Child Labor and Sweatshops in the Fashion Industry
Many societies face the much overlooked problem of child labor and sweatshops in the fashion
industry. Recently, Americans were stunned to learn that their apple pie sweetheart, Kathie Lee Gifford
was associated with the exploitation of underage workers in Honduras. Gifford's story began the
resurgence of knowledge of the growing problem of sweatshops in today's society. Contrary to popular
belief, sweatshops still exist across the world in both third world countries and super powers such as
America. Sweatshops incorporate the inhumane exploitation of workers, many of whom are underage, by
providing extremely low wages as well as expecting unrealistic time commitments. In addition, the
workers lack benefits and very few sweatshops abide by the required health codes. Sweatshops are
obviously a growing problem that will not disappear with out change. Although the United States
government has begun to take steps to alleviate the problem, there must be an increase in both awareness
and legislation.
The belief that the archaic-like prisons known as sweatshops have been abolished, has been
proven false. They do, in fact, exist in not only foreign countries but also in America. The abuse of human
rights is demonstrated as
more than half the 22, 000 garment contractors in the United States don't pay workers minimum wage,
according to the Labor Department, and working conditions are deplorable...Americans were horrified to
learn last August of 72 Thai laborers imprisoned in El Monte, Near Los Angeles, who were forced to work
up to 22 hours a day, seven days a week at $1.60 an hour" (Yeh).
More evidence is uprooted daily which proves that the sweatshops that were once thought to be extinct are,
in fact, more active than ever.
The sweatshop problem has been acknowledged by the government as a definite problem in
today's society. President Clinton created a Task Force and signed a conduct code to help assuage the
situation of those entrapped in the sweatshops. The Congressional Mandate encourages a sense of 'social
responsibility" in order to eliminate "hazardous conditions to the physical and mental health of the child"
(The Apparel Industry and Codes of Conduct 2). However, according to David B. Wilson, a critic for
Labor Alerts1, the Task Force fell short of the intended goals. Due to the stubbornness of the fashion
industry, many of the terms agreed to are filled with loopholes. For example, the Congressional Mandate
dictates that "Companies shall pay the local minimum wage or prevailing industry wage" (Wilson 1).
However, third world countries often lack a minimum wage and those which do have a minimum wage are
set well below the basic needs in order to attract investment by foreign companies. Realistically, the
fashion industry merely complies with the substandard laws that have already been created. (Wilson 1)
The Task Force Agreement and Congressional Mandate ultimately result in the legalization of the practices
considered to be most inhumane, and they serve as a seal of approval for such practices. Although
Congress demonstrated the need for legislation, the result proves the need for increased regulation and
strict measures to ensure the fair and equal treatment of garment workers.
The Conduct Code created by Congress lacks the ability to eliminate garment industry
sweatshops because many of the policies were already implemented by certain companies such as Nike and
Gap. Although these companies abide by the Code, their factories are still considered sweatshops due to
inhumane standards. While the companies pay minimum wage, the allocated amount is not enough to
support basic needs. In addition, the companies neglect to enforce child labor laws and many underage
workers face a 60 hour work week which is considered too much by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1937.
This act "forbade child labor, guaranteed workers a minimum wage (at the time, 40 cents per hour), and set
a maximum 40-hour workweek for businesses operating in interstate commerce" (Johnson 703). It is
apparent that the newly implemented conduct code provides no real protection or compensation for
workers.
The Code of Conduct would be more effective if it followed the precedent set by the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1937. If the United States would simply follow the requirements set forth in the Fair
Labor Standards Act, companies would be forced to pay at least the set minimum wage of 1937, which was
40 cents per hour, were they to do business across state lines. Now, however,
apparel companies can continue to pay their workers 20 cents an hour for 'regular' 60-hour work weeks,
push them to do unlimited hours of 'voluntary' overtime beyond that, monitor conditions via accounting
firms which have no connections to the workers AND be rewarded for this behavior with a 'no sweatshop'
seal of approval (Wilson 1).
A fair payment system could be implemented by simply linking regulations from U.S. labor laws and
utilizing assistance of non-profit organizations.
Non-profit organizations should be closely involved in changing the industry by forming monitoring
groups. Such groups will need the weight of the United States government in the forms of tariffs and fines
to ensure that factories maintain acceptable standards. With the support of the government, non-profit
organizations should be able to transfer funds from lobbying Congress to actually monitoring businesses.
By implementing these human rights organizations workers would be encouraged to step forward. At
present, "employees working in repressive situations are unlikely to speak openly to representatives of
firms which are answerable only to the apparel companies" (Wilson 1). This would prove more effective
than the current method of hired independent monitors as set forth in Clinton's Code of Conduct. (Reuter
1).
Besides the humanitarian and moral arguments surrounding sweatshops, economically elimination of
sweatshops is feasible and ultimately profitable. Through private company regulations set forth in 1993,
Reebok has been able to effectively monitor its factories without suffering a loss of profit. Reebok proves
that there is hope for the improvement of the lives of millions of workers. (Nifong 2)
Economists also argue that the elimination of sweatshops will boost economies by increasing
personal income. According to the founder of capitalism, Adam Smith, the employer as well as the
economy benefits from paying suitable wages:
As, while he is preparing and bringing the goods to market, he advances to his workmen their wages, or
their subsistence; so he advances to himself, in the same manner, his own subsistence, which is generally
suitable to the profit which he may reasonably expect from the sale of his goods. (Knoebel 172)
As personal income rises, economies become more independent. As workers earn greater incomes, they
become able to reintroduce money into the economy that was previously reinvested abroad by foreign
companies. It is in this sense that third world countries will become self sufficient because their workers
have money to support the economy.
While both the economy and society stand to gain from the abolition of sweat shops, governments
and the fashion industry fail to address the problem adequately. Perhaps government sponsored
monitoring would be an effective first step in ameliorating the plight of the workers. Presently, only a few
companies recruit independent monitors, which are less than effective in controlling the activities of the
sweat shops. Lobbyists could channel energy and funds into monitoring and creating more solutions to the
problem of sweatshops. "Many on the Task Force support monitoring by human rights groups...but the
industry side favors using accounting firms" (Nifong 2). The two sides, made up of textile companies and
human rights groups, are currently in the midst of discussion regarding a compromise on how accounting
firms and human rights groups will work together.
The key to the success of the solution lies in the area of enforcement to ensure that humane standards are
upheld. Union leader Jay Mazur states that there has been "very significant progress...Now that all has to
be translated into reality" (Nifong 6). The dissolution of sweat shops requires strict laws and cooperation
of the fashion industry. The combination of humanitarian rights groups and the United States government
forming monitoring groups is essential. By throwing the weight of the United States government behind
non-profit organization monitors, human rights will become a priority of the business world. Research has
shown that eliminating sweatshops is beneficial not only to the workers but also to society. Greater
amounts of money that remain within a nation's market ensure economic growth. Providing workers with
sufficient wages will empower them to reinvest in their countries. It is by these means that lesser
developed nations can demand the comparative advantage found within their labor supply.
Bibliography
About the Author
Back to The Full Cup
Send comments to:
kirsten.wong@asu.edu