Sarah Fevri Tiurlan

1306407634
Writing 6C
Sweatshops: Tolerable?
Sweatshops, which are known for their low wage factory work with poor
conditions, have been known in the world of industry as cheap and supposedly
effective way to mass produce products. For instance, H&M, worldwide retail
company, uses sweatshops to mass-produce the clothes they sell. Sweatshops have a
negative connotation because they are infamous for their labor exploitation and abuse.
Usually found in developing countries in forms of large factories, sweatshops are
known not only for their low wage, but also their lack of ethics. Despite these
deplorable instances, there are many people who think that sweatshops provide more
advantages than disadvantages. Debate over whether sweatshops should be abolished
or not has been going on for years, not only in developing countries, but also
developed ones. One of the notable debates over sweatshops looms between the
student-led anti-sweatshop movement and mainstream economists. There are a lot of
opinions saying that sweatshops are beneficial for the economy and workers, however
there are stronger reasons why sweatshops should not be tolerated so easily.
The first reason why sweatshops are not to be supported is because sweatshops
violate human rights. Because the big companies who own these sweatshops want to
minimize their production cost, sweatshops dont really pay attention to the well
being of the workers. An Australian study conducted by Peter Hancock in 1997
reported that a 23-year-old woman collapsed from exhaustion and died in a Nike
sweatshop in West Java because she did not get the medical help she needed. A 2009
Huffington Post article stated that in Nike sweatshops, workers who wanted sick leave

were instantly fired. A few workers of several sweatshops in Sukabumi spoke up,
saying that the employers were abusive. The employers were throwing things at them,
calling them animals. According to the National Economic and Social Rights
Initiative, the human right to health means that everyone has the right to the highest
attainable standard of physical and mental health. There are endless cases of abuse
and exploitation in sweatshops, which clearly are violation of human rights.
The second reason why sweatshops should not to be tolerated is because
sweatshops clearly violate business ethics. Most sweatshops do not implement the
rules of minimum wage in the country they are in. For example, according to the
International Labour Office (2000), the usual wage for sweatshop workers in
Indonesia is about $1.50 or about Rp27.000,- a day and some only earn $1.00 or about
Rp13.000,- a day. For a wage of Rp20.000,- per day, a worker received Rp600.000,- a
month which is below the usual minimum wage in Indonesia. The latest minimum
wage in Indonesia is in the range of Rp1.100.000,- in Central Java to Rp3.100.000,in Jakarta. It is clearly seen that sweatshops didnt take count of the minimum wage
and proceed to pay the workers in a wage so low, they do not reach the minimum
wage in their country. Another business ethics that sweatshops violate is child labor.
According to the law, in Indonesia, the minimum age to work as an adult is 18. A
child as young as 13 could work, as long it is light enough to not drain the physically
and mentally, which is not the case of sweatshops. As reported by Burke from The
Guardian (2000), Adidas sweatshops in Indonesia are reported to have workers as
young as 15 years old working at least 70 hours a week. A lot of these child workers
are of then abused and punished if they refuse to do overtime.
Although sweatshops clearly violate human rights and business ethics, many
mainstream economists see sweatshops as beneficial, especially from the perspective

