Initial step
1. Read Case 5.2, pp, 235-6 in your Honest Work.
2. Review some of the following stories about the 2013 Bangladeshi sweatshop disaster:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse
- http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-column-bangladesh-garment-fire-20140423-column.html
- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/29/bangladesh-factory-tragedy-sweatshop-economics
- http://theconversation.com/bangladesh-disaster-shows-why-we-must-urgently-clean-up-global-sweat-shops-13899
- http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/world/asia/after-collapse-bleak-struggle.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
3. Collectively, let's look at this situation using your Case Resolution Model (below for convenience). We'll walk through the stages in pairs -- noted below. This constitutes your initial response due by Sat 22. Note that each subsequent pair depends on the previous pair's work, so try to post earlier in the week if your name is in the beginning of the alphabet.
4. In your study groups follow-up (by Tues 25th):
We're aiming find some resolution on the following questions.
1) Are sweatshops immoral? Is it wrong to exploit people? Are sweatshops exploitative?
2) Should they be banned?
Case
Resolution Model
(adapted from Morality and the Professional Life: Values
at Work by Cynthia A. Brincat and Victoria S. Wike)
Stage I. Presentation
- Present the problem - Baumer & Blahnik
- Identify
the issue
- Define
the moral situation
- Collect information - Boggs & Bragg
- List
morally relevant facts
- List
non-moral relevant facts (e.g., legal, economic, psychological, etc.)
Stage II. Analysis
- List relevant values - Brown & Cooper
- Identify
moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., Integrity, Respect
for Persons, Compassion, Justice, Beneficence/Nonmaleficence,
Responsibility)
- Identify
non-moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., economic,
intellectual, social, spiritual, etc.)
- Identify
possible value conflicts. (Is there a true ethical conflict, or a
conflict between ethical and other values?
4. Explore options - Davidson & Devereaux
a. How do different theories interpret and
apply the relevant values? (e.g. care, consequentialist, duty, narrative,
rights, virtue)
- Which options are favored by more than one theory?
- Option
1
- Option
2
- Option 3
Stage III. Review
- Defend the decision - Perry & Stowe
- Give
reasons to explain the decision.
- Assess
the strength of the reasons (relevant, consider all affected persons,
consider central moral values).
- Reflect - Tipton & Dr. Sherron
- What objections can be made to the
decision?
- How
could this problem have been avoided?
Stage I. Presentation
ReplyDelete1. Present the problem
a. Identify the problem: The greed of corporations, market demands, and the lack of financial and moral concern for workers are the problems with sweatshops in Hightower's article.
b. Define the moral situation: Is it morally sound to buy clothing made in sweatshops? Is it morally sound to take away jobs from people who work in sweatshops?
a. How do different theories interpret and apply the relevant values? (e.g. care, consequentialist, duty, narrative, rights, virtue)
ReplyDeleteThe consequentialist theory(Unitarianism) suggests that the benefit to the corporation outweighs the consequence of poor pay, substandard work environment and potential of risk in working at the sweatshops. One may also say that the privilege of working at a sweatshop in Bangaladesh outweighs other employment options especially for women and that in having the sweatshops, the corporations are doing the country a service.
The deontological theory would be against sweatshops because you would always want to do what’s right and that you need to take the consequences of your actions into consideration when making decisions. The sweatshops are risky to an employee because of deplorable working conditions, physical abuse, unsafe work conditions, extreme work conditions (no air condition, seven days a week – up to 12 hours per day, and minimal pay – sometimes just pennies per day).
Virtue ethics, as conceived by Aristotle, would suggest that you know the sweatshops are risky and in knowing this, you should not use or participate in the use of them. This assumes that you know right from wrong and that you are able to recognize this. “An action might be pleasurable in so far as it is the right thing to do”. Saving a little in manufacturing costs does not compare to losing workers lives by working in a deplorable work environment.
b. Which options are favored by more than one theory?
