c



 


Ô
 


     

   Ô  
      


  
 
  Ô      
    

  



    
  
     

      

    
    

     
            

   !"   # $ #  %$ !   &  & 

      !

  
  
 
  
  c





. There are two kinds of work- regular, which is salary work, and piecework. The regular

work week pays about $6.00 a week and the girls have to be at their machines at 7:00 in
the morning and stay at them until 8:00 at night, with just one half hour for lunch in that time.

The shops. Well, there is just one row of machines that the daylight ever even gets to ± the

front row, nearest the window. The girls at the other rows of machines in the back of the shop

work by lamplight, both day and night. The bosses yell at the girls and call them down worse

than even the Negro slaves in the South were, I imagine. The shops are unsanitary ± that¶s the

word that is generally used, but there ought to be a worse one used. At the beginning of slow

seasons, $2.00 is deducted from our salaries. Most of us don¶t even know why this is done.

The excerpt from above was written by Clara Leimlich and can be found in the book Out of

the Sweatshop: The Struggle for Industrial Democracy and paints a very bleak picture of

sweatshops and what takes place inside of them. However, the question that must be asked is

American business and other global business juggernauts taking advantage of low cost labor

in foreign nations, or are they simply providing these countries with labor opportunities that

they wouldn¶t normally have? This essay will discuss the use of low cost foreign labor from

both perspectives, as well as providing some pros and cons of each side.

So, who are these individuals that sacrifice so much in such poor conditions for so little?

Immigrants who work in sweatshops tend to be women and children. In fact, more than 85%

of sweatshop workers are women (usually between the ages of 15 and 22), and these women

come from foreign countries to find a better life. When these women come to America to live

free lives than in their home country, many find themselves working illegally in sweatshops.

They cannot find better jobs, and usually these are the first opportunities for employment that

they encounter. The same goes for immigrant children. Their families come to America and

are in need of money; thus, the child tries to do his/her part and help the family by working in

a sweatshop. The citizens of third-world countries also find themselves in the same situation.

They are poor and need jobs in order to survive. Therefore, they subject themselves to the

working conditions of sweatshops. This also works out well for the sweatshop owners and
supervisors. It is much easier for them to control women and children within the sweatshops.

The supervisors can use abuse to bust the workers into shape, and to get them to produce

more. As terrible as it is, these people believe that they are better than the workers are; thus,

they have the right given to them to abuse the workers. One would ask why the workers

remain in a sweatshop if they are treated so poorly; what is stopping them from leaving the

sweatshop? They remain for a variety of reasons. One includes the fact that they need the job.

They need the money, as little as it may be, in order to survive; it is better to live a penniless

existence than to not live at all.

Though many people believe that sweatshops and the use of low cost foreign labor is an

exploitation of men, women, and children in third world countries, many other individuals

feel that these services are beneficial to the people. Take into consideration cultural

relativism. Cultural relativism is defined as a principle that a human¶s beliefs and activities

make sense in terms of his or her own culture. What may be immoral in one country may be

perfectly moral and ethical in another. From the business perspective of a cultural relativism

ethicist, one must consider a number of different things. Businesses must take that specific

countries views on what age classifies an individual as a child, what age does that country

expect children to go to work at, and what is considered a reasonable wage for that region or

area. Businesses that plan to play a role in the global market must be familiar with variations

in cultures of different countries and adapt their work environment to each culture.

Another pro of the use of low cost labor is from the perspective of social responsibility.

Individuals who support this theory would state that sweatshops and labor camps provide

financial opportunities in countries that are stricken with poverty and it helps establish

economies in these poor countries. From this perspective, businesses state that not only are

they helping the people of these countries earn more money than if they were working
somewhere else, or not at all, but that they are providing their consumers with the lower

priced goods that they demand. Looking through this person¶s eyes, one would see that they

appear to be doing a great good for a great number.

However, it is more likely that most individuals would side with those that say the use of low

cost foreign labor and sweatshops is wrong. American citizens argue that these individuals

are not treated humanely or ethically and also that these jobs are being taken away from us

and given to other countries because they work at lower costs. American¶s tend to see things

from a cultural absolutism point of view which states that business should do what is best for

all countries regardless of the variable laws and regulations in those foreign lands.

Considering this, the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prohibits U.S. companies from

offering or providing payments to officials of foreign governments for the purpose of

retaining business abroad. The United States generally practices concern for global human

rights and there are constantly stories in the news about child labor, low wage payments, and

abuse in foreign factories. Many large corporations such as Kathie Lee trademark items,

Nike, and others have been hurt because it has been brought to the public attention that their

products are produced by women and children working in these sweatshops. Businesses must

continue to walk a fine line in using foreign labor to cut costs.

Considering the use of low cost foreign labor from a utilitarian ethical standpoint, one would

most likely conclude that the greatest good is not being served for the greatest number. More

people are being mistreated and forced into working in conditions that are not fit or suitable

for any human to work in. One of today¶s most highly debated issues is the case for/against

the sweatshop industry. Many groups out there do what they can to eliminate the sweatshop

industry and create a more ethical alternative for product production. Some of these groups

include Co-Op America, CorpWatch, United Students against Sweatshops, and Sweatshop
Watch. These groups, each with its own similar but different methods of spreading its beliefs,

are doing whatever they feel necessary to end sweatshops in the US and abroad. These

groups¶ main goals are to educate people on the subject and tell people what they can do in

order to make a difference. Often times the groups will encourage people to form protests or

to boycott sweatshop made goods. They often offer ways for people to directly communicate

with a company to express their feelings.

