|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They Exploit the Poor Introduction A sweatshop is
a work place, often a factory, in which employees work long hours at low
wages under poor conditions. Although sweatshops virtually disappeared after
World War II because of increased government regulations and the rise of
unions, they have reappeared, and are steadily increasing in number
throughout the world. This is due, in large part, to economic globalization.
Multinational corporations have been moving production facilities out of
democratic, industrial nations into impoverished, developing countries in
order to take advantage of cheap labor and to avoid scrutiny from governments
and human rights organizations. Multinational corporations are concerned with
the production of goods for world markets at lowest possible costs in order
to maximize profit. Unfortunately, the exploitation of workers is commonly a
consequence of this global "development". Surprisingly, sweatshops
are not restricted to poor and developing nations. The Department of Labor
indicates that 50% of garment factories in the U.S. violate two or more basic
labor laws, establishing them as sweatshops. Sweatshops exist wherever there
is an opportunity to exploit workers who lack the knowledge and resources to
stand up for themselves. Typical sweatshop employees, ninety percent of whom
are women, are young and uneducated. Many of them are recent or undocumented
immigrants who are unaware of their legal rights. Young women throughout the
world are subject to horrible working conditions and innumerable injustices
because corporations, many of which are U.S.-owned, can get away with it. Conditions in Sweatshops Sweatshops
violate human rights throughout the world. Common abuses include low wages
that fail to meet basic costs of living, substandard and unsafe working and
living conditions, long hours of overtime for which employees are not
compensated, and sexual harassment. In addition to these, women are often
forced into indentured servitude. Lured by recruiters who promise wonderful
opportunities in foreign lands, young women often pay thousands of dollars in
recruitment and contract "fees", tying themselves to contractual
obligations that can last for years. Because their wages are often only $.10
to $.20 per hour, the women may receive no wages for years as they attempt to
pay off these debts. If the women try to return home without fulfilling their
contractual obligations, they are often blacklisted, fined, or arrested. Many
women are not paid even without such debt. Sweatshops often fail to pay their
employees on time, if at all. The workers, who are often unaware of their
rights, have no choice but to continue to work because sweatshop managers
threaten and punish them for insubordination. Many of these factories, as well as the
women's living quarters, are crowded, filthy, and rat-infested. They are
located behind barbed wire fences that are monitored by armed guards. Not
only are the women not allowed to come and go freely, but they are forbidden
to have visitors. Thus, they are not given the opportunity to air their
grievances to anyone who may be in a position to help them. Additionally, the
women are always under the threat of corporal punishment. The women are
verbally abused, spat on, and beaten. They are not allowed to take breaks or
go to the bathroom during their shifts, and are fined if they do so. In some
Indonesian sweatshops, women were forced to take down their pants and reveal
to factory doctors that they were menstruating in order to claim their legal
right to menstrual-leave (Morey, 2000). Female sweatshop employees are forced
to endure numerous instances of sexual harassment. Additionally, managers often
make false promises for better jobs in return for sexual favors. In a Samoan
apparel plant, the factory owner routinely entered the women’s'
barracks to watch them shower and dress (Greenhouse, 2001). A 20/20
investigation in Saipan sweatshops discovered that pregnant employees were
forced to have abortions in order to keep their jobs (20/20 special
investigation, 2000). These women are often faced with little if any choices.
They are prohibited from unionizing, and face the loss of their job, physical
abuse, or deportation if they try to better their situation. Sweatshops are not restricted to
factories. Agricultural workers all over the world are subject to poor
working conditions, low wages, and unhealthy working environments. Women make
up a large portion of field workers. They are exposed to toxic pesticides and
strenuous working conditions that lead to a number of health problems (Co-op
America, 2001). Like factory sweatshop workers, they are not given adequate
healthcare, if any, and are prohibited from unionizing. Even in the U.S.,
agricultural workers are not guaranteed legal rights to minimum wage, workers
compensation, and overtime pay (Co-op America, 2001). "Made in the USA" Although
"Made in the USA" labels suggest that merchandise has been produced
under U.S. standards and laws, these labels are often deceptive. The workers
who make the products often labor under horrible conditions in U.S.
territories. Saipan is part of the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands. Women are often lured to Saipan by recruiters who promise great
opportunities in the U.S. (Jansen, 2000). However, what they find are labor
camps with horrible working conditions including physical abuse, debt
bondage, sexual harassment, and so forth. Most of the women who are
"imported" to work in the sweatshops in Saipan and other U.S.
territories are from Asia, and many of the factories, themselves, are
Asian-owned (20/20 special investigation, 2000). The women work under a
controlled system of fear and domination. If they are fired for any reason,
they are sent back to their homelands and are forced to pay heavy debts to
the government officials who gave them the jobs (Collier, 1999). Although most federal labor standards
are supposed to apply in U.S. territories, corruption among local government
officials and the failure of the U.S. congress to come to a consensus
concerning legal issues allows for sweatshops to continue operating. Because
Saipan is able to set its own immigration policies, women can legally be duped
into indentured servitude on U.S. soil. Saipan spends millions of dollars on
Washington lobbyists and provides free trips to Republicans in Congress.