The deontological theory (Kant's ethics) as well as virtue ethics are both not in support of sweatshops. They both recognize that financial gain is not more important than human life.
Stage II. Analysis
ReplyDeleteList relevant values - Brown & Cooper
Identify moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., Integrity, Respect for Persons, Compassion, Justice, Beneficence/Non- maleficence, Responsibility)
Moral values in this case are corporate and personal responsibility to ensure consumers understanding of the injustices dealt out to sweat shop workers; to teach self-respect to the unskilled immigrants of who are taken advantage; compassion is shown by teamX to show people they have value and worth; giving higher pay and paid holidays.
Identify non-moral values important to persons in the case (e.g., economic, intellectual, social, spiritual, etc.)
Pierre Ferrari, CEO of teamX showed through simple economics in the garment production that employers in sweat shops in the U.S. paid 25 cents to make a t-shirt that sold for $18; if doubled wage to 50 cents and kept consumers prices at $18 the public would still purchase the items and the workers could make two times the annual salary (from $9,000 to $18,000, which is still poverty); they targeted activist like unions, local governments and non-profits to buy shirts for events. Oprah featured teamX and helped launch their financial success, but also showed social implications and lies told by garment industry that globalization of jobs was not the issue (taking jobs from U.S. to foreign countries was a small part of the issue, but these same issues were performed in the U.S.) .
Identify possible value conflicts. (Is there a true ethical conflict, or a conflict between ethical and other values?
Sweat shops are unethical because they take advantage of the under educated, unskilled immigrants to have greater profitability. They did not care about the people, their wages or the work environment – only about the money.
Option 1: For business, an option would be to follow in the footsteps of teamX, and make a critical business decision to change the way our country produces goods. They would have to stand up and say this is not how we want to treat our employees, and that we believe they deserve better. It would be a change in doing business simply on the regard for profits only versus doing business with people in mind.
ReplyDeleteOption 2: For businesses they could even go a step further and say that not only do they want to treat their employees better, but they want others to as well. If they were to say use only vendors and suppliers who treated their employees well and avoided using sweatshops. This would push more and more companies to adopt this type of fair labor.
Option 3: For consumers it is simple. Try your best to read labels, and look up manufacturers so that you know where your products come from before you buy them. If a company produces their goods at the expense of the welfare of others, don't purchase from them. If everyone were to do this it could make the companies think twice about using unfair labor tactics.
Option 1: It must be ingrained into the companies philosophy that they care who produces there goods. understanding that people rely on there jobs to live and take care of there personal life.
DeleteOption 2: I agree with Kimberly thought in order to cause change for the better, It should be a calibrated effort.
Option 3: Research is key especially when it comes to food. Look into what you are putting into your body and be thoughtful on the matter especially when you have others depending on you to provide.
Option 2: For businesses they could even go a step further and say that not only do they want to treat their employees better, but they want others to as well. If they were to say use only vendors and suppliers who treated their employees well and avoided using sweatshops. This would push more and more companies to adopt this type of fair labor.
ReplyDeleteWe believe that this is the easiest one to accomplish as a business. It follows in the footsteps that other companies have done and have been successful. Putting standards on companies can also play a role in improving this situation.
DeleteWhat objections can be made to the decision? The objections that could be made to this decision is that how does a company truly know how employees are treated? One can say that they go above and beyond with their employees by paying them well, treating them respectively etc. As in the Mattel case we have previously studied, sometimes things slip through the cracks and what you think is one thing turns out to be totally different(conditions).
ReplyDeleteb.How could this problem have been avoided? The problem of sweat shops all together? It starts with upper management and greed. But, it comes down to people speaking up and standing up for what is right, not what makes them the most money. Many people are afraid to stand up for what they feel is right because they worry about the backlash.
Stage I. Presentation
ReplyDeleteCollect Information
Morally Relevant Facts
• Garment workers in Bangladesh were crushed under tons of falling concrete and steel. More than 1,100 people died and many others were injured or maimed due to illegal building modifications.
