My perfect fall outfit is a balanced medley of textures: a wool H&M scarf (Farhan in Bangladesh), one-hundred percent cotton Gap jeans (Chinese sweatshop laborers), and, of course, the favorite piece in my collection, an oversized Uniqlo blackwatch flannel (Phan Dang family in Vietnam.) This ensemble, coupled with a pair of Oxblood Scalper Boots (unknown), captures the spirit of fall for me. And, remarkably, I was able to construct this outfit for only ninety-five dollars! So when asked about my acquisition of these wonderful fabrics for such a cheap price, I had to commend those responsible.
First, I thanked Farhan’s thirteen-cent wage that he uses to support his family in Bangladesh (Powell). And, of course, I’m forever grateful for the sixteen hour shift that the Phan Dang family spends weaving cotton for my flannel. However, I do owe apologies to the crafters of my boots, because, while they are beautifully constructed, I couldn’t well thank a group of workers I know nothing about. Regardless, I couldn’t have dressed myself this morning without them. In-fact, none could dress themselves without the labor of faceless workers like these, as this is the reality for the clothing of nearly every person in the modernized West. Facing deplorable working conditions and slave wages, sweatshop workers simultaneously bolster the economy of their nations as they are exploited by clothing companies and consumers. With death always a doorstep away, these garment workers are essentially modern-day slaves. However, there is still hope in the near future. This shred of light relies on the power of these third-world governments to combat exploitative labor- the same labor that clothes every last one of us.
I was disappointed to count only a solitary shirt with the “Made in America” tag among the possessions in my closet, and, assuredly, the contents of my closet are not the exception in the first-world. Under one percent of all clothing sold in America is stamped with the “Fair Trade” label issued by the International Labor Organization. The “Fair Trade” label, issued to clothing created by well-paid laborers in safe-working conditions, is virtually non-existence in America clothing. (D’Innocenzio) To add to this disappointment, it turns out that my “Made in America” shirt is merely a technicality at best. While items advertised as “Made in the Good Ol’ USA” are technically constructed within the United States, the actual fabric of my shirt is liable to have been woven by children in Cambodia. (D’Innocenzio) Therein lies one of the major obstacles to purchasing ethical clothing. It is nigh impossible to verify where a piece of clothing and its fabrics come from.. Frequently, a clothing chain will contract a separate supplier in East Asia to create clothing products. Then, this supplier will subcontract other factories. Often, this chain of subcontraction is so large that the company who placed the original order is unaware of where their clothing order is being filled. In one particular instance, over 112 Bangladeshi workers died in the Tazreen factory fire as they supplied Wal-Mart with their in-house clothing brand. However, Wal-Mart had never contacted the Tazreen factory. In-fact, Wal-Mart had made a totally separate agreement for the supplier, Success Apparel, to fill this order. Success Apparel then proceeded to hire another company, Simco, who then contracted the order with the Tuba Group. Finally, the Tuba Group ordered the Tazreen factory to build the clothing – with Wal-Mart none the wiser (Hobbes)! So not only are we unable to verify the origins of our clothing, but neither are the companies selling it. Now the seemingly obvious solution to this accountability issue is for clothing companies to move their factories out of the third-world and back into the first-world. Unfortunately, this would imply that clothing companies cared enough about exploited workers to change anything. It was only for the threat of economic failure at the hands of the 90s sweatshop boycotts that companies like Nike officially banned child labor and poor ventilation in their overseas factories (Hobbes). And now, virtually none of these bans are enforced. The subcontraction rabbit hole and regulation runarounds enacted by factory managers perpetuate the necessary sweatshops of the past. Yes, necessary is the word being used, for these sweatshops are the building blocks for third-world countries to rise out of economic poverty. An economic poverty that must be defeated.
It is a nearly unfathomable idea – perhaps sweatshops are necessary and for the workers in them. The notion is certainly a tough pill to swallow. However, despite our uneasiness, there is a compelling argument to be in the favor of clothing sweatshops. In a country like Bangladesh, the average sweatshop worker earns on average more than two dollars daily. This is in contrast to the $1.25 earned by forty-three percent of all citizens in Bangladesh (Flows). And this is just the beginning according to economist Jeffrey Sachs. Sachs, an economist and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, believes that sweatshops, even ones that employ child labor, are the first steps towards modernizing third-world countries. This theory, one that relies on manufacturing jobs being a spark that ignites a country’s economy, is supported by historical evidence. The origin of booming economies in countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea can be traced back to the sweatshops and factories. This economic activity allowed the national income of the “Four Tigers” to climb from ten percent to forty percent of American incomes. (Myerson) This greater income naturally improves the quality of life for the entire population. For a more modern example, in Indonesia, industrialization has decreased the percentage of starving children by over twenty percent (Flows). In this regard, outsourced labor led to certain positive outcomes. However, I think it is important I make a clear point: exploited labor is not part of some Randian-esqu utopia. I am not speaking of disenfranchised workers pulling themselves by their bootstraps in a twisted perversion of the American Dream. I am speaking of seven-year olds weaving cotton in a collapsing factory and of pregnant woman being sexually harassed on a daily basis. The reality of the sweatshops in Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea was one of brutality, death, and exploitation; Brutality, death, and exploitation that is now faced in new countries such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.