Thus, many Republicans are fighting to keep the laws the way they are.
However, Democrats are struggling to make reforms including the elimination
of Saipan's exemption from immigration, customs, and minimum wage laws
(Collier, 1999). A number of U.S.-owned companies import goods from Saipan
including The Gap, Wal-Mart, J C Penney, and Sears Roebuck & Co. In 1999,
several U.S. retailers were named in a lawsuit claiming that they had used
false advertising and unfair business practices regarding the sale of
products manufactured under sweatshop conditions in Saipan. This was the
first legal attempt to hold U.S. companies accountable for the mistreatment
of workers in foreign-owned factories on U.S. soil. The retailers often
advertised "no sweat" merchandise despite the fact that much of
their clothing is produced under deplorable working conditions. Many of these
companies have settled, and claim to no longer do business with sweatshops. The Daewoosa
factory in American Samoa, a Pacific territory of the U.S., was closed in
January of 2001 for horrible human rights violations. The factory produced
clothing for the J C Penney Co., Target, and other U.S. corporations. The
Vietnamese employees of this sweatshop were fed a diet of rice and cabbage
broth, which lacked adequate nourishment. At times employees were given
nothing to eat as a means of punishment (Greenhouse, 2001). Workers were
forced to live in cramped living quarters, were unable to leave the compound
as they pleased, and were cheated out of wages. Over 90% of the employees at Daewoosa were women. They were forced to endure
unrelenting sexual harassment and physical abuse. One woman lost her eye when
she was attacked by a Samoan plant supervisor and a female security guard
because the supervisor believed her to be sitting idle while she was waiting
for fabric to arrive (National Labor Committee, 2001). Workers won a lawsuit
against the Daewoosa plant for nonpayment of wages
and contract violations. Unfortunately, the factory owner failed to pay the
$600,000 in back wages and penalties, and now the factory is bankrupt. The
Vietnamese workers are stranded in Samoa with no jobs and no money. If sent
home, they are subject to imprisonment and fines for breaking their contract
with Daewoosa (National Labor Committee, 2001).
Like Saipan, American Samoa is free from U.S. minimum wage and immigration
laws. However, clothing made in Samoa is exempt from U.S. import quotas and
tariffs. Sweatshops Around the World Despite
international and domestic human rights agreements, many countries fail to
protect the rights of their workers, and often have a hand in their
exploitation. For instance, the trafficking of Thai women to Japan as means
of cheap labor often includes debt bondage, forced labor and many other
abuses. The Japanese and Thai governments fail to address these issues
despite international obligations to protect the human rights of these
migrant women (Human Rights Watch, 2000). These women undergo slavery-like
conditions, and are literally "bought" and "sold" to
employers. Many are forced to work without wages until they have repaid
inflated "debts" and "fees", which may take years. The
women are also subject to physical abuse, excessively long working hours, and
sexual harassment (Human Rights Watch, 2000). These are abuses that are
prohibited under Japanese and Thai domestic legislation and international
law. Unfortunately, corruption and lack of concern among government officials
exacerbates the women's situation. Central and South America operate a
number of sweatshops which violate workers' rights, particularly those of
immigrants. In June of 2000, in Buenos Aires, authorities discovered forty
Bolivian girls working in slavery-like conditions in a clandestine textile
factory. It was discovered that they were forced to work up to 19 hours a day,
were poorly-fed, and often beaten (Valente, 2000).
The sweatshop was owned by a Bolivian immigrant. In Tehuacan,
Mexico, workers are paid so little that they are forced to send their
children to work in garment factories rather than school (Global Exchange,
2001). Guatemalan coffee growers, working on Starbuck's plantations, are paid
poverty prices for their toil. China is among the countries in which
labor rights are violated regularly. Independent unions are not permitted,
and the only organization allowed to represent workers is run by the Chinese
Communist Party. Although China is in the midst of economic
"reforms", these serve only to help the Chinese economy and foreign
investors, not workers who, on the average, make less than $1.00 a day (Mann,
2000). A number of organizations have endorsed the U.S. Business Principles
for Human Rights in China that calls for living wages (that meet basic
needs), the prohibition of corporal punishment, bonded labor, and harassment,
occupational safety, and the freedom to organize unions. Organizations that
have signed on include Amnesty International USA, the Fair Trade Foundation,
Global Exchange, and many more. In order to stop the exploitation of workers
around the world, however, corporations with the power and resources to
influence governments and suppliers must put human concerns above profits. U.S. Companies With Ties to Sweatshops Many
corporations use contract manufacturing firms to produce their goods. They
separate themselves from the production of their goods and refuse to take
responsibility for the conditions under which they are made. However, these
companies actually dictate the labor standards of their suppliers.
Corporations demand extremely low prices for merchandise. As a result,
manufacturers, concerned with making a profit, cut employees' wages and
compromise their safety. Foreign governments accommodate corporations, as
well, by setting the minimum wage well below what is needed to meet basic
needs, in order to boost national economic gain (Given, 1997). American
companies get away with these types of business practices because the U.S.
