Talk:Sweatshop

Rewrite from the Source, not an Opinion Page from Fox News.com

The Radley Balko opinion page was the source for this: " In addition, sometimes when anti-sweatshop activists were successful in getting sweatshops to close, some of the employees who had been working in the sweatshops ended up starving to death, while others ended up turning to prostitution. [3]" Radley writes: "One German company buckled under pressure from activists, and laid off 50,000 child garment workers in Bangladesh. The British charity group Oxfam later conducted a study on those 50,000 workers, and found that thousands of them later turned to prostitution, crime, or starved to death." We should have Oxfam's account as the source. And considering that Oxfam's views on sweatshops are actually these:

"Fewer than half of the women employed in Bangladesh’s textile and garment export sector have a contract, and the vast majority get no maternity or health coverage – but 80 per cent fear dismissal if they complain. " http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/papers/downloads/trading_rights_summary.pdf

...one should insist on get the sourced information. This 'report' from Oxfam has been picked up by the Hoover Institute and pro-sweatshop blogs, but the report itself... I haven't found it anyway. And who is the "one German garment maker"?

The other links provided within the opinion piece (like the UNICEF 1997 Report) don't lead to anything with validates the claims. Radley's piece reads: "UNICEF reports that an international boycott of Nepal’s child-labor supported carpet industry in the 1990s forced thousands child laborers out of work. A large percentage of those child laborers were later found working in Nepal’s bustling sex trade."

He is willfully obscuring the summary of the report.

This is what you can find in the report titled "THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S CHILDREN": "Nepalese carpet factories, where 50 per cent of the workers are estimated to be children,are common sites of sexual exploitation by em- ployers as well as recruitment centres for Indian brothels."

Remove the Fox News.com opinion link and provide uncorrupted sources that promote sweatshops, not Oxfam and UNICEF.

Added POV tag

Half-way through the article I started questioning the apparent slant, especially when sardonically referring to "sweatshops", including quotations as if such a thing does not exist.

(Mealkman (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

cant we all just get along

I have noticed some massive edits in the history log here... and most of them do not even state the reason for the edit. I feel kind, of, you know, sad, and depressed, about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article reeks of bias. I'm not purporting for sweatshops one way or the other, I was just puzzled there was no mention of the controversies surrounding sweatshops. Any 'con' arguments were quickly countered by a 'pro' that proved that the con was actually ineffectual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.85.102 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias

link1 link2 ink3 link4 lik5 link6 link7 AND LINK IS THE BEST DOG IN THE WORLD!!!!!! While I agree that overseas labor in developing countries can be good in some instances (for the reasons you've described), and anti-sweatshop protesters have sometimes misunderstood the issue, to so dramatically downplay the human rights abuses that go on there seems absurd. Also, you wrote: "On three documented occasions, well meaning but ignorant anti-sweatshop activists have unintentionally caused increases in childhood prostitution." This is quite a leap in ethics and logic! You're placing the blame for the sweatshops closing squarely on the shoulders of the protesters--whose goal was not to have the plants closed down, but to have the workers treated decently. The companies refused. If you are going to call anti-sweatshop protesters "ignorant", why not call the factory owners "greedy"?

The paragraph on debt bondage and human trafficking is necessary and informative, but again, I notice that this paragraph is buried. Overall, I would like to see the bias taken out of this article; if there is going to be an "Arguments for Sweatshops" section, to be fair, there has to be a corresponding section titled "Arguments Against Sweatshops". Otherwise, this reads like a PR piece from Disney that is making only the most essential concessions on the "sweatshop" issue. Angry seraph 13:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Michael HI!!!

There are two sections, one in favor of sweatshops, and one against sweatshops. However, the section in favor sweatshops presents factual evidence that sweatshops make the workers better off, while the section against sweatshops is about the feelings and emotions of people who live thousands of miles away from the sweatshops. I found dozens of sources that compared the wages of sweatshop workers to the wages that they were paid at their previous jobs, and in every single case, the sources showed that the sweatshops paid higher wages. That's why the article is the way it is. The article reports verifiable facts. That's how wikipedia works. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this page is a little partisan, too. Just look at the amount of supporting facts in the pro part and the con part. Anyone who reads this article would convert themselves into pro-sweatshop-ism.Rttrt (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the person who added most of the supporting facts to the pro-sweatshop section. I did a huge amount of research on this subject, and I found many dozens of sources. Every single source that I found, which compared the pay of the sweatshop workers to the pay that they had received at their previous jobs, showed that the sweatshops paid higher wages. I could not find even one source that showed the sweatshops paid lower wages. Given that I found dozens of sources, and they all said the same thing, I am inclined to believe those sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