• With wage levels about one-fourth of China's, Bangladesh has become one of the world's biggest suppliers of mass-market garments. Producing garments cheaply has been possible in part because government and local factory owners don't enforce basic safety regulations. Government officials and regulators can easily be bought off.
• By American standards sweatshops don't pay much (about $40 a month in Bangladesh), but they pay a good deal more than subsistence agriculture, the primary alternative available to poor workers in developing countries. Sweatshop proponents argue that workers choose these jobs, and the jobs must be a good thing. The workers do not really have a choice. It is either really low wage agriculture jobs, or the sweatshops.
• Families who lost a wage earner are struggling. Workers who were maimed and injured are still waiting for any real long term compensation.
• It is assumed that most consumers don't want to buy clothes made in unsafe factories but knowing which clothes were manufactured responsibly isn't easy.
• Cheap labor is profitable for companies, but shoddy standards are not. Buildings that collapse or catch on fire, unclean workplaces where workers routinely fall ill; this means halted production and lost revenue.
• Executives and business leaders are establishing more socially responsible garment manufacturing companies.
• Sweatshops are not just in third world countries. They exist right here in the U.S.
Non-morally Relevant Facts
• In this situation it is difficult to differentiate morally and non-morally relevant facts.
• Is it really globaloney, or does capitalism and the new global market dictate this business practice as an efficient allocation of resources?
• Sweatshop free alternatives are often not available. Available alternatives can be difficult to identify.
• Technology may provide answers and information. Supply chains can be more easily monitored through information systems. Sweatshop free products can more easily be located via the internet.
• Bangladeshis, including labor activists, don't want anyone to boycott clothes made in their country. In one of the world's poorest nations, sweatshops are paradoxically one of the bright spots in the economy.
• Companies are establishing training and education programs for garment workers.
Tan Soup Study Group Follow-up:
ReplyDelete1) Are sweatshops immoral? Sweatshops are completely immoral. The owners know it's wrong to make people work like dogs for next to nothing yet they still do it. It is motivated by greed of the sweat shop owners, corporate greed and consumers, who do not realize the conditions, only seek to have the latest and greatest “wants”.
Is it wrong to exploit people? It is very wrong to exploit people. To do so violates basic human rights. Besides violating basic human rights, if the workers feel exploited then motivation, pride and productivity decrease and thereby create an inferior product.
Are sweatshops exploitative? Yes, people work unreasonably long hours, for extremely little money, in terrible conditions, and are sometimes physically abused. The owners exploit the need for money by some of the world’s most poor and see no problem with this. It's disgusting.
2) Should they be banned? Absolutely, and people who own them should be jailed and companies who use them should be at the very least fined.
Discussions that arose in our group:
Would the people of these countries be better off without them? And at what pay level and work load would be most beneficial to all parties? As shown in the case, just increasing the rate on a T-shirt from 25 cents to 50 cents pays more to the worker, yet the end consumer still pays the same price. Now the consumer is exploited and a means to the end just like the worker.
Businesses are incentivized to move to third world countries where people have less expectation as to pay and luxuries (partly because of NAFTA). So corporate greed takes over and people care less about the value of human life. Conversely, without these businesses moving there and providing work, what income potential would they have – so is it moral to take away any chance for wages away from them? So who is to blame? Consumers; manufacturers; distributors; corporations; government; supply chains – the list can go on forever.
Lorain, what is interesting about this is that even though companies are being incentivized to move to third world countries. Those functions that actually deal with interacting with a customer are slowly making the way back to the States. As customer's are voicing their concerns and are very angry with corporations for doing this. My expectations is that most "front line" activities will be back in the United States within the next five years.
DeleteMOMS ON A MISSION RESPONSE:
ReplyDeleteAre sweatshops immoral? Lets first review the definition of immoral which is "not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or as established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics; violating moral principles". Just look at the definition and in our opinion that answers the questions which is yes they are immoral. What people are put through in sweat shops are not consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
Is it wrong to exploit people? In our opinion to exploit someone is to take advantage of another person, so yes it is wrong to take advantage of people.
