describing the working conditions in which the shirt was made. By the end, people chose to donate to the cause of increasing supply chain transparency instead of buying the T-shirt. The video has over 7.9 million views. Their 2018 campaign film uploaded on April 22, 2018, was awarded the Best Green Fashion Film award at the Fashion Film Festival Milano and has over 54,000 views to date. [10]

Effectiveness of the movement

A study published in 2011 found that while in most cases anti-sweatshop movements did not affect sales for companies using sweatshops, they did correspond with a decrease in the sales of well-known, more specialized brands and more intense movements caused more significant reduction in the sales. [11] The same study also found that anti-sweatshop events also seemed to correspond with lower stock prices for the companies that were the target of these events, though some major anti-sweatshop events such the Kaksy lawsuit against Nike, did not result in any discernible change in stock price of the targeted company. The study found that 64.1% of the companies targeted by anti-sweatshop movements saw drops in stock price in the five days following the anti-sweatshop event, and 56.4% saw drops in the two days following the event. Though the study did find these slight negative economic effects, it did not find that, when taking into account companies of all reputations, anti-sweatshop movements or events damaged the reputation of the companies they targeted to a statistically significant degree; however, there does seem to be a slight undercutting of the reputations of companies with positive reputations when they are faced with anti-sweatshop campaigns, particularly intense ones. [11]

Debate on the effects of sweatshops

Criticisms

Safety regulations

The criticisms of sweatshops, and thus the reason for an anti-sweatshop movement, [12] begins with the lack of safety regulations in sweatshops and their exploitative nature. [11] Matt Zwolinski argues that though sweatshop laborers technically "choose" to work in sweatshops, this decision is not "fully voluntary" and that while sweatshops may provide opportunities that would not otherwise exist, when a worker "consents" to work in a sweatshop, they are also consenting to labor practices that cause more harm than good to the laborer overall. [11] Another criticism includes the prevalence of child labor working heavy machinery for very low wages. This often requires children to be taken out of school, thus disrupting their education, and exposing them to very dangerous working conditions that may endanger their health. [13]

Globalization

In recent years, the apparel industry has become increasingly globalized which has caused production to move abroad. Over 850,000 jobs were lost in developed countries but that number was matched by growth in the Third World. [14] Four-fifths of the employment growth occurred in Asian countries- Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia- while the highest number of clothing job losses were in the United States. [14] Although many anti-sweatshop campaigners would like for globalization to be reversed and factories to close, citizens of these developed countries do not have many options for alternative work. In developing countries, the primary alternative work consists of lower-wage agriculture. [15] Other criticisms include advocating for humane globalization. This advocacy includes making a distinction between cost of living and the parallel to wage. [15] For example, it does not cost a citizen the same to live in Bangladesh as in Europe.

Low wages

While many sweatshop workers have higher wages compared to other industry workers such as agriculture, they are still exploited by brands and corporations that take an advantage of low wage standards in third world countries. [15] For example, according to Bangladeshi labor organizations, the average living wage in Bangladesh is about $60 per month. [15] Sweatshop workers in Bangladesh are paid about $40 a month. [15] Companies outsource manufacturing labor from rich to poor countries because of the appeal of cheap labor and low costs. Although sweatshop work wages do not necessarily meet the living wage standards, poor workers in such developing countries rely on these companies, because it provides a primary source of work that pays more than others.

Arguments in favor

Provision of opportunities

Some people, such as Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristoff, argue that the anti-sweatshop movement "risks harming the very people it is aiming to help." [13] This is because sweatshops signify the start of an industrial revolution in China and offer people a path towards making money and escaping poverty. [13] The anti-sweatshop movement, in this view, can harm the impoverished workers by increasing labour costs for factories which, in turn, can incentivize turning to technology instead of people for labour and thus reduce the number of employees needed. Additionally, if anti-sweatshop movements succeed and manage to get stricter guidelines passed, companies may move to countries with less strict laws governing sweatshops, thus removing a source of jobs and money for impoverished countries. [13]

