E-mail
Print
Sweatshops are slavery
Slavery continues with UWM support, no limitations
By JJ Burseth
The fear of having to pay an obscene amount of money for an ethically made product is understandable, though unsubstantiated.
There’s a debate going on around UWM’s campus regarding sweatshop-manufactured goods as UWM apparel. The topic is often set aside due to the economic virtues of having corporations carry out sweatshop conditions. And honestly, what CEO or President wouldn’t want their products made for incredibly cheap and out of sight of the American consumers?
UWM has pledged its support of such practices even with other options on the table. While Marquette and UW-Madison have both signed on to the Designated Suppliers Program (DSP), UWM has refused to get on board. The DSP is a program which enforces codes of conduct through labor standards, specifically among universities, a program 41 universities officially support. But UWM would rather have its apparel made cheaply and with relatively no regulation.
The fear of having to pay an obscene amount of money for an ethically made product is understandable, though unsubstantiated. There are many companies who have ethical standards for their products that still retain the same price as sweatshop-made goods. Companies like No Sweat, Justice Clothing, Union House, Fuerza Unida, The Working World, DeMoulin Apparel and Kenneth Gordon (just to name a few) could all be used for UWM apparel with very little, if any, difference in prices.
It may be a radical comparison, but the wages and working conditions of the sweatshop workers is even worse than if slavery was still practiced in the United States. I think it’s universally accepted that slavery was not a very good thing and is frequently considered one of the worst things to be carried out in United States history.
Much of UWM’s apparel is made in Indonesia and Pakistan. As the International Labor Organization has exposed, the average wage for a sweatshop “worker” in Pakistan is 23 cents, and it’s 24 cents in Indonesia. Like slaves in the United States, modern sweatshop “workers” work all day under awful conditions. So, at 12 hours a day, that adds up to the average Pakistani “worker” making $2.76 a day. And with a full work week, which is usually seven days, this employee is making $19.32 a week.
This amount has to cover their housing, food and medical expenses. But since many sweatshops employ children, some of the younger family members are actually helping to bring in family revenue as well. The wages made are just enough to live in a one room building (shared by a family), have one outfit and eat insufficient food. Meanwhile, they have awful and incredibly hazardous working conditions, many times are not allowed to talk or go to the bathroom, and have no prospects for changing their situation. And just as in slavery, the sweatshop “workers” are often locked in the factories and physically prevented from leaving.
On a similar note, if slavery was still being practiced in the United States, what would it look like? Slave-owners would house and feed their slaves. So to house a family of four under severe conditions, this would probably cost, around $100. And if you fed them inadequate and cheap food, like McDonalds, each meal would cost roughly $3. Multiply that for three meals a day and that’s $9. Now, factoring in that they have awful working conditions, health becomes an issue. If each slave gets hurt or sick on average once a month and must visit a hospital, this would cost a few hundred dollars.
Okay, now add it all up. A slave in the United States today would cost $25 a month for housing,$252 to feed them on McDonald’s food for that month and about $300 in medical expenses. This brings us to $577 a month. But in Pakistan today, it would only cost $77.28 and that is without the hassle of making sure the “workers” are fed, housed, and healthy. Although the cost of living is lower in Pakistan than in the United States, this still brings them to a wage that is unlivable.
While UWM’s apparel could be made ethically, safely and still be sold at the same price, we accept goods that are made by people who would be getting roughly 1/8 of the income a modern U.S. slave would get. Like the slavery abolition, we need to reach a point in our society when we abolish the international slavery of sweatshop labor. We can begin by enforcing ethical codes of conduct in the manufacture of our own school’s apparel.
> Comments
HK on Oct 13, 2008 at 09:52 AM:
//It may be a radical comparison, but the wages and working conditions of the sweatshop workers is even worse than if slavery was still practiced in the United States.//
Except it's not slavery. The crucial difference is that sweatshop workers are not forced to work there. They work there because they choose to.
Greg on Oct 13, 2008 at 12:04 PM:
This is all well and good but here's my question: If the companies that employeed these workers didn't have any sweatshirts to make, would these companies still be in business? If so, would they be able to employ the same number of employees? And if not, would making $0.00/hour be better than making $0.23/hour?
