There is a consistent connotation of the word, “Solidarity”. Moreover is positive deviance, Why Sweat? Then there is also Amazon’s: Rising above Sweatshops, beyond Sweatshops among others upon the search of the term Global Sweatshops and Sweatshops on Google. Sweatshops’ environments have been criticized of being less than humane and are yet tools for globalization. Economists in the aforementioned regard seem to think that withdrawal of the practice is nonetheless not an optional undertaking.
Where, according to the likes of Hartman, and his paper on Positive deviance, the practices have been around for a hundred years and are therefore vital to poor country’s economics (Hartman, 2005). According to Hartman, the subsequent or the abrupt removal of the sweatshop practices will destabilize the poor country’s economies. Meanwhile, the declaration of Human Rights specifically referring to Arti
...cles 23 and 30 on the other hand expressly demonstrate the whole sweatshop industry as going against international law and standards.
This would therefore mean that they should be done away with (Nations, 2016). Sadly the perpetrators of the heinous act living within these “Poor” Jurisdictions’ social institutions have taken to the articles meaning that they are implied on them all. The same articles which relate to justice and favorable conditions, freedom from discrimination or racism, equal pay, joining of a trade union, and right to choosing the kind of employment among others, earlier mentioned. That is alongside the binding nature of the Declaration document from being assumed as implied by any state (Lendman, 2010). Among the cases to be noted is the collapse of the Bangladesh Rana Plaza and the China Yue Yuen shoe factories’ unfair remuneration and treatment of workers.
The Developin
serving the “Whims” of the developed Consumers. It is not unlike groups similar to Nike to outsource production to foreign jurisdictions, other than their own. This is especially when the jurisdiction provides a risk reward free venture for these organization like Nike. Moreover is because the factory taking up the tender from Nike usually bears all the risk. This would mean that when all goes wrong for the tender holder, the wrong doing does not necessarily retrace liability back to Nike. A good example is GAP and Old Navy according a protest cum fashion show on December of 2015.
The demonstration referred to pertained to the Cambodian workforce’s poor living and work conditions. To Nike or GAP for this matter, the tender holder gives Nike or GAP plausible deniability for any wrong acts done against the laborers concerning pay, poor work conditions or slavery by Law. Slavery in the aforementioned regard pertains to the murder of victims, kidnapping and torture or maiming by Law.
The scenario being used refers to Michigan. However, this did not happen quite literally in the US. In the USA, students’ demonstrations were at some point quite popular in requirement of concessions from organizations like Nike which resulted in Nike giving them. The reader should take note that these demonstrations are not happening recently. The demonstrations go as far back as the nineties. The reader can name the gatherings; the “United Students against Sweat Shops”, in conjunction with the “International Labor Rights Forum”, the “Workers’ rights consortium” among others (Dirnbach, 2016).
The demonstrations in the US were very many back then, and for the longest time corporates had to take responsibility, especially within the US
(Lendman, 2010). Nevertheless, with the advent of globalization many other firms not restricted to the aforementioned have adapted their work overseas to countries similar to Cambodia and like the aforementioned Bangladesh and China. While abroad the organizations are able to enjoy getting away with just about anything as the above refers. Take for instance the fact that there is very little to no discussion with workers about welfare in developing countries.
Moreover, is because many workers are uneducated and require the aid of translators (Dirnbach, 2016). Then there is the issue of audits. Where, many of the firms who are exposed to audits and reports, the results often never see the light of day after completion of the audit. Let alone the government or any interested groups having an overseeing influence on the industry being audited. However, this also only applied as far as situations where solidarity of workers was not demanded. Among the solidarity prepositioning in this case was the Yue Yuen shoe Factory.
The Yue Yuen factory workers problem was with regards to welfare. Perhaps is because workers were unable to pay insurance for having been too expensive. Nonetheless, through presumed channels like social media and world news, the factory workers learnt of their rights. The workers then did a solidarity march, and demanded to be compensated. By the time the government stepped in, the company was all too eager to negotiate, and from that point on it became precedence (ChinaLaborWatch, 2014).
In Bangladesh, Workers from the collapsed Raza Plaza also had their fair share of solidarity’s break through owing to the chaos caused by the collapsed building. The significance of the breakthrough also pertains to
the awareness of the workers after the chaos as well. Certainly this was surprising to the state after a long reign of impunity. The situation on the ground was when it was widely known that Bangladesh was a very dangerous a place to organize for a Trade Union Activism meeting. People back then got kidnapped, tortured and even murdered.
While the suspected perpetrators would not be brought to justice for unknown numbers of reasons which the paper would not like to speculate about. On point, the break through happened in April after the building killed over a thousand workers and was considered by far the deadliest catastrophic event in the history of Bangladesh. Interestingly the paper believes the apparent damage came more from the cost of items like a pair of jeans being under charged to relieve pressures on competition than the collapsed building.
The reason for believing the aforesaid is because getting a dime from international brands like Nike or even GAP is very challenging. Nonetheless, the collapsed building brought about a spark in Trade Union activism which is the only significant event that seems to have happened from the devastation. Since then, workers grew into believing they were safer knowing they had a voice and not just answering the whims of “Developed Countries’ Clients” (Dirnbach, 2016).
Certainly this is because there is no attention given to this kind of reasoning according to Webster’s argument on dimensions. Perhaps David Noble can deflect some light into how these dimensions work. Noble’s explanation is that technology is holding the world hostage like any religious affiliation does. To Noble, technology is an instrument of social change. For starters the world’s
economy is built on this same technology and same applies to production lines. People who cannot embrace change will have to be phased out to facilitate machinelike undertaking of manipulating data in offices and not from the sweat of ones brows. The progress may be minute at this time but it is also picking up in time.
This is significantly because nobody actually remembers much about the industrial age and people who already comprehend what they know about it according to Technological perspective of seeing things. People have instead moved to corrupt the sense idealism of the age to a great extent of currently inheriting ignorance, in the name of progress. Perhaps even, the welcoming of the post industrial age with a techno dogma will suffer a similar fate, as history has proven of many dogmas before the post- industrial age refers (Geraci, 2006).
In summation of the topic there are a great deal of questions which need answering from the stance the paper has chosen to undertake. The first being whether or not technology is an instrument of change. There is a lot of tossing around of this term between Bell, Webster, Noble and Dijk. All of whom have demonstrated why they all right in their own regards as social scientists. The paper will like to respect that to imagination or more futuristic deliberations. Even so, Technology should be embraced and not feared. This is the purpose of the paper, as it has openly touched on sweatshop workers and why Occupational perspective prepositioned by Bell is perfect for the situation.
Perhaps it is because they were educated and experienced a great deal or it is because they
sought better ways of dealing with the situation which was unheard off by mainstream from their home countries. Nonetheless, they did what was required using Technology, to the exclusion of the economy, by supporting a culture which was worthwhile and worked from a different locale other than their own to bring positive changes effected by information manipulation. Without further deliberations this is the paper on sweatshops in relation social theories.