In conclusion, I must admit that I do have a different perspective on the use of low cost

foreign labor and sweatshops. Before writing this paper, I would have said that sweatshops

are bad, unethical, and immoral. However, after considering the belief that if these companies

did not locate in these poverty stricken areas, these people would either not be working, or

may be even working in conditions worse than the ones offered by these organizations. It is

quite possible that these global businesses do provide these countries with some form of

economy that allows these individuals to live better financial lives than what they could

without them. Nonetheless, I cannot say that I totally agree with this concept. Although the

companies may be able to pay a lower wage than they can workers here in the United States,

they should still be responsible enough to provide their workers with conditions that you and

I would consider reasonable, even if the countries laws and regulations do not require them to

do so. Child labor, sweatshops, and the like will continue to be a part of our culture and a sign

of the times for many years to come. Some stories may be bad, some may be good, but the

fact is, they are here to stay.

c
 
 



hSA Network has been long overdue for a labor lawsuit. With the closing of their 10th

anniversary celebration and having a history of 3 staff walk outs, over 5 staff being fired

(majority people of color) and over 6 employees being paid off to not share their story, It is

time someone stood up against their unethical labor practices.

It is time for the community to hold this agency accountable for its actions towards their

employees. Since this lawsuit has been filed. Letters from past ex employees have been

flooding hSA Network. Ex employees who have walked out due to the treatment by the

Executive Director Carolyn Laub have been sharing their stories in hopes of change.

hSA Network's quite, inactive board does not have the voice or the backbone to hold her

accountable for her years of mistreatment of employees. After being supported by the Tides

Center, this is the first year this umbrella organization will not help support hSA Network in

covering up their quick gun firing practices. It is time for the community to do their research

on this organization which prides itself as a social justice organization. Ask the hard

questions everyone is afraid to ask.

h


  
  

h
 

 
        
  
    

 '

         

    

 
        
 

 


   



  

               



     
      (  
 

     
        
 



     

     
     



    

      #  


  
    
       

 




    )

X



¢
 
  
    ¢
 

   

  

      
 


 ¢


 

  

 
   
    
 





     

     


  
  



   

¢

 

Companies can have a substantial impact on the lives and well-being of citizens from other

nations and should therefore avoid doing business with suppliers or partners who participate

in unfair labor practices, including slave labor or child labor, the payment of starvation

wages, unsafe work environments, or ethnic, racial, gender, or sexual discrimination. Unless .

..
a) the products manufactured by the supplier/partner are clearly labeled "Made in China."

b) the celebrity endorsing the clothing line has a talk show.

c) the company thoroughly investigates child-labor allegations against the supplier/partner

and is assured that "Asians always look younger than they really are."

Ô
  


Employees or officers of a company that is under criminal or civil investigation shall not

destroy documents or data that could be construed as pertinent to that investigation. Unless . .

a) they'd like to keep their jobs.

b) they could have sworn the shredder also made copies.

c) they thought they were helping in the fight against terrorism.





 

Companies have a moral and legal obligation to protect and preserve the environment and

should ensure that their operations, and those of their partners, suppliers, subsidiaries, and

licensees, adhere to environmentally safe practices. Unless . . .

a) it costs too much.

b) see a).





 


Purposely concealing or misrepresenting a company's financial information, or

misappropriating corporate funds for personal gain, is unethical and punishable by law.

Unless . . .

a) the artwork bought through such means is really good.

b) the bill for that new shower curtain is a few thousand dollars more than you thought it was

going to be.

c) the chief executive's wife wants Jimmy Buffett to perform at her birthday party.



 

A company's chief executive officer shall be directly and wholly responsible for that

company's employees, directors, and actions, including but not limited to financial activities

and statements, extracorporate agreements, and product/service claims. Unless . . .

a) the chief executive missed that meeting.

b) the previous chief executive really started it.

c) the chief executive is later elected Vice President of the United States.


 
  
¢




Any company that knowingly produces or provides a defective product or service is in

material breach of ethical and legal standards and will suffer appropriate negative

consequences. Unless . . .

a) they were just kidding.

b) the company legally changes its name and insists it was that other company that did those

things.

c) the offenses are ongoing.






Any company that participates in unfair trade, including but not limited to coercing partners,

suppliers, or distributors into signing exclusivity agreements, forcing customers or clients to

use unwanted company products or services, or underselling in the market in an attempt to

starve out weaker competition, shall be guilty of anticompetitive practices. Unless . . .

a) Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presides at the company's trial.

b) the company is actively involved in worthwhile charities, specifically the Bill & Melinda

hates Foundation.

c) the company's headquarters are located, say, 13 miles northeast of Seattle.

=  
 

A company's board of directors, acting in its fiduciary capacity on behalf of all shareholders,

shall be liable for all financial statements emanating from the company. Unless . . .

a) they can prove that they do not know what the company actually does.

b) actually, a) should cover most directors.

c) the company is doing, like, some really weird stuff.

  !

Employees who make allegations of illegality or indiscretion against a company (aka

whistle-blowers) are protected by law and must not be harassed or made to suffer

economically or psychologically for their actions. Unless . . .

a) by sheer coincidence their department was going to be downsized anyway.

b) they really have what it takes to work the mail room.

c) you discovered their surprisingly poor job-performance review just now.

  "


1. In order to facilitate adoption of these policies, and in due consideration of the logistical

and psychological burden that these regulations may have, Tuesdays will heretofore be

designated "Ethics-Free Days."

2. All of the regulations contained herein shall be considered binding and factual in all

respects -- unless the calendar month in which these regulations appear contains a day

commonly known as . . .

3. April Fools.