Is it unethical to wear clothing you suspect is made in sweatshops?

Many popular clothing brands (Levis, etc.) have been confirmed to have some contracted factories which operate with sweatshop conditions.

Do you think it is unethical to wear clothing that you suspect is made in sweatshops, or is it simply an inevitable fact of the economy that you will come into products made in sweatshops or under unfair labour conditions?

My office IT environment is a sweatshop. I think its unethical for my users to save stuff to their H: drives

Seriously, it all depends, IMHO. But mostly - no, I don't think its unethical.

We've got great working standards in most Western first-world countries. If I grew up in Nicaragua, and working in a sweatshop was the only way I could support my family, I'm not sure how I'd feel about some Gringo pushing my employer to close down my place of work out of 'ethics'.

The definition of 'Norm' is cultural. And I'm uncomfortable applying my definition of morality to a culture I'm unfamiliar with.

Now, if Nike was literally using slave labor to make their products, that'd be a different matter alltogether in my eyes.

The issue anymore isnt do you support it, but really where do you go to find ones that aren't? Even if it says "made in the USA" doesn't mean it's not made in a sweat shop.

For instance, The United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, (a chain of 14 tropical islands in the western Pacific Ocean) is exempt from some federal laws, including key labor and immigration laws. As a result, a number of garment factories with wages around half of the U.S. minimum wage have been set up on the largest island (Saipan) to supply the U.S. market.

Gap, Liz Claiborne, Wal-mart, Old Navy, JCPenny, Ralph Lauren, Abercombie and Fitch, Brooks Brothers, and Banana Republic have factories over there, just to name a few.

Personally I think this entire business is unethical. But this American congress won't do a damn thing about it and obviously the American public don't care that female workers in Saipan are forced to have abortions or lose their jobs.

*edit* Travis... Workers in Saipan are slave laborers. They pay government officals in China fees as much as $6000 or $7000 to even get jobs on Saipan, putting them deep in debt and beholden to both factory bosses and the officals in China. These people are locked in rat infested barracks, locked behind barbed wire.

I am just shocked that on five votes, I am the first one to think it's unethical. I don't think you people really know what a "sweatshop" is, or how many little women and kiddies get beaten, raped, injured and/or burned alive in them each year.

This company is 100% sweatshop free.

If you want shoes, here is a 100% sweatshop free shoemaker.

"Shocked?" C'mon, this is America.

I know Chance but I like various popular brands, like Guess.

Sweatshops are terrible but many many other industries are doing the same thing, I mean your broom could have been made in a sweatshop, components of your computer, etc.

I'm voting yes. I'm a member of Oxfams "Make Trade Fair" campaign, and have read countless articles and heard countless stories of rape, beatings and severe exploitation all for the benefit of a cheap pair of jeans. I try whenever possible, to buy things which are locally made (in my community), or from companies who practice fair trade, to bring down the number of purchases which involve worker expolitation. It's nearly impossible to do this for every purchase, but I think it's important to at least attempt to not participate in this abuse, whenever one can. Finding out more about the campaign, or companies which have, and don't have a fair trade policy, can be done by contacting Oxfam or visiting www.maketradefair.com.

It may be a 'sweatshop' in the eyes of Westerners but it is food in the table to someone for whom there may be no other work available.

Have Levis or Nike shut down their factories and how the heck are these people going to buy rice for their kids?

Unethetical, maybe. Life saving for some, definitely.

It is often too simple to look at the world through idealistic eyes while sitting in the comfort of a middle or upper class home in Western Europe or America.

Long hours, abuse, sexual demands... It may seem like 'sweatshop' conditions to the privileged world intellectual elite, but it is every day reality to 95% of the world's workers.

I was just answering your question. I didn't even think to take into consideration the value of a brand name because there is none. :hrug::

People in third world countries need to eat. Rather than sling an AK-47 to protect against yet another rebellion uprising, or the secret police, or the local warlord, they can stitch shoes for a dollar a day and get food on the table.

On top of that, you're not going to stop the desire for westerners' want of cheap goods. Wal-mart is successful precisely because Americans buy in bulk, in cheap, and cheaply made shit at that.

On top of THAT, the ever-increasing globalization trend will mean that manufacturing jobs will continue to go to poorer countries, due to no tariffs/cheaper wages/lesser regulations.

It's inevitable in today's world. Sorry.

LF

That is completely ridiculous.

Inevitability is a cynical justification for inaction and laziness. If women, minorities, and gays had taken that attitude in their "day's world" then they'd still be second class citizens.
The problem to overcome isn't inevitability, it is two things: awareness and redefining the cool.