Effects on employment

Even if a company does not move to another country with more relaxed labor laws, economic demand theory says that the more a good cost, the less the demand for it is. Economists argue that even though the labor is "exploitative", it should be permitted, as trying to put regulations on sweatshop labor would only result in sweatshops needing fewer workers, thus reducing opportunities for individuals to make a living. [16]

Views of economists

Most[ clarification needed ] economists say that sweatshops can be a benefit to Third World workers and the anti-sweatshop movement could reduce[ clarification needed ] Third World employment and investment. The economic ways to think about this issue, employers and employees can both get benefits[ clarification needed ] when they voluntarily sign the contract, no matter how low the wages are from the external's point of view. An economist pointed out "as simple as this: 'Either you believe labor demand curves are downward sloping, or you don't,' as a neoclassical colleague said to me.[ clarification needed ] Of course, not to believe that demand curves are negatively sloped would be tantamount to declaring yourself an economic illiterate."[ clarification needed ] [17]

Organizations

In Asia

Prominent campaigners

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wage slavery</span> Dependence on wages or salary

Wage slavery is a term used to criticize exploitation of labour by business, by keeping wages low or stagnant in order to maximize profits. The situation of wage slavery can be loosely defined as a person's dependence on wages for their livelihood, especially when wages are low, treatment and conditions are poor, and there are few chances of upward mobility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sweatshop</span> Workplace that has socially unacceptable working conditions

A sweatshop or sweat factory is a crowded workplace with very poor or illegal working conditions, including little to no breaks, inadequate work space, insufficient lighting and ventilation, or uncomfortably or dangerously high or low temperatures. The work may be difficult, tiresome, dangerous, climatically challenging, or underpaid. Employees in sweatshops may work long hours with unfair wages, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage; child labor laws may also be violated. Women make up 85 to 90% of sweatshop workers and may be forced by employers to take birth control and routine pregnancy tests to avoid supporting maternity leave or providing health benefits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Domestic worker</span> Person who works within the employers household

A domestic worker is a person who works within a residence and performs a variety of household services for an individual, from providing cleaning and household maintenance, or cooking, laundry and ironing, or care for children and elderly dependents, and other household errands. The term "domestic service" applies to the equivalent occupational category. In traditional English contexts, such a person was said to be "in service".

No Sweat is a broad-based not-for-profit organisation with HQ in London's Kings Cross, England, which fights for the well-being and protection of sweatshop labourers, not only in developing countries but also in Britain.

Labor rights or workers' rights are both legal rights and human rights relating to labor relations between workers and employers. These rights are codified in national and international labor and employment law. In general, these rights influence working conditions in the relations of employment. One of the most prominent is the right to freedom of association, otherwise known as the right to organize. Workers organized in trade unions exercise the right to collective bargaining to improve working conditions.

Charles Patrick Kernaghan was the executive director of the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, formerly known as the National Labor Committee in Support of Human and Worker Rights, currently headquartered in Pittsburgh. He is known for speaking out against sweatshops, corporate greed and the living and working conditions of impoverished workers around the world.

The Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights, formerly known as the National Labor Committee, was a non-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO) that investigates human and labor rights abuses committed by large multinational corporations producing goods in the developing world. The Institute was headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with offices in Bangladesh and Central America. Charles Kernaghan served as the Executive Director. The Institute published investigations with the goal of influencing public opinion and corporate policy. It is widely considered to be the organization that began the late-20th-century anti-sweatshop movement in America.

Labour Behind the Label (LBL) is a UK-based non-profit co-operative organisation with an office in Easton, Bristol, which campaigns for workers' rights in the clothing industry. It is the platform of the international Clean Clothes Campaign in the United Kingdom. LBL's members include trade unions and their local branches, consumer organisations, campaign groups, and charities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International Labor Rights Forum</span> Nonprofit organization

The International Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) is a nonprofit advocacy organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., U.S., that describes itself as "an advocate for and with the working poor around the world." ILRF, formerly the "International Labor Rights Education & Research Fund", was founded in 1986, and the organization's mission statement reads: "ILRF believes that all workers have the right to a safe working environment where they are treated with dignity and respect, and where they can organize freely to defend and promote their rights and interests. ILRF works to develop practical and effective tools to assist workers in winning enforcement of protections for their basic rights, and hold labor rights violators accountable."

