The Sweatshops Concept

The Sweatshops Concept

A sweatshop is defined as a factory that violates the labor laws that have been put in place by the relevant governing bodies. From the case study, it is evident that despite constantly violating the law, sweatshops exist in different places all over the globe. In such factories, workers are oppressed, and their rights violated from different perspectives. For instance, the working conditions are very poor, having insufficient lavatories for a very large number of workers (Arnold and Bowie, 2003). The lavatories are not even well equipped and do not have the necessary utilities. Secondly, the working areas that they are assigned are approximately one-meter square, where they are needed to do produce a lot. the workers are forced to put extra hours of labor, with each person working up to more than 12 hours every day. The wages they receive are very low, sometimes not even enough to cater for just their basic needs. In some cases, these workers have to work for extra hours, beyond the 12, to earn overtime allowances just to be in a position to meet their basic needs.

Studies indicate that despite having many workers hired by the sweatshops, the factories do not help in alienating poverty, even in the third world countries. In fact, workers hired to work in the sweatshops spend a larger percentage of their earnings, if not 100%, on meeting their basic needs as well as those of their families (Arnold and Bowie, 2003).  In some countries, female workers are forced to take birth control measures for the factories to avoid the provision of the necessary health benefits and support of maternity leaves when they get pregnant. Finally, in some areas, child laborers are also employed in the sweatshops. Despite being against the law, this results in the children failing to enjoy their other rights, such as the right to education.

Utilitarianism Theory

The utilitarian theory suggests that right and wrong are told apart by considering the outcomes. It is one of the theories of consequentialism. As such, the utilitarian theory proposes that the most ethical choice of action is one that brings forth the greatest benefit for the largest number of people. according to the theory, morality can only be seen in actions that seek to enhance people’s lives by adding the number of good things. Good things, according to utilitarianism, are those that bring about pleasure and happiness. On the contrary, the theory views immorality as the actions that seek to reduce such good things or those that bring about the bad things (McCombs School of Business, 2019a). Bad things, in this case, could be unhappiness and pain. The theory, therefore, is against all practices, even the traditions, that result in the suffering of people in one way or another.

The theory does not focus so much on the laws and regulations that are set. It focuses on the consequences that result from the actions humans choose to carry out. It further focuses on the aspect of cost and benefits for the actions involved. Considering the sweatshops’ case study in light of this theory, the actions of the sweatshops cannot be justified. Justification of their operations could be as a result of creating more employment opportunities for more people. As a result of the opportunities, the workers’ capacity to meet a bigger part of their basic needs as well as those of their families is enhanced. This can be considered as creating good for a bigger number of people.

However, the consequences of the actions carried out by employers who run sweatshops are dire. As a result of the working conditions in factories, as explained in the case scenario, the workers do not get to enjoy the work they do. Lack of the necessary facilities to carry out the relevant tasks or the insufficiency of the same puts the workers through painful experiences as they try to make ends meet. This is contrary to the utilitarian theory that seeks to promote actions that result in pleasure and happiness (Weiss, 2014).

The low wages paid to the workers who put all their energies to the work could also be a cause of unhappiness. When workers spend all their days working for a salary that cannot fully meet their basic needs, such employment is considered ungainful. Hence, workers end up more depressed than happy, when they have needs that they cannot meet with the salaries they earn. Again, this contradicts the propositions of the theory (Hartman et al., 2008).

With such terms of employment as those followed in the sweatshops, work-life balance is extremely difficult to achieve. Workers who are employed in the factories, therefore, do not have enough time to take care of their personal needs. This could be an area of great concern, especially because most of these workers have families that need to be taken care of. As a result, workers could be deprived of their happiness.

The conditions of the workplaces where the workers in the sweatshops’ work are also not very conducive for work. In some instances, these conditions may create a breeding area for pathogens where the workers could be infected with various illnesses. Further, due to long working hours, the workers may also suffer fatigue. As a result, the greater good for the largest number of people cannot be achieved under circumstances (Hartman et al., 2008).

