sweatshop free?

Hi, I'm kinda new, so be gentle.

I work for a company that operates a sweatshop-free policy when producing blank clothing, I'm not here to advertise, so I won't name the company.

The sweatshop free stance was my biggest motivation to join the company, it's something I believe in - not claiming to be a saint, fuck knows where some of the stuff i own was made, or how. But, i'm trying hard.

Just wondering what people's views are on this - is a premium price on goods (not just clothing, could be anything) acceptable to you for peace of mind that the workers are treated fairly, or would you rather just get cheap stuff?

Ross

Depends on one's economic status. Often, the wealthy can afford to pay the premium and then tut-tut everyone who can't.
Great system.

I believe that paying a premium price for sweatshop-free products is well worth it. I disagree that often the wealthy can afford to pay premium prices. Everyone can, well except the homeless and very very poor it is just that most choose not to because they would rather have more goods then they actually need. If people only purchase what they need then they can afford to pay for a better (ie. slave labor free) product. For example, adbusters is comming out with a sweatshop free shoe that is almost exactly like a black low top chuck taylor but because they are being made in sweatshop free facilities they are almost twice as much as a pair of cons. Now i'm not saying that converse are made with sweatshop labor but they are owned by nike and we all now nike's track record.

The question is would you rather have a pair of sweatshop free, anti-brand shoes (that look and function as well as a name brand shoe) or two pairs of converse because they have a cute little star on them and they are trendy.

Sweatshops exist only because most people put their own materialism above the rights of others.

I also would pay a premium for sweatshop-free goods.

But, I agree with eecummings that this can be a problem. A similar thing arises in a number of areas - I'm pretty scrupulous about eating only cruelty-free meat, as well, but I'm lucky enough to live near a store where I can get it at only a small premium. Were I living in a poorer section of DC, I'd only be able to get it by travelling across town, effectively making the small premium that I pay into a large premium - for the people who can least afford it.

But (again)...

1. Just because others can't pay the premium doesn't mean I shouldn't. Of course, it's not like I should lord my moral superiority over them. At the very least, even if my actions don't kill the sweatshop-using companies, they help keep non-sweatshop companies in business as alternatives.

2. There can be a 'trickle-down' effect from more affluent consumers to less-affluent ones. If companies start building factories to exploit the no-sweatshop demographic, economies of scale will begin to set in (like they are with hybrid cars, for instance).

3. Carcrashset points to a good thing with Nikes. If you're *really* poor, you buy your sneakers at the discount store, you don't by Nikes. Nike already charges a premium for their brand, and if *their* consumers decide they'd rather pour that extra cash into ethics...

4. Sweatshop-free doesn't *necessarily* mean more expensive. The jeans I have on now are union-made, the most durable pair I've ever had, and hella cheaper than the Gap ones I had before them. And I get most of my t-shirts sweatshop-free too, at lower prices than I could buy them in most stores around here.

I think all products should be made sweat-shop free. If a product cannot be produced at a reasonable price without using sweat-shop labor, then that product shouldn't be made at all.

[Edited on Nov 15, 2003 by PitPat]

This thread begs the question: is the shop sweatshop-free? This isn't intended as a criticism; I'm just wondering.

I try to buy sweatshop free when I can, or at the very least buy clothes made in Canada. I have a few things that were probably made in sweatshops, but we can't all be perfect.

I have a question:

What is a sweatshop?

Is it a factory that pays a pittance, works people too much, or treats workers poorly - compared to US standards? Or compared to local standards?

Is it still a sweatshop if they pay triple the prevailing local wage and/or provide reliable employment in an otherwise destitute country with high unemployment?

What about if the factory provides employment to women who would not otherwise be able to get any job at all?

What about countries desperate to keep jobs, who allow factories to operate because they know that the factories will move to a lower-cost environment if workers unite - and take those jobs with them?

Are people better off without any job than with a sweatshop job?

Please note: I am not defending sweatshops, or those who run them. I do my best to buy north-american made clothes whenever possible, and not to buy stuff i won't use and don't need. I've read the above justifications of cheap labor in articles elsewhere over the last few years.

I am genuinely curious as to what all of your opinions are.

Anyone?

stiles - i think it is unlikely a factory would be classed as a sweatshop if they are paying triple the local wage, as that would give allow an acceptable standard of living. I don't think it can be judged in absolute monetary measures as $10 buys different things in different places. Of course it's not just the wage that counts, it's not being forced to work in poor conditions, the right to form unions etc etc but if a company is paying a good local wage, then fine. I'm not against manufacturing going to poorer countries in principal, as long as everyone gets a fair deal. Not just the brand.



aj - i recognise most, not all, of the products as being printed on garments made by the company i work for, and we are anti-sweatshop.

Hear, hear s5.

Even Henry Ford, as screwed up as he was, realised that his workers could more easily afford his product if his company paid them a better wage.

Unfortantly, sweatshops are something that everyone has to not use, because if one company uses sweatshops, knowing that US customers won't care, they all will rush to use sweatshops. Companies will do what ever it takes to make the good the cheapest. What consumers need to be is informed.
I don't buy Nike since I have heard some many horror stories about them. Beside, their shoes suck since they moved everything to China and Vietnam. Yes, sweatshops are cheap, but so is the quality.

Yeah but if you were in Korea at the time would you buy the Nike shoes for the $5 they were charging for them there? I'm pretty sure it was Nike being sold all over when I was there. May have been Rebok, not sure. I spent most of my time eating cat and dog, drinking peach flavored Oscar champagne and helping the economic situation of a few of the women at some of the bars.

From Paul Krugman's archive, http://www.pkarchive.org/

Since some counterpoint is needed to some false claims and dodgy analysis contained herein.

It does my heart good to see so many people on this site working hard to deny third world workers their wages. Seriously, I thought the hippies had taken over and all hope was lost. But just when I think that there's no point in even trying, someone points out that there are people in southeast asia who's best bet in life is to work for a substandard wage, and if at all possible it's our job to deny that to them.
Keep fighting the good fight guys, somewhere in southeast asia there's a little girl who's about to meet some sort of dietary standard, and it's your job to make sure that doesn't happen.

As long as it's quality, and it is something I'd want to wear, that's the main consideration for what I buy. After that, value. I support free trade and globalization, things like "sweatshop" and "fair trade" "union made" mean nothing to me and have zero consideration in what I buy.

sweatshop : factory :: terrorist : freedom fighter

Oh, and hello, everybody

What is reality is that not buying products from the third world, will not improve third world living standards. Putting pressure on companies to improve the most egregiously poor work conditions will help, but demanding first world wages and conditions will simply mean the jobs won't stay there, and the incomes won't be earned. And the standards of living won't improve.

That (your link) was about China, and boycotting to change the policies of a regime, not a company. It acknowledged that workers would be hurt in the process -- it made the claim repeatedly that such workers have been (or would be) grateful for the eventual liberation that would result from their "temporary" impoverishment.

(This of course presumes that boycotts themselves were instrumental in bringing about "regime change", which is open to question.)

As a general rule, boycotting products made in countries where you aren't trying to effect national political change simply means that one more possible source of income for poor workers is removed. That's Krugman's point. I read your link, so be sure to read his.

Alot of the stuff that's produced in sweatshops isn't cheap anyways. For example, Sean-John and RocaWear. 50 bucks for a T-shirt, that they pay Honduran kids 25 cents apiece to make.

I don't wear alot of mass-produced stuff anyways, so I can't say I'm guiilty of supporting cheap labor. I'd rather buy American anyways, I know it's higher quality, and I'm of the school of thought that you get what you pay for.