After all this time, no one has been able to find any sources that prove that sweatshops make people worse off, compared to their previous jobs. The article is supposed to reflect the evidence and the sources. It is not my fault that all the evidence and sources prove that sweatshops make people better off, compared to their previous jobs. Apparenlty, you want me to find evidence and sources that do not exist. I can't do that. Wikipedia does not allow imaginary sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's because no one other than you has cared enough to edit this article since The 15th of February. It's such a contentious issue it's difficult to find articles that aren't vehemently for or against sweatshops.--BLaafg (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Little (if any) or no economic growth" - !!!

"Most underdeveloped countries have...little (if any) economic growth"!! Care to substatiate that ridiculous claim? Leaving aside the whole issue of the pejorative connotations of "under-developed" (now usually replaced with "developing" for that reason) the statement that such countries have little or no economic growth is patently ridiculous. Most developing countries (and in particular the ones - who host sweatshop labour - that this artical applies to) have percentage GDP growth rates similar to if not in excess of developed countries. Sweatshops don't even help, they just make people be hated more and more.

Etymology

take a look at this: http://www.sweatshop.co.uk/ does this store have anything to do with the etymology of the term? or was the founder an oblivious idiot?

history

The history section is pretty long and detailed but doesn't tell us the important things. Like, when did people start using the term, and why? SecretaryNotSure 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I am a new user here, and I thought I could help out a little, I've written the initial entry about sweatshops. This has almost immediately been seriously improved by other volunteers :)

roan 12:59 Oct 10, 2002 (UTC)

We all have our talents. Those who cannot contribute original material often spellcheck, punctuate, copy-edit, link and so on. Cheers! --Ed Poor

---

Question: the text now contains "pay their workers a living wage. ". Shouldn't this be "a decent living wage", or is my English not good enough? roan

---

Oops: living wage, n. : A wage sufficient to provide minimally satisfactory living conditions. Also called minimum wage. roan

Edit

Pranav don't be gay

I have removed the following paragraph for the time being. It uses a weasel term (recent studies) and should be substantiated with a reference before being re-added to the article.

In fact, recent studies demonstrate the power sweatshops have to raise wage levels and improve working conditions in the developing world; sweatshops actually provide workers with a better option than what would otherwise be available to them.

Also, if this paragraph is added, the counter-argument should be added, since many sweatshops fail to pay a living wage... There are many kinds of sweatshops out there... Kokiri 10:42, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV?

How was my edit POV? It was mostly just a rearrangement of what was already there plus the addition of them being in developing countries, which, as far as I know, is true. Ben davison 16:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The original version gave purely factual information in the first sentence, and then added that it carries negative connotations in the second. Your edit simply stated those connotations as a clear-cut fact. Subtle, but POV. I've reviewed your changes and re-implimented some of the good ones, like the wikification of certain words. --Icarus 04:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

'Subtle'? So subtle that even I didn't notice! Just to confirm, I am not in the business of POVing articles on purpose. Hey ho, back to work...Ben davison 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I figured it was probably unintentional. POV-pushers are usually anything but subtle! --Icarus 06:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The POV seems to be that these terrible industries are "out there" or there may be one in your neighborhood, and they must be erradicated. There's other points of view on the issue. Like, for example, some poor countries have started factories and compete with very rich people in the U.S., and the very rich people say "those are sweatshops!" -- but really, they just want to get rid of the competition. There must be some way to tell the balanced story... I'll have to give this some pondering. SecretaryNotSure 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the reference to Bangladesh. I looked at the article and it said nothing about sweatshop labor. This article seems pretty biased in favor of sweatshop labor in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neerurocks (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

pro-sweatshop movement

• i like that this part is on the article. maybe it could move to be included with the criticism section, because really the explanation of this movement uses the market criticsism. maybe we could split this page into two sections, a pro-sweatshop and an anti-sweatshop. or something.

Clean Up

This article needs to cleaned up. It's been edited several times (I've added some needed material on the history of the prospect) but it still needs to have a better flow and more clarity.