It is not enough to complain about the problem, people must be offered consumer choices to correct it. That is a big part of awareness. For instance, in the case of coffee I know that there are brands like allegro that have business models that emphasize fair prices (exceeding standard), and environmental and worker health over bottom-line profit. That doesn't mean we pay them what we'd pay in the states, but we would pay them a fair degree more than they could make normally in their own region (which would still be nothing to us). The same kind of business models could be done with clothing companies, if they are not already, and the costs could be passed on to the consumer who would be willing to pay more for a brand name that places a priority on those business models that care rather than just placing a priority on selling overpriced clothes and maximizing the bottom line.

Branding trends follow what is cool. If we redefine the cool, as has already been done with women, gays, and ethnic minorities (for example people actually stop to consider if they should use "she" or "he" in print now and you see more brands marketing a world-conscious product rather than a strictly domestic image), then companies will feel consumer pressure to adopt business models that treat their workers responsibly and perhaps even promote transparency of their business practices to make their consumers feel like they are part of a responsible brand lifestyle.

Inevitability is slave talk. As consumers, we have the power to change corporate practices with our purchasing habits and demands.

O rly

I think Nike still has sweatshops, as does Kathie Lee. Martha Stewart still is worth several hundred million dollars, even after being convicted of fraud. Millions of people spend billions shopping at Walmart, even though they are notorious for shipping thousands of manufacturing jobs overseas because it's cheaper/less regulated.

Sounds like consumers like cheap products at cheap prices, and damned if they care where it comes from.

Yes, it does sound like that. That's why I said what I did.

*Companies like American Apparel wouldn't exist or make a profit if there weren't people that cared. What you are pointing out is a trend- not an inevitability. I'm also not sure exactly how that is a refutation of my assertion that we can change the future, but it does make me think you don't care to read and just want to argue.

There is an alternative aside from either "buy into the exploitation because it makes no difference" and "they'll starve if we don't buy the products or close the businesses down". Chances' post about awareness is spot on. Consumer pressure DOES make a difference. One example, was in Australia recently. Coles have agreed to purchase Fair Coffee, and Woolworths have done the same. This has only come about, because these large corporations have found a market. Consumer awareness lead to this new market.
When businesses who don't adopt fair trade start finding their sales are going down because large corporations such as Woolworths are buying the competitors product, they will have to adopt different policies; and they have. As people are becoming more aware of the slave trade, more people are prepared to pay that little bit more, to help stop it.

Lets not go too far, might as well start boycotting restaurants, hotels, stop buying USA grown fruits and vegetables, quit using landscapers, etc., etc., etc.

Look around and you will notice so many businesses where illegal alliens work for less than minimum wage, work long hours without overtime pay, in dangerous conditions, or for abusive supervisors that threaten to call the INS if they do not do what they are told. Millions are exploited daily in this country, right under our own noses, but most refuse to see it.

Want fair? Buy only "Made in America" products that are certified to be union made. We will see how fast demands for fairness are silenced when people have to pay $2 for a banana instead of 25 cents, or $10 for a t-shirt instead of $2.

Why do wealthy intellectuals always presume to know or understand how it is to be dirt poor?

Why not visit one of those sweatshops in China, the Phillipines, or Mexico and ask the workers if the prefer to work 12 hour days for $5 a day, or have no job and watch your children starve, and see what they say.

Yes, just like all the suburban soccer-moms driving their gas-guzzler SUV's with the "Save the Artic" or "Stop the War in Iraq" bumper stickers...

People bitch an complain until they have to do something about it or are inconvenienced, then silence reigns.

Perhaps I wasn't terribly clear in my previous posts. The arguement that workers would prefer to work 12 hours a day for $5 rather than nothing at all is valid. I'm not refuting that. What I'm refuting, is the arguement that it's ONE or THE OTHER. (Slave wages or starvation). It doesn't have to be either. The above logic is similar to "Don't challenge slavery, because ending it will bring about starvation if slaves are no longer "employed"". Sweat shops are beginning to close down, for a variety of reasons. (Unfortunately very slowly). I cited one in the previous post. Organisations such as Oxfam, are liaising with private busineses and have had some success in pressuring them to adopt fair practices, particularly in the area of major sporting events. As a result, workers are getting more pay.
I am not advocating that sweat shops be closed down, (thus causing a large number of people to be unemployed). I'm advocating that the system change through governmental, commercial and consumer pressure. And it's happening. Twenty years ago, the majority of westerners hadn't even heard the term sweat shops, and even today, many continue to not have a moderate understanding of how they operate. However, people ARE beginning to make choices about buying clothes, adventure gear, coffee etc from businesses who adopt fair practices with their workers. Changes are excruciatingly slow, but I certainly wouldn't opt for "Lets not change it, at least they get SOMETHING"