Summary: The Ethical And Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor

The issue of sweatshops affects everyone, whether directly or indirectly. A sweatshop is defined as “a shop or factory in which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions” (“Sweatshops”). For low wages, sweatshop workers often work in small, cramped spaces with health and safety hazards from chemicals and equipment. Many of them even experience physical violence on the job (El Nasser).The use of sweatshops by companies, a controversial business practice, brings up not only economic arguments, but strong ethical stances as well. Unethical practices could hurt a business’s public relations and cause stock prices and profits to drop so it is in a company’s best interest to be ethical. Yet despite the overarching ethical criticism of sweatshops, there exist dissenters. In “The Ethical and Economic Case Against Sweatshop Labor: A Critical Assessment,” Benjamin Powell and Matt Zwolinski argue that regulation of sweatshops would ultimately harm sweatshop workers by justifying exploitation, coercion, and violation of local labor laws in their argument. (Powell and Zwolinski 471). However, there should be regulation of sweatshop labor for the overall well-being of workers.

Powell and Zwolinski concede that many people believe that sweatshop labor exploits workers. It is morally and

After all, elimination of all sweatshops is not economically feasible. Not every company can be like C&C California, which manufactures its clothing in the United States and sells its sweaters for $150. What is economically feasible is regulation of sweatshop labor. Companies should enforce minimum wage mandates and work to improve factory working conditions with stricter safety inspections. Stricter factory inspections and safety standards could help prevent accidents. These measures could lead to improved productivity on the part of