True that. However, I don't see much chance of this article ever becoming NPOV. After all, the title itself is a pejorative, which gives the game away. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you prefer to call it? The name "sweat shop" would only be a pejorative if it weren't an accurate description. Same goes for "puppy mill," or "slaver." Exploding Boy 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The article currently defines a sweatshop as "a factory in which people often work for a very small wage or doing piece work." I would call that either a "low-wage factory" or a "piece work factory". However, in the former case, it's still not a very good title, because we aren't given any context in which the wage is considered very small. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

So it's a content problem, not a naming problem. It could be fixed by finding a better definition of "sweatshop" and rewriting the article accordingly. Exploding Boy 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if the definition is wrong, that's the first thing that should be fixed. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweatshop was coined as a pejorative to describe the piecework factories of the pejoratively-named sweating system. I'll try to rework the opening. However, as of this date, this article seems entirely captive to the current campaigns against the garment sourcing practices of famous US brands, rather than an NPOV examination of the causes, history, and effects of sweatshops. I've fixed one specific ahistorical reference (to the Industrial Revolution, instead of the Second Industrial Revolution). Any cleanup should adress the ahistorical tone of the whole article. Please see the article on piece work for a historical treatment that maintains an NPOV (if I do say so myself). KevinCuddeback 15:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I have undertaken a major reorganization and NPOV attempt. Please discuss here or have at it with your own edits. KevinCuddeback 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is now approaching Wikipedia standards. If someone seconds that, I'd encourage them to remove the cleanup block.KevinCuddeback 13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweatshop picture

What's up with the sweatshop picture? I was expecting to see people SWEATING and being beaten. That looks better than the some of the place I've worked. RJII 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey! I just found something. I've never added a photo before. I'm paranoid about copywright laws. -deadmissbates I like to wear flowers in my hair, i like to dance with socks and i want to kiss all the boys.

Wal-mart

This article says that Wal-Mart is a major retailer of sweatshop products (at least, that what it implies). I saw a Radio Canada documentary which seemed to claim that Wal-Mart has a policy which precludes the sale of sweatshop products. Can anyone verify this? Srnec 22:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here is an article about Wal Mart sweatshops in China. It says, "Between 1990 and 2002 more than 174 million people escaped poverty in China, about 1.2 million per month. With an estimated $23 billion in Chinese exports in 2005 (out of a total of $713 billion in manufacturing exports), Wal-Mart might well be single-handedly responsible for bringing about 38,000 people out of poverty in China each month, about 460,000 per year." Grundle2600 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sweatshops and Slavery

Someone's replaced the original text there with "Homo", or was the text initially there and this is just me? It looks suspicious at any rate. Thank you.

Chris.

It was just replaced again with all sorts of HTML gobbledegook. Fixed it. Ethan Mitchell 01:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The "are sweatshops good or bad" discussion and its POV baggage seems to be creeping up into this section. I'm cutting it back out. Ethan Mitchell 01:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ethan, I think that the issue of sweatshops and slavery represents a decent transition from the definitional/historical part of the article to the pro/con part of the article. I think that it is fair to say that the abolitionist sentiment against sweatshops is both very old and yet recourse to "slavery" charges is too like recourse to "Hitler" comparisons (used to close discussions prematurely). As such, the Slavery issue has too much baggage to be addressed up in the History section, and yet too historical to be relegated down to the pro/con section. Whether you agree there or not, I think you have to agree that the article cannot be simply left with the strange fragment in this section, and the general linkage of sweatshops, human trafficking, and slavery has to be addressed somewhere here.KevinCuddeback 04:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is that? There is no connection between the concepts of sweatshops and slavery. Salvor Hardin 06:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It seems to me that slavery is on the far end of a continuum of worker/"employer" relationships, on which sweatshop is toward that end but not quite as far as slavery. I am talking about sweatshops as a meaningful term, not the common usage where sweatshop is simply a pejorative the user invokes to condemn things of which he doesn't approve (for example, describing Silicon Valley employers as sweatshops because the person despises having to work 10-12 hours a day, no matter that they are working in an air-conditioned office and making a 6 figure income). Still, slavery should remain a minor part of the article, though not so minor as Salvor Hardin just made it ;~) Ehusman 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin, I think the new placement makes a good deal of sense. The point that I think is worth capturing (and I think it is watered down a bit here) is that sweatshops played an important role in the abolition movement's ultimate inability to come up with a working definition of slavery. They were one of several "limit cases" for labor exploitation, and arguably the most important one.