As you say, they have no way to better their situation so if they had no job wouldn't that mean they couldn't find a better alternative?
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 13, 2008 at 07:12 PM:
That's all well and good Jay, but it's easy to be unintelligent, as you have demonstrated, and compare wages and costs here in America to a worse-off country. If monthly rent in an apartment in Pakistan costs $30 Pakistani dollars per month (hypothetically), suddenly, $20 Pakistani dollars per week in wages doesn't seem so disproportionate, does it?
Think about it, UWM students working 25 hours per week might make $200 each week after the government gets their hands on it first. Yet, students are still managing, with the help of their roommates, to rent a 2-bedroom around campus for more then $700-$800 per month, according to information on the Neighborhood Housing Office website. Divide that by 3, the maximum number of unrelated persons that can live in a dwelling, and that's about $250 per month, per person. That's rent alone. A student has to work about a week and a half. God forbid though for those sweatshop workers who chose to work at the jobs they did.
Maybe we need some Socialist program so that those who are more successful can pay for those Pakistanis who refuse to have a job. There doesn't seem to be a shortage of people willing, or even WANTING this type of job. Just because YOU would refuse to do it because of the Welfare state setup to prevent economic failure, even for those who deserve it, doesn't mean someone else, in a different country that you've likely never been to wouldn't do that job.
Your sick twisted ethnocentrism is much too similar to Barack Obama's proposed socialism.
Informed objector on Oct 13, 2008 at 07:43 PM:
The objection is two fold, both to the situation of the people working and the gross overcharging in relation to the costs of production. The argument, as i understand it is if they can charge us $30 a shirt, why can they not pay their employees $5 a shirt? If their employees only wish for $.01 a shirt, why are we paying $30?
The working conditions in these shops is consistently appalling. Even presuming that that the pay is acceptable, the working conditions are not. More importantly, the shops in question are frequently the only work available in a given region, and several allegations of forced labor have been demonstrated true.
Finally, the average American worker produces $80,000 annually in goods and services, and earns less then $30,000 before taxes. This is about more then the people "over there" it is about people everywhere getting the money they have earned.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:07 PM:
The market determines what people earn, not some arbitrary college student's dream about paying everyone a bar of gold for each drop of sweat. If people weren't being paid enough, they would look for a better job. If better jobs were taken, they might be inspired to start up their own small business. The problem though is that in the US, people like Barack Obama and the Democrats actually turn refusing to work into a bigger incentive then self-made wealth and prosperity.
If you make more money, you pay more taxes. If you make less money, the government provides more for you. If it sounds counter to an atmosphere that encourages success and the pursuit of happiness, that's because it is.
Pundit on Oct 14, 2008 at 06:44 PM:
Sweatshop work is not slavery because: 1) The worker chooses to work there for a wage, and 2) Even if a parent might put his/her child to work in a sweatshop without consulting that child, a wage is received, enabling the child's family to spend as it chooses. BTW, if the cost of raising a family is so expensive, people should just keep it in their pants/loincloths/whatever. Did anyone over there ever hear of jacking off?
Really? on Oct 13, 2008 at 08:56 PM:
Really? We can't even agree that sweatshops are inherently bad??? Really?
Buy American Kids.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM:
No, sweatshops are not inherently bad. Really, they aren't.
An economist in India has said that the term sweatshops itself is appalling. "There's nothing wrong with sweat. Sweat is good! Sweat is what most people in the developing world, including India, do all the time!" - "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity", John Stossel.
When companies open new factories, people in the developing world are excited. They travel from their homes, sometimes far away, to have the opportunity for the job. Sure, it's long hours and bad conditions compared to what us privileged Americans might demand, but compared to local conditions, and the dangers and risks of jobs found elsewhere in those areas, "sweatshops" are actually good jobs. Imagine that.
These people would be doing jobs far more dangerous and be paid less if American companies weren't paying them what they do for the work they complete. Look what happened in Bangladesh. They stopped hiring adolescents in "sweatshops" and instead teenage girls sold their bodies as prostitutes. Isn't that worse then "sweatshops?"