Worker centers are non-profit community-based mediating organizations in the United States that organize and provide support to communities of low-wage workers who are not already members of a collective bargaining organization, or have been legally excluded from coverage by U.S. labor laws. Many worker centers focus on immigrant and low-wage workers in sectors such as restaurant, construction, day labor and agriculture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fair Labor Association</span>

The Fair Labor Association (FLA) is a non-profit collaborative effort of universities, civil society organizations, and businesses.

The Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) is the garment industry's largest alliance of labour unions and non-governmental organizations. The civil society campaign focuses on the improvement of working conditions in the garment and sportswear industries. Formed in the Netherlands in 1989, the CCC has campaigns in 15 European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The CCC works with a partner network of more than 250 organizations around the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sweatshop-free</span> Ethical label for garments

Sweatshop-free or sweat free is a term first used by American Apparel, a famous American clothing brand, which means coercion-free, fair-compensation for the garment workers who manufacture their products. The aim of sweatshop-free wish to ensure that all employees are treated fairly and products are made in good working conditions. Sweatshop-free standards include the right to collective bargaining, non-poverty wages, safe workplaces, back wages, and non-harassment. It has been heavily featured in American Apparel’s advertisements and become a common term in the garment industry.

Nike, Inc. has been accused of using sweatshops and worker abuse to produce footwear and apparel in East Asia. After rising prices and the increasing cost of labor in Korean and Taiwanese factories, Nike began contracting in countries elsewhere in Asia, which includes parts of India, Pakistan, and Indonesia. It sub-contracted factories without reviewing the conditions, based on the lowest bid. Nike's usage of sweatshops originates to the 1970's. However, it wasn't until 1991, when a report by Jeff Ballinger was published detailing their insufficient payment of workers and the poor conditions in their Indonesian factories, that these sweatshops came under the media and human rights scrutiny that continues to today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Debt bondage in India</span>

Debt bondage in India was legally abolished in 1976 but remains prevalent due to weak enforcement by the government. Bonded labour is a system in which lenders force their borrowers to repay loans through labor. Additionally, these debts often take a large amount of time to pay off and are unreasonably high, propagating a cycle of generational inequality. This is due to the typically high interest rates on the loans given out by employers. Although debt bondage is considered to be a voluntary form of labor, people are forced into this system by social situations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clothing industry</span> Industry encompassing the design, manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing of clothes

Clothing industry or garment industry summarizes the types of trade and industry along the production and value chain of clothing and garments, starting with the textile industry, embellishment using embroidery, via the fashion industry to apparel retailers up to trade with second-hand clothes and textile recycling. The producing sectors build upon a wealth of clothing technology some of which, like the loom, the cotton gin, and the sewing machine heralded industrialization not only of the previous textile manufacturing practices. Clothing industries are also known as allied industries, fashion industries, garment industries, or soft goods industries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Export-oriented employment</span> Employment in multinational corporations international industrial factories

Export-oriented employment refers to employment in multinational corporations' international industrial factories, usually located in developing countries. Such factories produce goods and services for sale in other countries. While these multinational producers have globally expanded women's access to employment, evidence suggests they do so by reinforcing traditional gender roles or creating new gender inequalities. Such gender inequities allow multinational firms to greater exploit profits per worker than they would otherwise due to the decreased labor cost. This decrease in the cost of labor comes as a result of the relegation of women to certain occupations. Studies show that in the quest for lower unit labor costs, export-oriented facilities create poor working conditions.