Salvor- I am aware of and am fairly sympathetic to the argument that sweatshops can be a positive force. There are also arguments that slavery can be a positive force. But those are all POVs. The fact is that the definitional boundary between slavery and certain kinds of 'voluntary' labor is in dispute, and always has been in dispute, and the article needs to reflect that. Ethan Mitchell 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, my personal POV is that sweatshops are a force for good when and if freely chosen, but I also believe that there are plenty of "employers" who are essentially using impressment and debt bondage to staff their sweatshops, and the free marketeer in me recoils from both the pro movement when it overlooks the (limited) cases of involuntary servitude, and the anti movement when they end up driving kids to prostitution and rock-crushing. It really had me wishing there was an entry on Free to Choose (the book), and not just Free Will. With that, I've just completed another stab at keeping all the slavery history (right down to informed consent) without having it in a separate section where it always seem to scream "Sweatshops are Slavery" no matter how it was written. It seems to me that it belongs as an underbelly caveat as the History section ends. I also worked it back in in the Anti-movement part. I also really like the way that Ehusman put it above. The anti-sweatshop movement has a rich and varied history that, I think, really helps explain what sweatshops are, what perceptions are, and why the whole subject is "important." KevinCuddeback 04:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there are two types of people in the world: those who see the difference between an employee and a slave as an qualitative difference, and those who see it as purely quantitative. I'm afraid I'm not sure what the best way to express this in the article is. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello there I love you good points!!

--

Greetings all. One glaring error on this page is in the following sentences:

"Defenders would cite purchasing power parity studies in defense of sweatshop wage levels. For example, the $0.15 that a Honduran worker might be paid to produce a designer-brand shirt, is comparable, in terms of purchasing power, to $3.00 in the United States."

This flatly not true. Using the purchasing power parity method, the $0.15 U.S. that a Honduran worker makes to produce the shirt would be equivalent in purchasing power terms to about $0.45 cents in the U.S., not anywhere near $3.00.

Kmart

could someone please edit the section or add a *clear* foot note to the section that says kmart supports Sweetshops? Because there are other stores by the same name in other countries, eg Kmart in Australia is a owned by Coles Group lmt. Which obvioly have differnt policies to the US. If no one has commented on this by the time i view this page again (could be a few weeks) I'll just plain remove it, citing this explanation. m'kay? Oxinabox1 10:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

the sweatshopwatch.org link in the external links section

when i clicked on this link, a virus (downloader) was caught by norton antivirus protection

furthermore, if you google this site you will see that the google search engine identifies it as a website that can be harmful to your computer

i suggest this link -- sweatshopwatch.org -- be removed immediately so as to prevent the further spread of this malware!

thanks Farichard 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to improve the anti-sweatshop section

I added a tag that says it needs more sources.

Also, this section doesn't have any sourced examples of sweatshops making workers worse off, compared to their previous jobs. Instead, the entire section is about the feelings and emotions of the people who oppose sweatshops. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about facts, not about feelings and emotions. Where is the evidence that sweatshops pay workers less, instead of more, than what the workers made at their previous jobs? Where is the evidence that adopting sweatshops made any country poorer, instead of richer? The article doesn't have any. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the section is very cohesive, and jumps back and forth between talking about legal sweatshops in other countries, to illegal underground sweatshops (and does so deceptively). I think we should make two section, arguments for and arguments against sweatshops. Austin512 (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article did previously have separate sections for that, but someone has since moved all that info into the history section, which caused that section to dominate the article. I have just restored the separate sections. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who added citations. I have just removed the citation tag. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What History?

SecretaryNotSure wrote:

===history===

The history section is pretty long and detailed but doesn't tell us the important things. Like, when did people start using the term, and why?  :SecretaryNotSure 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

but there's no history of any kind here -- It's all contemporary. Surely this article vitally needs a history section? Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone back and found the history section SecretaryNotSure was referring to. It looks pretty good, although it could use better referencing. I don't know why it was ever removed, and if there was any explanation on this page I missed it. So I have reposted it into this article. I strongly recommend keeping a history section.Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) [Insert non-formatted text here][[Link title]] but the cow was able to get rites.

One reason the history section was so long is because other sections were combined into it. I restored that info into their respective separate sections. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)