In most instances, governments aren't forcing these people to work for cheap in American factories, people are doing it voluntarily. Who would voluntarily take a job working 12 hour days at 24 American cents per hour? Someone who doesn't want to do something more dangerous for only 15 American cents per hour for some local company, that's who.
June Arunga, a Kenyan trade expert, said, "Most of them work for these companies for a while, then go off and start their own business. It's a win-win situation for everyone." - "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity", John Stossel.
"They (uninformed college protesters) have no idea of what they're talking about," Arunga continued.
She's right.
Cidade de Deus on Oct 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM:
I'm guessing Kyle Duerstein has never been to a slum or "developing country" outside of vacation spots which are certainly not representative of those countries as a whole. Duerstein's assertion that "When companies open new factories, people in the developing world are excited" is hard to swallow.
Suppose on Oct 14, 2008 at 12:35 AM:
I suppose anyone is excited to have food, but still, defending sweatshops??
Buy American Kids.
Greg on Oct 14, 2008 at 08:32 AM:
Blah, Blah, Blah. Kyle's dead on here, but it doesn't matter. This is just another one of those stupid college causes that will come and go. The Liberals will bleed their hearts out for it and the conservatives try to explain why they are so wrong.
I remember a number of years ago there was a protest at the Taco Bell in the Union because the tomotoes came from farms in Florida where the workers weren't being treated fairly. Ha!, I'll never forget that. I ate Taco Bell that day.
It'll take a couple days for the Liberals to figure out that no one backs their cause, then they'll hate the world for a while because how can anyone not believe in this. Then they'll write an article saying that this issue is more important than cheering for the Milwaukee Brewers. Then they'll move on to something else.
Its like Liberalism with a case of ADD.
Greg Only Likes White People. on Oct 14, 2008 at 09:26 AM:
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (the workers you spat on by eating at Taco Bell) WON that battle. With the help of student "Liberals," they were able to apply enough pressure on Taco Bell (and later McDonald's AND Burger King) to get those food giants to cave to their demands.
You don't know what you are talking about. http://www.ciw-online.org/
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 14, 2008 at 09:36 AM:
The Coalition of Immokalee Workers sounds like a union. Maybe, like most unions, especially UAW, they'll lose jobs and close sites of their company because they were greedy. Need Evidence? GM just announced that the Janesville plant will be closing right before Christmas. You know why? It's not because less people are buying SUVs. That's just the politically correct reason the company announces because if they were to tell you the truth, that it's because of greedy unions, people would be outraged.
Have you ever interviewed economists in these developing countries, or read interviews that they've given? Has anyone ever talked to those sweatshop "victims" and asked them what they'd be doing or how much money they'd be making if they weren't working there? No, people haven't. The fact that these people are excited for having work, any work, is hard for you folks to swallow because it doesn't fit into YOUR ethnocentric definition of how everyone else should be, just because it's what we'd expect here.
Deal with it, the world doesn't operate the way you people see it. Sweatshops are good, they create jobs and feed the hungry. Outsourcing saves Americans money and ends up statistically creating MORE American jobs within the companies that outsource. It's pretty simple economics, but then again, it is a little tough to grasp for simple minded moron liberals. Yes, I am being condescending. You idiots deserve it.
G. Richard Wagoner Jr., CEO on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:08 AM:
You're correct Kyle. Those damn greedy unions have put me at the 433rd highest paid CEO at $2.05 million this year! I know, I know! Jesus, in 2005 I was #159 with a total compensation of $8.5 million. Ohhhh the good ole days... Hey! Do you think those little kids would be excited to work in a GM plant in Honduras? I'm sure they won't be as greedy as these "8 hour work day, I need healthcare and a pension" fascist American unions. Let me know if you have any shanty town addresses so I can send out some people to recruit.
Greg on Oct 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM:
How does this have anything to do with race?
listen, on Oct 14, 2008 at 01:04 PM:
Perhaps instead of demanding more such as spoiled unions, the underprivileged in poorer countries would be incredibly fortunate to have even half of the wages and benefits that GM union workers are currently lavished with.