Deontology Theory

The deontology theory, on the other hand, focuses on the rules that have been set to tell apart the right and wrong. The theory, therefore, proposes that people should follow the rules and carry out their duties. It does not seek to determine the consequences of the actions taken, so long as they follow the rules in the place. The theory suggests that the choices of actions that human beings make, cannot be justified by their results. However, if action is forbidden on a moral basis, however good the consequences of that choice could be, it remains immoral and therefore unacceptable (McCombs School of Business, 2019b). Actions can, therefore, be morally right only if they conform to the rules set.

In the sweatshops’ scenario, many of the rules and regulations that have been set to guide how such factories should operate as well as handle employees have been broken. Hence, the operation of the sweatshops is not permissible. One of the rules that have been violated is the standards that the workplace should meet to be conducive for the production. This rule has been violated on several fronts. For instance, space, where the workers are assigned to work from, is too small, leading to congestion in the rooms where the workers spend most of their time. This is against the set labor laws. Secondly, the provisions made for the bathrooms and the toilets that are used by the workers are not enough for the workers, given the fact that they spend 12 hours or more at the workplace. Further, the facilities provided in the bathrooms are not well maintained or replaced when need be. As a result, the showers do not have showerheads, forcing the workers to be innovative on how they could be used. Again, these do not meet the set standards.

The number of hours that the workers spend in the factory is against labor laws. The workers are expected to work 12 hours each day, with sometimes being forced to work extra time. Further, this cycle continues week in, week out. The law requires that employees do not work for the maximum number of hours every week continuously (Hartman et al., 2008). This is not observed in the sweatshops. Hence, it is against the theory.

The wages paid to the workers for the work they put in the sweatshops are way below the recommended minimum wage for workers. In the United States, for instance, the minimum wage should be 7.5USD per hour. Workers in the sweatshops are, however, given a pay of 1.32USD per hour. In some cases, they are also forced to work overtime. This again contradicts the theory (Weiss, 2014).

Decision

Given the analysis of the operations carried out on the sweatshops in light of the two different theories, I would not agree with the idea of running sweatshops. The activities carried out in the operation of the factories go against the propositions of the theories. Therefore, the activities go against several ethical standards that should be observed in business. When such ethical principles are not observed, humans, suffer, either directly or indirectly.

One such standard is the need for employers to show concern for their employees (Hartman et al., 2008). Treating employees as the most valuable resource of the business is extremely essential. However, the conditions in which the workers have to spend the better part of their days as they work do not show any level of concern. In fact, the conditions seem to show more self-interests among the employers, not apprehensive of the conditions of the workers.

Another ethical standard that businesses need to meet is observing the law (Weiss, 2014). The activities carried out in sweatshops violate several laws as set by the various regulatory bodies. Laws violated include those regarding minimum wage, the standards of workplaces, and facilities that need to be provided for the workers among others. By virtue of having violated such laws, I would disagree with the sweatshops.

Fairness and being just is another ethical standard that businesses need to observe. This would mean that businesses should not exploit their workers. It would further mean that employers should not use any unfair means to gain an advantage over the workers (Weiss, 2014). Being just and fair calls for employers to compensate the workers fairly. This is a concept that is not practiced in the sweatshops.

Finally, the treatment of workers as in the scenario can create a bad reputation, not only for the company but also for a country. Though sweatshops are present in different parts of the world, there is increasing resistance against products that have been produced in such factories. Studies indicate that consumers are willing to pay more for products they know do not come from sweatshops. As a result, on international trade, allowing such factories to operate may work adversely for a country’s economy.

Are the CEOs Virtuous?

The CEOs of such sweatshops are not virtuous. As much as they may appear as if they are assisting the workers by providing them with employment, their actions do not portray them as being virtuous. Acquiring more labor from the workers more than what they pay for is depraved. Further, having many workers in the environment of work described in the scenario is also not right, as it exposes the workers, making them susceptible to various illnesses. Therefore, the CEOs seem to be more after self-gain, at the expense of the welfare of their workers.