Make no mistake, the economic benefit of sweatshops does not truly belay the hardships faced by workers. In 2011, one-hundred and twelve Bangladeshi workers were asphyxiated to death in the Tazreen factory fire after managers locked all exits (Hobbes). In 2014, over a dozen Cambodian garment workers demanding fair wages were executed by the military (Winn). On a daily basis, Chinese laborers suffer temperatures ranging from one-hundred to one-hundred seven degrees Fahrenheit in Uniqlo dyeing factories, and, as I speak, there are globally twenty-one million humans forced into virtual slavery (Chang). Imagine that the entire population of Texas were forced to work for slave wages and then consider this figure does not include those workers who are willingly working in sweatshops. The innumerable injustices faced by men, women, and children in the name of cheap production and clothing are enough to make me ill. They are enough to make any rational person ill – economic benefit be damned. And yet, I can say without a shred of doubt that these revelations will lead to nothing. Most people recognize that exploited labor is the bloody foundation for their jeans, underwear, and remarkably inexpensive socks. And they care. The popular and ineffectual boycott of sweatshops in the 90s that ended as soon as it began are testimony to this. They simply don’t care enough. Nowadays, telling the average consumer that 1,129 Bangladeshi citizens were killed in the Savar factory collapse will undoubtedly elicit an emotional response, but the probability of that same consumer changing their spending habits is little to none (Hobbes). C. Britt Beemer, the chair of America’s Research Group, an organization dedicated to interviewing consumers for various retailers, put its bluntly, “We have seen no consumer reaction to any charges about harmful working conditions” (D’Innocenzio).The direct effect of sweatshops on our own lives is little, and, for many people, this is enough reason to not bother with it. This is not a stunning revelation of human nature, and it is not a stunning revelation that the solution to sweatshop conditions is not going to come from the consumerism that dominates the first-world. Furthermore, it has been made painfully evident that clothing companies will not be the solution until they honestly audit and track the factories where their clothing is being made. So that leaves one final player: the government. It is up the governments of countries like Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos to reap the economic benefit of “sweatshops” while ending forced labor, slave wages, and deadly workplaces.
Internal governmental regulation presents itself to be the most logical solution to ending exploitative labor without annihilating economic activity. Look for no better example than the 3,000 inspectors of Brazil. By working with the 10,000 prosecutors in a functional governmental institution, these inspectors used the law at their disposal to force iron-ore companies to purchase legal timber from workers facing fair conditions. Within five years, the amount of illegal timber purchased in Brazil dropped from sixty percent to thirty percent. The wages and conditions of workers greatly increased and, unsurprisingly, higher-grade iron was being created. Workers were empowered without sacrificing economic activity. However, this kind of governmental intervention is impossible in countries like Bangladesh where there are 125 labor inspectors for 75 million workers. It is impossible in Cambodia where inspectors are paid half of what the workers they are supposed to protect (Hobbes). Lawmakers can pass legislation until they are blue in the face, but it does not mean anything if the laws can not be enforced. In the state of New York, during the early 1900s, legislators faced a similar issue when industrialists attempted to use legal loopholes to get around factory regulations. The state government swiftly responded by passing legislation that clearly defined a “factory” and, thus, empowered the Factory Investigation Commission to effectively due its job. Unsurprisingly, America did not enter into an economic downturn, and Frances Perkin, the head of the Factory Investigation Commission, deemed the legislation as the “turning point” in social responsibility for Americans (U.S. Department of Labor). This is simply another classic example of the power of the government. It might be difficult to imagine “backwater” countries enforcing such laws effectively, but, if it was possible in Brazil and the United States, it is entirely plausible that the future of exploited laborers lays in the hands of their respective governments. By no means will such change be easy, but, an honest attempt at fixing the problem is supremely superior than the current state of affairs, because, frankly, a change must be made.
Sweatshops and exploited labor may not touch our lives us directly, but they blacken every unethical clothing purchase we make. My beanie, your blouse, and her skirt are all dyed by blood. However, at the present time, the incentives faced by both consumers and clothing companies are not great enough for them to attempt to bring social change to millions. Therefore, it would appear the only savior in this light are governmental institutions and enforced regulations. True worker equality will only come when these governments have the ability to protect their workers while protecting the manufacturing that is necessary for economic growth.