The labour movement is the collective organisation of working people to further their shared political and economic interests. It consists of the trade union or labour union movement, as well as political parties of labour. It can be considered an instance of class conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Blood Bricks Campaign</span>

The Blood Bricks Campaign is an international campaign that focuses on fighting against the use of modern slavery in the Indian bricks kiln industry, while also exposing companies that use blood bricks in their supply chain. It was launched in 2014 by multiple, different organizations including Union Solidarity International (USi), Prayas, Action Aid Association, War on Want, and Thompsons Solicitors. This campaign's objectives include supporting unionizing efforts by workers, applying pressure to state and federal governments to enforce or amend laws, identifying companies that use bricks from bonded or forced labour, and bringing attention to the working conditions in the brick industry in India, as well as other parts of the world.

The 1995 Myeong-Dong Migrant Labor Protest occurred in front of the Myeong-Dong Catholic Church in Seoul, South Korea. The nine day sit-in protest by 14 Nepalese migrant workers, which started on New Year's Day and lasted until January 9, was a demonstration against the Industrial Trainee System and the inhumane working conditions that stem from this guest worker program. Several events that led up to the 1995 sit-in includes Jeon Tae-Il's death, as well as rising anti-foreign worker sentiment and activism from the Federation of Korean Trade Unions (FKTU) and the Korean Trade Unions Council (KTUC). The 1995 demonstration is notable for sparking the migrant labor rights movement, including the creation of the Migrant Worker Support Movement (MWSM) and the Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea (JCMK).

References

  1. ↑ Sheila Blackburn (1991) The Historical Journal34 (1) 43-64 "Ideology and Social Policy: The Origins of the Trade Boards Act"
  2. ↑ Powell, Benjamin (2014). Out of Poverty: Sweatshops in the Global Economy. Cambridge University Press. pp. 8–22.
  3. 1 2 Miers, Suzanne (2003). Slavery in the Twentieth Century: The Evolution of a Global Problem. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
  4. ↑ "Fair Labor Standards Act - FLSA - 29 U.S. Code Chapter 8". finduslaw.com.
  5. ↑ "Talking 'Anarchy' With Chomsky", The Nation, April 5, 2000
  6. 1 2 Armbruster-Sandoval, Ralph. "Workers of the world unite? The contemporary anti-sweatshop movement and the struggle for social justice in the Americas." Work and Occupations 32.4 (2005): 464-485.
  7. ↑ Blanchard, Tamsin (2019-04-22). "Who Made My Clothes? Stand up for workers' rights with Fashion Revolution Week | Tamsin Blanchard". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  8. ↑ "2018 Impact". Fashion Revolution. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  9. ↑ Dot, Red. "Award-winning design and its makers: "The 2 Euro T-Shirt – A Social Experiment"". www.red-dot.org. Archived from the original on 2020-09-27. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  10. ↑ Who Made My Clothes? , retrieved 2020-04-15
  11. 1 2 3 4 Bartley, Tim, and Curtis Child. “Movements, Markets and Fields: The Effects of Anti-sweatshop Campaigns on U.S. Firms, 1993-2000”. Social Forces 90.2 (2011): 425–451. Web.
  12. ↑ Adams, Roy J.; Hallock, Margaret (2001). "THE ANTI-SWEATSHOP MOVEMENT and CORPORATE Codes of Conduct". Perspectives on Work. 5 (1): 15–18. ISSN   1534-9276.
  13. 1 2 3 4 "Two Cheers for Sweatshops". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2016-02-26.
  14. 1 2 Mandle, Jay R. (2000). "The Student Anti-Sweatshop Movement: Limits and Potential". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 570: 92–103. doi:10.1177/000271620057000107. JSTOR   1049242. S2CID   154404388.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Atal, Maha Rafi (2013-04-29). "The Bangladesh factory tragedy and the moralists of sweatshop economics | Maha Rafi Atal". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2020-05-06.
  16. ↑ Powell, Benjamin, and Matt Zwolinski. "The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assessment." Journal of business ethics107.4 (2012): 449-472.
  17. ↑ Miller, John (2003). Why Economists Are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement. pp. 93–122.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.