Adolf Hitler on Oct 14, 2008 at 01:17 PM:
I'm glad someone's finally saying sweatshops are not inherently bad. Now if someone will finally come to the defense of concentration camps. I mean, if they didn't want to be there, they shouldn't have been untermensch.
Greg on Oct 14, 2008 at 03:06 PM:
If we get our sweatshirts from somewhere else, won't we hurt the feelings of those workers? After all, they are sweating their balls off to make us nice sweetshirts and we're just gunna stop buying them. They might think they we don't like their work.
Maybe we should send them a letter explaining that we really appreciated their dedication to their craft, but we can't buy them anymore because they aren't paid enough.
Outside Observer on Oct 15, 2008 at 01:21 PM:
Wow, I actually agree with Pundit on this one, despite his multiple threats against President Draheim.
Isn't Jay the radical leftist that brought in Bill Ayers with student tuition money? WOW, I don't think anyone should listen to him! He's CRAZY!
fed up on Oct 17, 2008 at 02:46 PM:
HA HA HA HA HA HA. "kids WANT to work in sweatshops" HA HA HA, oh man, that's a good one. I know dude, I wish I had enough time here in America to work 70 hours a week for 32 cents an hour. but you know, those damn "liberals" just won't let me work that much and break my back for a dollar a day. That MUST mean they want to take away all of my freedoms. and guns.
I'm willing to bet no one who posted on here has/had friends who were homeless. but if people are poor it MUST be their fault, and they MUST want it, right?
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 17, 2008 at 04:17 PM:
You're missing the point. You can't compare what you know and would expect in America with what is real and economically true in less fortunate countries. You can't for a second envision that not everywhere in the world has the same standards as you.
Being homeless in the US might still be better than having absolutely nothing in a developing nation. At least we have shelters and assistance.
You're so caught up in comparing situations across the world to America, you neglect to take into account that our standards and our economy are both on levels completely incomparable with your higher standard of living. You just have to stop and think. Just because you pay three dollars in America for a gallon of milk doesn't mean that's how it should be for everyone else. You wouldn't think of buying milk for pennies, but maybe someone in a third world country would. Who are you to say that different standards are "wrong"? You're a nobody who can't even put their name to their opinion, that's who.
Elise on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:35 PM:
So, Mr Duerstein, are you insinuating that those shelters and assistance are a good thing? Because those sound like things that the evil liberals enact. Shouldn't our homeless population just start their own business like you purport the budding entrepreneurs currently toiling in sweatshops should do?
Perhaps in a perfect world that could happen, but this is not a perfect world. And for the homeless people receiving shelter and assistance to have advocacy for their needs is necessary. As is having advocacy for those toiling in sweatshops.
Kyle J. Duerstein on Oct 17, 2008 at 11:45 PM:
Let's let the homeless advocacy groups, those that know the needs of the homeless best, those funded by private donations from philanthropic Americans who choose charity when their own money is left for the people who earned it to spend, and not taken by the government. That being said, I don't oppose assistance for the homeless from the government so long as it includes skill training and job placement assistance.
Let's let the folks who know best what's going on in sweatshops, the workers that work there and those who have, advocate for their interests. The folks who work in those sweatshops aren't complaining, largely. Perhaps we should take that for what it means, that they don't have a problem with the work they choose.
Charles on Oct 18, 2008 at 03:22 AM:
Mr. Kyle Duerstein, just so you know, the program that the sds is trying to get uwm to agree to is a division of worker's rights consortium which is a nonprofit and it does work with workers and former workers in sweatshops of third world countrys. This is not just crazy liberal, white college students talking about things they don't know about. This is just a matter of the university agreeing to work with factories that respect things like keeping children out of factories and making sure workers arent locked into factories when they don't want to be. This seems pretty simple really. Also I think I understand your economic argument and it could be true in some cases like milk but it seems like you would agree with the students in this case because i understand that the school administrators are lying and it seems that you usually take the students against the administration, though maybe not always. I guess I just think that what you do support like sometimes assistance for the homeless from the goverment is the same thing as what is going on here at uwm for sweatshops.