of economy. The first argument that the economists have is that sweatshops could
alleviate poverty because more impoverished people could work and earn more. Not
all people are privileged enough to have choice of where they want to work. There not
many options for penurious people to earn money and sweatshops offer a way out of
poverty for these people. A lot of economists also argue that earning low wage is
better than not earning at all, which is true in a sense, but people associate earning
more to becoming wealthier and becoming less poor.
Although the previous argument is somewhat true, the economists eliminate
one important factor in deciding whether sweatshops actually alleviate people from
poverty, which is living wage. To be considered alleviated from poverty, one should
earn above the minimum wage. The minimum wage in one province is set by looking
at the standard of living in the province hence the living wage plays an important role
in the minimum wage. Do Something campaign, a non-profit organization established
in 1993 by Andrew Shue, stated that almost 85% of sweatshop workers are women
working for their families. This means that one person works to pay for one or two
more people. According to Miller (2003), Minimum wages (of sweatshops) are well
below the level necessary to lift a family of three above the poverty line, the usual
definition of a living wage. The economists arguments are valid only when the only
poverty that sweatshop alleviates are individuals, when in fact most people work in
sweatshop because they want to finance the family. Earning for only one person is not
the same with earning for one or two more person. Minimum wage is set so that one
person could pay for other people. Maybe with the low wage, one person could
provide for himself or herself, but not to provide his or her whole family.
Another argument that is set out by mainstream economists is that working in
a sweatshop is better than having no job at all. People working in sweatshops earn

more than those working in agriculture. A lot of people have the idea that it is better
for people to work in sweatshops than be unemployed on the streets, or even be
criminals. One point made by an observation made by Arthur McEwan (1998) is that
women working in agriculture are only paid almost one fifth of those working in
sweatshops. An economic journalist, Nicholas Kristoff (1998) once interviewed a
woman who is a sweatshop worker who lives with her son and they were garbage
scrapers in Jakarta. She claimed that she wanted her son to grow up as a sweatshop
worker because she prefers him as a sweatshop worker instead of a garbage scraper.
Economists insist that these sweatshops make their workers lives better.
Again, the previous argument has certain truths in them, but there are some
points that are not considered by the mainstream economists. Miller (2003) stated that
sweatshop jobs are not good news for the worlds poor, but less bad news than the
usual condition of work in the agricultural and informal sectors. As it was stated
before, to achieve this slightly higher wage than those who work in informal sectors,
the workers have to put through more work hours and not to mention the exploitation
and abuse they have to come through. Even though they spend significantly more
hours than those who work in informal sectors, the difference between the wages of
those two jobs are not that large. In the end, the standard of living of people who work
in sweatshops and agriculture are still the same. People who work in sweatshops and
informal sectors are both still earning way below the minimum wage. The fact that the
workers earn a little bit more is not sufficient to justify the abuse and exploitation that
happen inside those sweatshops.
In conclusion, sweatshops are not cases of right or wrong, there are two sides
of them, which are both good and bad for the workers. Sweatshops have their own
harm and benefit. By looking at the different pro and contra point of views, the issue

of sweatshops could set right by making aa strict law and ethics of how the
sweatshops maintained, hence making them not a sweatshop, which got its name
because of broken labor laws, but an ethical factory work. Factory work and mass
production are very essential in the economy, but when a factory abuses and exploits
its employees there is no strong enough argument to justify it. Ethical factory work
will decrease the number of unemployment and use the skill of impoverished people,
while still holding up human rights and business ethics.

REFERENCE
Burke,

Jason.

2000.

Child

Labour

Scandal

Hits

Adidas.

(retrieved

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/nov/19/jasonburke.theobserver, March 11 2016)

Cad. 1997. Indonesia: Nike Sweatshops Hit. United States: Off Our Backs. (retrieved
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20835824, February 26 2016 08.42)
Islam, Iyanatul. Nazara, Suahasil. 2000. Minimum Wage and the Welfare of
Indonesian

Workers.

Jakarta:

International

Labour

Office.

(retrieved

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/---ilojakarta/documents/publication/wcms_123579.pdf, March 11 2016 06.40)

Miller, John. 2003. Why Economists are Wrong About Sweatshops and the Antisweatshop Movement. (retrieved www.jstor.org/stable/40722184, February 26 2016
08.37)
Synder, Jeremy. 2010. Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspective and Issues.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/25702393, February 26 2016 08.36)

Wright, Stephen. 2011. Nike Faces New Worker Abuse Claims in Indonesia.
(retrieved http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/nike-faces-new-worker-abuseindonesia_n_896816.html, March 11 05.32)