When the word sweatshop comes to mind, the image of a hectic Nike factory with overworked employees and harmful conditions will likely come to mind. Yet, Nike remains a high street giant selling an immense 25 pairs of trainers per second. So, are we as consumers to blame for fuelling this hard labour or are we just supporting a means to an end?
By definition, a sweatshop is a workplace where employees are subject to two or more of the following conditions:
• A poor working environment, which crams in workers to maximise production rates. Specific settings can include exposure to electrical wiring, limited free movement via blocked aisles and unsanitary bathrooms.
• Insufficient wages, with most workers earning between $13-$15 a month.
• Unreasonable hours, sometimes as many as 12-15 hours a day; breaks are not readily given either, meaning workers cannot freely leave their workstations.
• Child labour, in developing countries, an estimated 168 million children aged 5-14 are forced to work.
• Limited work benefits, including a lack of job security, health benefits and overtime pay.
This is not just a human rights issue; it is a feminist one too. Female labourers make up between 85% to 95% of the sweatshop workforce. Employers further infringe on workers' rights by forcing female workers to take birth control pills whilst also being subject to routine pregnancy tests in order to avoid maternity leave payments and other essential health benefits.
There seems to be no ethical dilemma here, sweatshop labour is terrible, and there is no room for flexibility. However, in contrast to this common perception, the moral standing of sweatshop labour is very much up for debate.
Often workers can be perceived as better off than the alternative situations they may find themselves in. As the economist, Joan Robinson comments "the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all". The industry plays a fundamental role in developing individual nations, and whilst conditions are irrefutably harsh, the precarious alternatives are rarely considered.
Such justification can be exemplified by Arifa, a Bangladeshi female who began working at a sweatshop at the age of 10. Despite the turbulent working conditions and injurious working hours, she now ears 2200 taka a month- beyond the average wage in Bangladesh. Arifa maintains that her income equates to her freedom, meaning that her working in the garment sector facilitates the independence she has longed for. But perhaps most notably, Arifa is proud of her work.
Cases like Arifa are not unusual, sweatshop labour is often deemed to be liberating for its workers. The sweatshops further propose a safer solution to the high-risk alternatives, most frequently agricultural work- the industry inducing an estimated 250 million accidents a year.
Suddenly, the protests and boycotts condemning sweatshop labour seem unwarranted. The industry plays a fundamental role in developing individual nations, and whilst conditions are irrefutably harsh, the precarious alternatives are rarely considered. Boycotting sweatshop labour further undermines the workers' personal aspirations, such as Arifa who is appreciative of her work. This does not justify the appalling working conditions; instead, it emphasises the urgency of a thought shift. If we want to help, the focus should be on developing new and improved options, rather than taking away current opportunities. As consumers, we must pressure companies for better wages and working conditions, support the garment workers unionisation and get their voices heard.