alternative jobs for sweatshop workers..?

[R_P_A_S]

whenever I get into it with people about sweatshop labor, and exploitation.. they always tell me this bullshit.. "well to those people thats a lot of money, in those 3rd world countries"- Like when we talk about how little they get paid..

or when I talk about the horrible slave like working hours and terrible conditions and hazardous environment some people say "well thats work and how those people ear a living, and only way they can feed their family" If you take away that sweat shop.. what the hell are they supposed to do then?"

I CANT STAND how they actually can justify the sweatshops!!! I dont know what to really say in reply to that. and I feel dumb! I know that I KNOW the answer. but Im a slow thinker..

what can I say? what are other ways and what can this people do? what should they do?

[DiggerII]

My best friend and I are ardently against sweat shops. The argument i often use is one of history. Throughout the beginning years of this country, labor was greatly suppressed, then with the labor movement, such exploitation became illegal and frowned upon. So what did the bourgeoise do? they took exploitation over seas where it continues today. So what you need to ask these kids is that if they're liberty loving americans, do they believe that workers in this country should be treated fairly but workers in other countries should not?

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 04:57 am
do they believe that workers in this country should be treated fairly but workers in other countries should not?


Niiiiice! right on!

[insurgent]

I am the best friend he speaks of.


I get the same arguments all the time as well. I just say, well yea if you take away the sweatshops they have nothing. But do you think the sweatshops have been there forever? Absolutly not. Before the big corporations barged in and built their huge factories, everyone had a farm. Then they were enticed to work in the factory, their farms were destroyed, and now they have nothing.

I guess they could be prostitutes, but I think people here have no clue what it means to be poor in a third world country. I'm not saying that I know first hand either, but we should send all those people that argue for sweatshops to the countries to prove that they exist. I know people that say they dont exist. Can you believe that? I know a guy that works for a company that patrols American factories overseas to make sure that they follow the labor practices, and he told me that Nike doesnt have sweatshops anymore. Thats some bullshit.

I can stand people that dont know shit telling me how great sweatshops are, but people that actually work to patrol them telling me they dont exist just pisses me off.

[Janus]

what can I say?
Sweatshops are more or less the worse side of capitalism and reveal the type of disgusting exploitation that it is dependent on. Conditions may have improved for workers in the advanced nations but sweatshop workers are still facing a lot of the problems that workers faced back in the late 19th century and they're still at that stage politically in some aspects.


what are other ways and what can this people do? what should they do?
Organize to demand better working conditions and improve their lives.

[Democratic Socialist]

See though, no one has truly refuted the argument, which is actually a good one. After all, getting paid a little is better than not being paid at all, right? No logical person will answer no...

...Unless you tell them how most of these sweatshops get their employees. In the Micronesian Islands, companies like Tommy Hilfiger and Gap hire out people in countries such as Bangledesh and China to work in factories with the promise of "going to America". Instead of going to America, they go to the Micronesian Islands, which are American territories. They loan them the money, usually in the thousands of dollars necessary to get overseas.

And once they get there, they start working. Yes, they are paid a wage... But 90 to 100% of it goes to pay off the debt they already owe the company who loaned them the money to get to "America". In this sense, they really make no money and if they ever retain any of their wage, they spend it on food.

No one ever "gets ahead" to "make a better life". They live as slaves, this being a completely hyperbole-free statement. The reason that capitalists can still justify it is that on paper, they actually get a wage. Track where that money goes a bit farther and you will see that sweatshop workers never see a penny.

Worse still, once these worker's debt is paid off they are either killed (yes, killed) or deported back to where they came from and replaced by new workers who will then owe money.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 07, 2007 08:31 pm
See though, no one has truly refuted the argument, which is actually a good one. After all, getting paid a little is better than not being paid at all, right? No logical person will answer no...

...Unless you tell them how most of these sweatshops get their employees. In the Micronesian Islands, companies like Tommy Hilfiger and Gap hire out people in countries such as Bangledesh and China to work in factories with the promise of "going to America". Instead of going to America, they go to the Micronesian Islands, which are American territories. They loan them the money, usually in the thousands of dollars necessary to get overseas.

And once they get there, they start working. Yes, they are paid a wage... But 90 to 100% of it goes to pay off the debt they already owe the company who loaned them the money to get to "America". In this sense, they really make no money and if they ever retain any of their wage, they spend it on food.

No one ever "gets ahead" to "make a better life". They live as slaves, this being a completely hyperbole-free statement. The reason that capitalists can still justify it is that on paper, they actually get a wage. Track where that money goes a bit farther and you will see that sweatshop workers never see a penny.

Worse still, once these worker's debt is paid off they are either killed (yes, killed) or deported back to where they came from and replaced by new workers who will then owe money.
they are killed??? wow! ok.. i need a source on this..

[Democratic Socialist]

It happens, usually not directly through the company but rather paramilitaries from the surrounding area.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 07, 2007 09:27 pm
It happens, usually not directly through the company but rather paramilitaries from the surrounding area.
Right. Companies hire paramilitary criminals to do the actual murders so they legally have their hands clean. Just an example how the legal system encourages worker oppression.

[insurgent]

Originally posted by Tatanka Iyotank+February 07, 2007 02:10 pm--> (Tatanka Iyotank @ February 07, 2007 02:10 pm)
Democratic [email protected] 07, 2007 09:27 pm
It happens, usually not directly through the company but rather paramilitaries from the surrounding area.
Right. Companies hire paramilitary criminals to do the actual murders so they legally have their hands clean. Just an example how the legal system encourages worker oppression. [/b]

Do you both have any sources for that information?


just curious. I've seen stuff about workers getting killed by the brutal police during uprisings


Also, i've never heard that if you trace their money they never see a penny.

[rouchambeau]

I think whomever you were talking to meant "If you take away that sweat shop.. what the hell am I supposed to do then?"

I would ask that person what they would have said in the abolition debate before the civil war. Would they have said, "we cannot free the slaves. How would they be provided for?"?

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:18 pm
Do you both have any sources for that information?


just curious. I've seen stuff about workers getting killed by the brutal police during uprisings

Sure. I'm actually surprised nobody brought up Coca-Cola:

Killer Coke (http://www.corporatecampaign.org/killer-coke/crimes-isidro.htm)

There's more murders than just the above mentioned. Search the site a bit and you'll find a list.

[RGacky3]

Before Capitalists were in those countries, most of the people were peasents either running their own land, or in a feaudal system. Probably exploited, then Capitalists came in, bought up everything (or took it) and made sweatshops, now the people can't work their own land (its not theres) they MUST buy food from Capitalists, and they must work in the sweatshops.

If you take away the sweatshops, give them back their land, and give them control of their reasorses, they might do pretty well, or better yet, give them control of the factories they run, after all they run it, they should control it as well.

Even if it were the case that if all the sweatshops left they would all starve to death (which is not the case if they had their land and resources back), it still does'nt justify them being enslaved, but guess what, the sweatshop owners NEED them, they don't need the sweatshop owners.