Please see attached case study.
1) Many employees in sweatshops, having come from jobs that pay even less and offer no benefits or security, see employment in a sweatshop as a means to a better life. What rights do human rights advocates from developed countries have to oppose the use of sweatshops by foreign firms.
2) Are organizations like the National Labor Committee acting in good faith on behalf of the workers in sweatshops? Or is their ulterior motive to save jobs of American workers that are exported to sweatshops abroad?
Human rights advocates are attempting to make the world a better place by improving what they see as a bad employment scenario with a better one. The ability of them to create chaos and teach people about the wages and conditions is in many ways good. Conditions should be safe and international companies should be concerned about the need for improvements to maintain a healthy and skilled or trained workforce. The workforce that has been hired and trained is advantageous because turnovers that create need for more training cost money and add to the expenses of the company and the products.
With this stated, the reality is human rights advocates have no real rights to complain about wages. Simply put, they attack the very thing creating a life for many. The economy of third world countries or places where labor is cheap may not be able to withstand the impact of higher wages. The impact might ...
A discussion on the ethics and social responsibility of companies and people in regards to sweatshops and other low wage outsourced entities.