Take Side Sweatshops

Take Side Sweatshops

Today’s overseas sweatshops violate the very essence of ethical business practices that we take for granted in the United States. So why do these sweatshop environments continue to flourish? Is there really no way for companies from a wealthy nation to enjoy commercial success without exploiting the desperate circumstances of an impoverished foreign society? Is there a conflict of law and ethics?
      Arnold and Bowie mention that managers of multinational enterprises have a duty to ensure that workers in their supply chains are treated with dignity and respect, which includes paying a living wage to those who work in factories with which they contact. However, Sollars and Englander argue that this work is needed for the very survival of individuals, and the multinational enterprises are not participating directly in the coercion of the workers in sweatshops.
It is hard to take a black or white, good or bad side on the sweatshop debate. There are always two sides to a story. On the good side, sweatshops generate employment for the poor. Now you can buy a pair of shoes at fifty, sixty, seventy dollars. Shutting down the sweatshops, you may have to pay more than $200. Many shoes and other clothing are made in sweatshops because many businesses are able to pay workers in sweatshops a lower wage they are able to produce products for less and make a good profit in comparison to US standards, can provide. These are the reasons why these sweatshop environments continue to flourish. On the bad side, some sweatshops do not provide appropriated working conditions. Many women and children work in sweatshops and workers sometimes are threatened by supervisors. After weighting the pros and cons, I am on Arnold and Bowie’s side.
      Sweatshops are obviously unethical, workers often work long hours for very low pay, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage. Child Labor laws may be violated. Sweatshops may have hazardous materials and situations. They are...