|
  |
|
|
Book Review: Can We Put an End to Sweatshops?
Book Review: Can We Put an End to Sweatshops?
A Scholarly Search for Labor Standards in the Global Economy from Archon Fung, Dara O'Rourke and Charles Sabel Ratcheting Labor Standards: When Harvard, M.I.T, and Columbia scholars converge on the economic issues faced in globalization, most would assume a heady brew of theory. The ever-increasing popularity of the Anti-Sweatshop movement requires something different that ordinary consumers can wrap their heads around. Despite the Ivy League disadvantage the authors of Can We Put An End To Sweatshops? hold, they open a debate that many sides can plug into. Since the book's publication in 2001, the debate still lingers in policy hurdles, making it as relevant today as then. The authors, Fung, O’Rourke and Sabel propose a system for Ratcheting Labor Standards, or more simply raising or realizing labor standards (RLS) as the book’s thesis. Its’ basic goal is to clear a path, both economic and legislative, for creating a system to improve conditions for international workers. The simple, unassuming book design sits before you much like a smooth hill that awaits you in the horizon, but as you start the ascent it becomes a complex mountainous terrain. The rare inclusion of criticisms of their own work in the book serves great purpose for the authors. Eight essayists, including Professors from Yale, Berkeley, Cornell, American University, University of Wisconsin, M.I.T. and leading thinkers from non-governmental organizations, the United Nations and the media, all take a swing at the RLS pitch. Their criticisms run the gamut from “a commendable effort, but…” to “overly optimistic”, “simplistic”, “flawed”, “vague on principles”, ‘too narrow” and a personal favorite, “too mushy.” Thankfully these observations don’t run into too much contradiction, even in David Moberg’s (In These Times, the Nation) claim that RLS steers the movement in the “wrong direction.” Moberg's class of progressivism requires immediate action to unionize from the bottom up as essential to democracy. True as that may be, it comes into direct clash with the existing privatized realm of multinational corporations. As surmised by contributor Robin Broad, a professor of 3rd World Development at American University, RLS promotes efforts to put the reins on "a common enemy: corporate-led globalization." The non-governmental organizations (NGO) and world governments sit stretched in the center between one side’s trying to reform the other. Meaning workers and most average consumers want transparency and accountability of corporations and the multinationals want more privatization. For that clash to ease into negotiations, all sides must be involved in a level playing field for realizing standards. As unbalanced as this may seem from the view of a sweatshop laborer up against multibillion-dollar firms, it is important for those with public platforms to keep it in consideration. Transparency: The front line battle of the anti-sweatshop movement is carried in one phrase throughout RLS: “Transparency.” Under the authors’ plan, Transparency is achieved by corporations making public their information about suppliers and under what conditions they operate. This information would be public in the most democratic sense, as government, legal, corporate, activist and consumer sectors would all have access. This is a primer initiative, agreed on by all the book’s contributors, to set in motion any other improvements on international labor standards. As it has seen success with the Nike Corporation releasing social audit information, it lends pressure for others to do the same on the basis of competition. With the exception of the Wal-Mart Corporation recently, it is Nike who has received the highest scrutiny from the anti-sweatshop movement. Rightly so, as both corporations are notorious in outsourcing labor to sweatshop conditions in South-East Asia and Latin America, but also stand in a powerful position to set a precedent in transparency. Still, as David Moberg also points out in his chapter on Unions And The State, Transparency can just mean firms avoiding bad P.R. and alarming practices made evident must be meet with pressure from Unions. Unionization: The glow of information possibly revealed in a shift towards multinational transparency, will shine its brightest on the prospect of Unions. At the same time, the rockiest part of the RLS terrain is the problem of setting international standards for unionization. It is quite obvious to ask who will set these standards and to what expectations will they be held? This is something left unanswered in the book aside from vague suggestions made. The essay from Guy Standing, a director with the United Nations International Labor Organization (ILO), represents his position to judge such standards. Standing writes of necessary “realism” in setting standards based on “visits to factories, estates and mines.” The ILO is positioned to represent the broadest call of the voice of the workers, but in the bigger picture of RLS, there are several realities to keep in mind; the workers, factory owners, trade lawmakers, retail corporations, investors, consumers, etc, etc… The Problem of Standards: One prominent group in sweatshop activism is the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees (UNITE) and it is their own Mark Levinson that states the “overly optimistic” reach of RLS in respect to unions. His essay, Wishful Thinking, unravels a hard truth, shared by Cornell University economics professor Kaushik Basu, that sweatshop conditions exist in and of themselves. Trade barriers are opened wide allowing multinational corporations to avoid government accountability in getting cheap labor. There is of course another view for such practices, but in respect to unionization, as Levinson writes these “firms will not…grant workers basic rights to organize.” In the current state of globalization, governments cannot be held accountably in labor violations. This is most bothering when labor issues crossover into human rights violations in which case government intervention is the only (sensible) solution, but often unavailable. The debate is left open in this dilemma and even though RLS does suggest dropping accountability directly on the Corporations, again the problem of standards arises. Ian Ayres, a Yale Law Professor, contributes a broad criticism for all groups concerned in that systems or programs attempting to take regulatory complexity into account “will suffer from information overload.” Ironically, the basis of Ayres’s suggestion to “Monetize” labor standards and practices would in itself produce information overload. It is practically impossible, as both the authors and Ayres confess, to monetize essential areas of labor standards such as health and safety. Weighing the costs/benefits of safety and health would be a massive undertaking to incorporate on a global scale. The primary value of a factory’s human resources is often undermined by bottom-line profits, thus monetization could also further undermine worker health and safety. Ultimately, Fung, O’Rourke and Sabel address the major concerns of implementing progress towards solutions. As much of the Sweatshop debate has been a blame game or theorizing on who will be to blame for as-yet-to fail programs, an open, honest forum of ideas is needed. Until its goals of Transparency are meet, RLS cannot meet its other foundation of the ethical purchasing power of consumers, as they are not armed with the ability to make informed decisions. Yes, there is an end to sweatshops, but it is an entangled climb to a summit of solidarity between consumers and workers.
|
Contributor's Note
Article by Farzin Mojtabai, author of a book about Sweatshops titled: Blood, Sweat and Tears with Jason Cangialosi, a freelance professional in Colorado, who researched for the book and collaborates on related articles.
|
|
Can We Put an End to Sweatshops?
| www.sweatshopwatch.org
| Beacon Independent Publishing
No reactions yet.
Please login or sign up to rate this intel.
Please login or sign up to add a comment.
A honest forum of ideas is needed, like you said. Very informative and interesting book review.
The copyright for this content entitled "Book Review: Can We Put an End to Sweatshops?" has been specified by the contributor as:
All Rights Reserved
This content may not be copied, distributed or adapted by anyone under any circumstances.
|
 |
May, 2012
2008
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2009
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2010
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2011
January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December
2012
January, February, March, April, May
|
|
Not a member yet?
Qondio is a powerful network for making it online. If you have a website to
promote, we can help.
Sign up and get in on the action.
|
|
Welcome to Qondio! Discover the awesome power this network can deliver by going to our About page. Or you could skip straight to the Sign Up form.
|
|
