Marketing Concept

1. Many employees in sweatshops, having come from jobs that pay even less and offer no benefits or security, see employment in sweatshops as a means to a better life. What rights do human rights advocates from developed countries have to oppose the use of sweatshops by foreign firms?
I think human rights advocates do not have any rights to oppose the use of sweatshops by foreign firms, because this would hurt the sweatshop workers livelihood. But human rights advocates do however have a right to bring notice to how these places are being run so that it can bring changes to these poor people. They are not the world police and though they feel they are helping these people, they are sometimes hurting them. These people who work in the sweatshops depend on these jobs to provide for themselves and their families. It is up to them to join together and demand better conditions or they will leave, and many have. The standards are rising, and even though to a country like ours they seem bad we can’t compare ourselves with these third world countries. What’s a luxury to them is nothing to us. It’s all relevant to their culture. Bringing notice to it will give them the strength to develop higher standards of working conditions for them all.
  2. Are organizations like the National Labor Committee acting in good faith on behalf of the workers in sweatshops? Or is their ulterior motive to save jobs of American workers that are exported to sweatshops abroad?
I think the National Labor Committee thinks it’s acting in good faith on behalf of the workers in sweatshops, but in many cases it is not. These people believe in equal rights and to them they see these sweatshops as a place for abuse. So they are trying to save the world and the people from this abuse, especially the children. I think it’s more of a human decency movement to stop the innocent, powerless people from being taken advantage of. These poor people need help from outside sources because they are not strong... [continues]

Read full essay