Labor Department requires only internal monitoring. Thus, there is no way to
determine whether or not companies are honest about the conditions that they
find. Unfortunately, even if violations of human rights are discovered,
corporations are only held to negligible fines. Many U.S. retailers have ties to
sweatshops, which are usually foreign owned and operated. Nike moved
production out of the U.S. to Taiwan and South Korea when workers demanded
better wages. When democracy took hold in these regions, Nike moved
production to Indonesia, Vietnam, and China (Given, 1997). Nike's Indonesian
factories commit numerous violations of human rights and health and safety
standards. Workers are paid only $2.00 per day. They are forced to work with
toxic glues and chemicals without adequate training, masks, and gloves
(Morey, 2000). Nike agrees to pay employees' medical bills only after they
have been paid in full by the workers who can't afford to do so. Fear is a
common tactic to keep workers in line. Many are afraid to ask to use the
bathroom, and women who are menstruating have to wear multiple sanitary pads
and black clothing to hide blood stains (Morey, 2000). Workers also have to
endure verbal abuse, 60-70 hour work weeks, and humiliation. Nike's internal
monitoring does very little to help the employees' situation. Monitors fail
to discover many problems in the sweatshops because managers know of visits
ahead of time and clean up the facilities, and because monitors rarely talk
to the workers. Nike also has facilities in Vietnam and China with similar
conditions. Nike denied allegations of abuses in its factories for years, but
finally in May of 1998 Nike announced its pledge to follow U.S. occupational
health and safety standards, end child labor, and allow external monitoring
of its facilities (Corporate Watch, 2000). However, recent attacks against
workers at a Korean-owned factory in Mexico that makes Nike clothing raises
questions about their commitment (Global Exchange, 2001). Wal-mart also promotes poor working
conditions in factories. Facilities in China that produce clothing for the
retailer pay their workers as low as $.13 an hour. Unfortunately, it is
difficult to discover much about the practices in Wal-mart
factories because Wal-mart refuses to disclose the
names and locations of their sweatshops (Co-op America, 2001). Thus, neither
the U.S. government nor consumers are able to discern how bad the conditions
really are. The Gap produces clothing in six factories in Saipan. Although
they use "Made in the USA" labels, they refuse to adhere to U.S.
labor standards (Global Exchange, 2000). Indentured servitude, physical abuse
and threats, and unsafe working conditions are among the violations in Gap
factories in Saipan. In Russia, Gap factory workers are paid as little as
$.11 per hour, and in Honduras Gap workers are forced to undergo mandatory
pregnancy tests, work overtime, do not have access to locked bathrooms, and
make $4.00 a day (Global Exchange, 2000). Although Gap claims to follow a
"no sweat" code of conduct, it blatantly fails to do so. Disney has
a number of suppliers in China who subject their employees to sweatshop
conditions. Many of the factories require young women to pay
"deposits" upon hire that put them in a situation of indentured
servitude. Wages are low, and overtime is required in these factories.
Workers do not receive health insurance even though it is required by Chinese
law (Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee, 1999). Unfortunately, most of
the young women who work in Disney's factories are unaware of their rights. Efforts to End Sweatshops In 1997,
leaders in the apparel and footwear industry, nongovernmental organizations,
and consumer groups met with President Clinton to announce a Workplace Code
of Conduct. It includes prohibitions against child labor, forced labor,
harassment and abuse, and discrimination, and it sets standards for health
and safety, freedom of collective bargaining, fair wages and benefits, and
overtime compensation. Members also agree to independent external monitoring.
Members include Liz Claiborne Inc., National Consumers League, Duke
University, Kathie Lee Gifford, and others. University students have joined the
anti-sweatshop movement. Students have demanded that their schools follow
codes of conduct for University apparel. "In March 1998, Duke University
passed the first anti-sweatshop code of conduct" (Co-op America, 2001).
More than 100 schools have chapters of United Students Against Sweatshops
(USAS). University codes call for full public disclosure of factory names and
locations, independent external monitoring, and women's rights. Students work
to inform the public about sweatshops. Public awareness helps to encourage
corporations to clean up their business practices. The U.S. gives
humanitarian aid to countries whose people are in poverty as a result of such
practices. Meanwhile, company profits and CEO's salaries continue to
skyrocket. Consumers can have a great deal of influence on corporations by
refusing to buy products made in sweatshops. Conclusion Sweatshops are
not simply a necessary evil of economic growth. They do not necessarily keep
costs low for consumers and provide jobs where there would otherwise be none.
Sweatshops exist because of corporate greed, international trade policies
(that push indebted nations to exploit their own people), and the market's
demand for quick production, low costs, and high profits. Workers should not
have to endure unsafe and unfair working conditions so that corporations and
corrupt government officials can get rich. Sources and Links
This
information courtesy of: Women and Global
Human Rights |
|
|
|
I get a lot of e-mails. Be patient!
|
|
|
|
|
|