Problems overseas, at home stem from common travesty

Thursday, February 25, 1999

Problems overseas, at home stem from common travesty

OPPRESSION: Labor protection would finally stop exploitation of
workers in poorer countries

A woman rises before sunlight to work until after the sun sets
for less than $3.00 a day in a sweatshop. A young child is locked
in a sweatshop laboring until she passes out. A load of boxes falls
on a man injuring him, yet he receives no compensation.

The conditions in sweatshops are blatant violations of the
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These
dehumanizing factories are rampant in developing countries and are
even reported in the United States. There is no justification for
their existence.

According to the National Consumer League’s website, "a
sweatshop exists if there is: child labor, forced or compulsory
labor, exposure to dangerous and life threatening conditions,
illegal hours and wages, physical punishment and humiliation for
mistakes, and firing for trying to organize and bargain
collectively."

Proponents of these virtual prisons say that they are needed in
third world countries because they help to develop the economy.

Their claim is that the people will starve to death if these
jobs were not available to them. Just because these people are at
the mercy of an industry for their survival does not mean that they
should be treated like animals.

Many people point out that sweatshops were present in the United
States long ago, and that they were necessary for the development
of our economy. Certainly we do not need to exploit workers for our
stability now. But there is a serious concern that many factories
in America might be sweatshops, and one can only ask "How?"

Sociologist Robert Ross, chairman of the Clark Sociology
Department conducted a study to answer this question. The rise in
the number of sweatshops has been attributed to an influx of
immigrants.

Ross found that this is part of the reason – but more
importantly, imports from low wage countries are affecting the U.S.
market. He wrote, "These imports preponderantly come from poor
nations, particularly where workers are poor and their rights are
repressed." ("Sounding the Alarm About Sweatshops," Katherine
Chesley).

Because manufacturers like Disney, Esprit, Guess, Nike, JC
Penny, K-Mart, Wal-Mart and Victoria’s Secret are choosing
contractors in poor countries, contractors in the United States
must lower their wages to compete. Exploitation on one continent
creates exploitation on another. It is a cycle, and it is
vicious.

It is very easy to dismiss this issue as another unfortunate,
yet inevitable, part of life. That is a cop-out attitude. There is
something that can be done to correct these atrocities.

The enforcement of the Fair Labor Standard Act would greatly
alter the situation. Also, corporations must be certain that the
contractors they employ pay a living wage to their workers.

Suppressing workers right to form unions is most beneficial to
corporations, which exploit disoriented individuals. In the Feb. 8
edition of "Human Rights for Workers," the editorial states that
corporations who are allowed to operate "union-free" are also free
of, "sexual harassment lawsuits, anti-discrimination laws, labor
inspections, courts that enforce laws and environmental
restrictions." As Americans, we like to think that we are isolated
from such violations. But if standards are lower in the rest of the
world, why should employers here be exempted?

Granted, we have laws which are designed to protect workers, but
that does not mean that they are upheld. It took many tragedies for
workers’ rights to be implemented in the United States as well.

Many people died in American sweatshops before any actions were
taken. In 1911, 500 women, mostly immigrants of Jewish background,
died in the deadliest factory fire in the history of New York City,
at the Triangle Shirtwaist Company.

The women had been locked in the building so that they would be
forced to work. When the fire began and spread through the fabric
in the workplace, the workers panicked and fled in a frenzy.

Many died when the rear fire escape collapsed, and the other
women lost their means to escape. Some attempted to flee by sliding
down elevator cables, but lost their grip. The fire department
arrived quickly but found it hard to work around the dead bodies
laying on the ground – victims who had jumped from the
building.

In 15 minutes, 146 women had died. After all of this, there were
still those who defended the factory’s right to operate without
government interference.

(More information for this can be found at
www.yale.edu/yup/ENYC/ triangle_shirtwaist.html.)

Even if you say to yourself that these situations are no longer
present in America, we must prevent such atrocities from happening
in other nations that do not have our present safety
regulations.

Some people ask what right we have imposing Western standards in
other countries. This question is always amusing to me because it
reflects the hypocrisy of Western people.

When it is advantageous to impose our standards for economic or
political gains it is acceptable – but when it is to our assumed
detriment, we must consider the rights the others have to retain
their culture.

It would be, in fact, better for working class people everywhere
if there was a universal standard of workers’ rights.

I am also tired of hearing complaints about "yet another article
on human rights." Writing about injustices and inequities wears
away at you, since no one wants to discuss these issues if they are
not directly affected. So why the hell am I crusading for justice
and equality?

A lot of people have told me that I am lying or misinformed,
that somehow I am distorting the facts to create an image of
victimization. In the eyes of my critics, I am a narrow-minded
crybaby who sees all non-white, non-rich people as victims – but in
no way do I think that we are powerless. Nor do I believe "the man"
is responsible for all of society’s ills. I do, however, believe in
accountability.

Those who oppress others should be held accountable for the
detrimental consequences their actions have on the lives of others,
just as oppressed people are accountable to become self-determined
in order to help themselves. I speak for marginalized people. I am
not only referring to black people – I mean all people whose lives
are affected by institutionalized oppression.

For those of you who are not willing or not ready to hear the
voice of these people, I pity you. For if we are ever to achieve
the colorless, classless society you so adamantly believe in, we
must first be willing to face the reality of racism, sexism and
classism. Those of us fighting for human rights will not be
silenced. In speaking of the horrors we face, we are heading
towards liberation.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]