New York Times‘ columnist Nicholas Kristof also writes a blog, On the Ground, where he often responds to reader feedback and posts additional material that doesn’t make it into print. I often learn more from these items than the published essays.
Like Saturday’s note on this column about misguided efforts to close down sweatshops in Africa. (Since a subscription is now required to read it, I’ll post the gist of it here:)
Well-meaning American university students regularly campaign against sweatshops. But instead, anyone who cares about fighting poverty should campaign in favor of sweatshops, demanding that companies set up factories in Africa. If Africa could establish a clothing export industry, that would fight poverty far more effectively than any foreign aid program.
[snip]
We in the West mostly despise sweatshops as exploiters of the poor, while the poor themselves tend to see sweatshops as opportunities.
On a street here in the capital of Namibia, in the southwestern corner of Africa, I spoke to a group of young men who were trying to get hired as day laborers on construction sites.
“I come here every day,” said Naftal Shaanika, a 20-year-old. “I actually find work only about once a week.”
Mr. Shaanika and the other young men noted that the construction jobs were dangerous and arduous, and that they would vastly prefer steady jobs in, yes, sweatshops. Sure, sweatshop work is tedious, grueling and sometimes dangerous. But over all, sewing clothes is considerably less dangerous or arduous — or sweaty — than most alternatives in poor countries.
After the column ran, one such “well -meaning university student,” also an organizer with United Students Against Sweatshops responded:
“Contrary to your characterization, USAS has always encouraged investment in the global South including and especially Africa . . . For us, worker organizing anywhere in the world is a good thing. Additionally, we never call for apparel boycotts unless we are explicitly asked to by workers at a particular factory. [emphasis added]This is, of course, exceedingly rare, because, as you so persuasively argued, people generally want to be employed.
“We agree with you that economic development is a good thing, and that work is often preferable to unemployment and indigence. After all, it is workers (with whom we are in regular contact) who inspire our activism.
I’m linking to the discussion because I think labor activists, students in particular, don’t get credit for what they actually do. The general public sees sensational news coverage about sweatshops on shows like Oprah or Dateline NBC and assumes that supporting labor activism=just refusing to buy anything made in China, Africa or India.
How many people know that the USAS doesn’t automatically support boycotts of companies that use sweatshop labor? Activists are not always in pursuit of the ‘perfect as the enemy of the good,’ as they are so often perceived.
{ 2 comments }
David 06.12.06 at 11:11 am
Sweatshops in a free-choice labor economy are often the lessor of two evils : employment under dispicable working conditions or no employment at all.
With that said, those are not the only two choices. Companies can treat their employees humanely and still make profits. Productivity per hour worked goes up, as well as the number of days worked (due to fewer health problems). Errors in manufacturing would likely go down as well.
Also, if a factory becomes known for treating its workers well compared to other factories in the economic region, then that factory will attract the best workers, again raising productivity.
There are indeed choices other than “exploitation vs. unemployment”. Therefor, protesting sweatshops is not as black and white of a statement as Kristof makes it out to be.
Rose Byrd 06.13.06 at 9:17 am
I agree with David. There are currently cybertech based customer support companies operating in various pockets of Appalachia who accomplish all of the following:
1) turn profits for the stockholders
2) provide excellent health and leave benefits
3) pay for all training of previously “unemployable” non-high school graduates
4) provide near state-of-the-art work facilities
5) contribue heavily to local and regional charitable activities
6) provide multiple avenues for advancement, childcare arrangements, etc.
This is all accomplished in counties where almost all other high tech companies refuse to even visit as possbile sites for new locations or relocatins. Maybe being owned by a Canadian parent company helps?
CEOs and governments have choices. The old 19th century myth that beneficent and benign employment practices automatically mean operating in the red is just that, a myth (read: a much over-worn excuse not to go back to the drawing board with a different mindset and work owner/management midnight oil instead of the sweat, health, and loss of family time of the workers.)
Comments on this entry are closed.