Are sweatshops exploitative? Absolutely they are exploitative. They are taking advantage of peoples unfortunate situations. Most people who work at the sweat shops can't find work in order to put food on the table for their family, so they are willing to do whatever they have to and the sweat shops know this.
2) Should they be banned? Yes sweat shops should be banned. We understand they give employment to people that may not be employed otherwise, but the conditions are horrible and no one should feel like that is their only way to make money. We need more companies like the X company we just read about to step up and start doing the right thing by making a little less profit, but giving people a chance to get out of their current situation.
ABA Group Follow Up Response:
ReplyDeleteAre sweatshops immoral? Sweatshops are completely immoral. They require people to work in unhealthy environments and work hours that no one would even consider ideal. Workers are also expected to work for next to nothing all hours of the day. The unethical behavior that attempts to keep sweatshops hidden from the public is evidence of the immorality. However, if we took these sweatshops away these people would be out of a job and in Peter Singer's words the wealthy should help these less fortunate people. In another conversation we say the "wealthy" should provide the resources to help the poor. Well are these sweatshops the resources? A fortunate corporation could be considered the "wealthy" in which it is providing work to those who may not have a job if the sweatshop is closed down. Also, some employees chose to work here and in these conditions.
Is it wrong to exploit people? Yes, we believe that exploitation is morally reprehensible.
Are sweatshops exploitative? Workers are exposed to extreme work conditions and are not considered. To answer the question I do believe sweatshops are exploitative and do not keep the employee top of mind. It dwindles down to the dollar and corporate greed. Corporations are looking at how they can meet the demand with the most profit.
Should they be banned? If sweatshops had standards and were made to meet these standards then these type of shops are actually providing value for those who have no other choices but to work here. If we banned sweatshops then we could be putting a lot of people out of work.
We believe that sweatshops are appalling. The masses of poor are exploited for the profits of a few. As many activists have pointed out, there are potentially positive outcomes from sweatshop reform. Corporations and consumers would not have to sacrifice much in order to provide these workers with a fair chance.
Perry & Stow
ReplyDeletea.) Give reasons to explain the decision?
The fact that there are people in Bangladesh who are working in these sort of places is mind blowing. We as Americans take advantage of our work environment and based on our income we are supporting clothing companies who allow these work environments to continue. I think that we as Americans need to take a step back and justify why we buy this sort of clothing knowing that there are innocent lives who are in danger just for our pleasure.
If we would put ourselves or loved ones in this same situation what would you think? Just because we live in a country where we must make at least minimum wage and have the luxuries that we do that does not mean that it’s right to allow others the pain and suffering to allow us to live this way.
Based on that information and from the readings it would be safe to say that we agree with the deontological and virtue theory by saying the financial gain is not worth the lives of others. We would not feel moral by support inadequate behavior in the Bangladesh community. The fact that lives were lost in order to support large corporations who knew that they had workers in an unsafe environment should not be supported by anyone ethically.
b.) Assess the strengths of the reasons (relevant, consider all affected persons, consider central moral values).
Once again everyone should feel for the people of Bangladesh affected by the Rana-Plaza disaster. I’m shocked that it took something of this nature to happen in order for us to realize what’s going on in this world primarily due to the greed of large corporations in the United States. Not to mention that we have Americans who are unemployed and looking for work, poverty levels are continue to increase and we’re still shipping jobs overseas. Most of us should agree that we are in support of helping others but we should still look out for our own. So what if it cost more to make the clothing here in the U.S. that should tell you something. We should have to pay anyone making that clothing more than merely $16 per week. That’s absurd! Not to mention that if we are paying that little amount of money at least give the common courtesy of updating the working conditions in those countries. The executives of these companies should be held accountable and take pay cuts in order for these places to receive better benefits including a stable working environment.
I would consider anyone immoral for not standing up and voicing their concerns to this situation.