Labor exploitation workshop

A workshop for labor exploitation or “slave work” is a workplace where work is carried out outside international conventions. It is represented in the xxi century by the model known as sweatshop, frequent and abundant in developing countries development or third world, and especially in Asia, where the worker receives very low wages (the equivalent of 3 euros a day, or a few cents an hour), manufacturing clothes, toys, footwear and other consumer goods.

Examples of labor exploitation

Examples of labor exploitation are the maquiladoras or maquilas in Mexico or the work of dressers in Spain and many other countries.

In Bangladesh there was a collapse of a building in Savar in 2013 that housed a clothing factory and shops. The poor conditions of the building and the zero security conditions were the causes of the death of 1,134 people and another 2,437 who were injured.

Typology

Slave labor or "slave labor" workshop can refer to any production or manufacturing center in which workers share a harsh environment (inadequate ventilation, poor hygiene infrastructure or lack of services), occasionally subjected to physical abuse, mental or sexual, as well as dangerous working conditions for health or excessive working hours.

Even in the xxi century, many sweatshops are owned by multinational corporations or by local companies that produce goods for foreign corporations. Corporations generally operate through a subcontracting process, so they are not direct owners of the shop, but employ the smaller organization that owns and handles production. In this context, some companies have been accused of using children in the slave labor workshops of their subcontractors. At the same time, in some countries where this sophisticated model of slavery is developed, labor recourse or the practice of unionism is prohibited –or repressed by force of arms– in defense of worker rights.^{[< i>citation required]}

There are also sweatshops in developed countries, set up by companies or individuals who employ workers without legal permission to work (usually illegal immigrants), paying them less than the legally regulated wage, and without declaring their presence to the public. local labor authorities or covering social security contributions. This practice generates the so-called underground economy, which among other advantages allows the contracting party to launder money, and which in some developed countries reaches a high percentage compared to the formal economy.^{[citation required]}

History

Sweatshops are not a new phenomenon. Continuing the model of the industrial revolution, both in the United States and in Europe, in the xix and early xx, workshops were created that offered work to immigrants or 'low-skilled workers'. Unions and new labor laws and regulations were sometimes successful in forcing employers to improve safety and working conditions, and to raise wages.

Criticism

Refusal

Some unions, such as the AFL-CIO, have aided the movement against sweatshops, both out of philanthropic interest in the welfare of disadvantaged workers and for their own benefit. Since the products produced in sweatshops are cheaper than those produced in factories in the United States or Europe, the unions think this may cause their members to lose their jobs.

Ending “slave labour” is one of the goals of the anti-globalization movement, which has accused many companies (such as Walt Disney, The Gap and Nike) of making use of these types of workshops. Activists of this movement indicate that the process of neoliberal globalization favors corporate abuses of "slave workers". Additionally, they argue that low-wage production in disadvantaged countries is responsible for job losses in First World countries.

Articles 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among others, deal with the matter.

Positive

Those who advocate the practice of moving production to low-wage areas point to a lower cost of living as an explanation for low wages, and argue that their operations benefit the community by providing them with jobs, something the community needs. Still, some companies have bowed to public pressure and reduced their reliance on these types of garages.^{[citation needed]}

Johan Norberg, a pro-capitalist intellectual, fellow at the Cato Institute and author of the British pro-globalization documentary Globalization is Good /i>, 2003), maintains the following example in defense of workshops of this type in the Third World:

[After hearing the criticisms] was interested in hearing someone who, not only praised the sweatshops [in Spanish translated as "slavery workers" or semi-slavery" by Nike, but also proclaimed that Nike is an example of good and responsible business. [When I found it], that "someone" turned out to be the Communist Party of Vietnam, which is the one governing that country. [...] The truth is that the work seems hard, and somber working conditions, if we compare the Vietnamese factories to the factories of our country. But that's not the comparison these workers do. They compare the work in Nike to the way they lived before, or the way their relatives or neighbors still work. And the facts are revealing. The average pay in a Nike factory near Ho Chi Minh City is $54 a month, almost three times the minimum wage for a state-owned company [in Vietnam]. Ten years ago, when Nike settled in Vietnam, the workers had to walk to the factories, often many miles. After three years of Nike's wages, bicycles can be allowed. After another three years can be allowed to moped, [...] nowadays, older workers can afford to buy a car.

Some critics reply^{[citation needed]} that those who defend these arguments tend to ignore the question that the entry of multinationals subsidized by their countries of origin in the markets of third world countries leads to:

1. The destruction of local economies by not being able to cope with competition (this in some academic areas is called unfair competition and deterioration of terms of trade).
2. Loss of jobs and subsequent proletarization of the local population.

In such a way that, they criticize, what is nothing more than the cause itself is proposed as a solution to poverty.