From what we have learned by reading the two articles we have come to the conclusion that there is not a clear answer to the sweatshop debate. There are definite pros and cons to the argument. One side is motivated, as a consumer, to support the sweatshops to permit children to make money. The other side of the debate argues that as consumers we should not support these sweatshops so that we can prevent the children from the harsh working conditions.
No matter what side of the argument both sides have certain responsibilities. As consumers against sweatshops the best way to make a significant change would be to advocate fair wages and acceptable safety standards in their workplace. On the other side we should be knowledgeable of the processes and procedures that go on behind the scenes.
Both sides of the argument should keep in mind where their clothes are being made. If a person is in favor of sweatshops and wants them to prosper then they should, to some point, avoid contributing to the market in developed countries and purchase clothes from companies that are notorious for using sweatshop factories. Same thing goes for those against sweatshops. These people should buy clothes from countries that are developed and do not use sweatshops.
Our group has agreed that as a whole we do support the sweatshops. Barboza's article used examples of children being kidnapped and forced into the sweatshop labor. The evidence that Barboza presents is a great point, but as a group we have decided that the kidnapping of children from their families does not compare to the pain and suffering that the children go through when they are forced to sell drugs and prostitution to survive. To help the situation, anti sweatshop organizations could focus on gaining rights and better working conditions for the workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment