Ian Maitland Argument on Sweatshop Paper Example

In the United States, sweatshops as known by the US Department of Labor are factories that violate the labour laws while manufacturing their products (Carson, 2013). The sweatshop are generally characterised by Poor working conditions, unfair wages, child labour as well as lack of benefits to the workers. Apparently, the sweatshops are common in the US manufacturing companies in the third world countries where cheap labour if obtained and workers underpaid in both textile and garment sectors. It is imperative to note that, however much the sweatshops violates the fundamental human rights some proponents such as Ian Maitland offers defensive approaches to all these pathetic conditions. Significantly, the central concern of this paper is to evaluate Ian Maitland argument concerning the sweatshops critically and whether or not such ideas can be endorsed by business leaders in the business market (Carson, 2013).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to the in-depth analysis, it is revealed that defenders of the capitalist, as well as the renowned supporters of free markets economies such as Ian Maitland, have in the long run defended the sweatshop's conditions regardless of the claimed pathetic circumstances (Carson 2013). Apparently, according to Maitland a wage or labour practice is ethically acceptable if it is freely chosen by the informed workers commonly referred to as the classical liberal standards. On the other hand, there are several mutual economic exchanges which seem beneficial to the desperate workers in the third world countries. It is imperative to acknowledge the fact that in most of the third world countries, the high rate of unemployment, as well as lack of the essential social amenities, tends to drag the workers to the poor working conditions offered by the sweatshops. Based on this account, Maitland argues that once the workers are informed and ware of such predetermined standards the poor working condition does not factor to consider in this case (Carson 2013). Based on my critical evaluation of the Ian Maitland argument concerning the sweatshops, it is morally wrong to subject the poor workers to the pathetic working conditions because they hail from third world countries.

On the other hand, the seat hops condition tends to exploit the workers in exchange for the low wages as well as poor working conditions. This moral objection manifested in some practices portrayed by the sweatshops which include coercion, deception, poor working environments as well as paying the workers less than what was promised. Notably by providing the problematic task for long hours are morally objectionable and should not be defended at all cost. Notably, some of the supporters of the free market economies and the capitalists such as Maitland tends to overlook the detrimental conditions the workers are subjected. On the same account, the sweatshops also engage the minors in the third world countries hence violating some of the fundamental human rights. Periodically, these minors are deprived of their rights to education following acute poverty as well as lack of essential social amenities. Shockingly, instead of helping them out, the US-based sweatshop's companies only exploit them the more by offering them long working hours along working hours with the poor working conditions which only worsen their socio-economic status. Based on this account, Maitland tends to argue that, it is not morally wrong to higher poor workers only when they are informed and are aware of such conditions.

In a broader perspective, Ian Maitland affirms that the sweatshops have been successful since it satisfies the requirements of the poor workers by providing the agreed wages however unsatisfactory. He also argues that the sweatshops also offer the services including the job opportunities in line with the general requirement as designed by the classical liberal standard. It is worth acknowledging the fact that, such economic exchanges as witnessed in the sweatshops only render the workers condition more pathetic in line with the required regulations. On the same account, Maitland argues that whenever the third world workers together with the owners of the sweatshops agree on the non -coercive labour agreements which according to his understanding subject the workers to positive freedom. Based on the in-depth analysis, it is indicated that, the non -coercive labour agreements whose Maitland argument is based subjects the third world workers the severe constraints which negatively affects their freedom.

Besides, Maitland repeatedly claims that upon satisfying classical liberal standard most of the multinationals sweatshops tend to offer better options to the third world workers as compared to what was available to them, and thus the third world workers benefit from the sweatshop companies. Maitland also argues that most of the multinational sweatshops always provide better options for the third world workers as compared to the local employers. A close look onto the Indonesian Nike company which offers five times to the suppliers as compared to the local wages which according to him is much better terms and so they are worth working at the sweatshop. On the same account, he argues that the workers should be the only one to judge their conditions as to whether or not their interests are met. Besides, if the workers decide to work in the sweatshops, it means their interests are met within the company and if not they are liable to quit and join the most valuable opportunities present. But critically, this is not worth since the workers are subjected to long working hours with the poor working conditions which render them ineffective in the long run. Maitland further asserts that the critics have no case since the sweatshops have successfully satisfied the classical liberal standard which often provides the workers with the better options that they would otherwise have. Conversely, Maitland's arguments rest on the point that, the sweatshops have the legal obligations to operate in the developing countries and that cooperate are morally upright in offering their services to the third world workers.

Would a Good Business Leader Endorse the Sweatshop's Conditions?

According to my in-depth analysis on the on the sweatshop conditions as argued by Ian Maitland, I purposely disregard the idea of supporting the business leaders to support the sweatshop condition. It is worth acknowledging the fact that it is morally wrong to subject the third world workers into unwarranted working conditions. The lack of motivation as witnessed in the sweatshops working conditions affects the general output in the company. For the effective future leaders, the condition in the sweatshops and the terms of employment as depicted by the multinational companies goes contrary to ethical obligations as well as guiding principles. The third world workers in the in the sweatshops' outlets are subject to the unfair terms of employment which violates their human rights as characterised by the low wages, working for long hours, routine pregnancy tests as well as forcing the workers to adopt the birth control mechanisms. Any aspiring group leader should not assume all these conditions since it demoralises the workers and subjecting them to unwarranted health conditions.

On the other hand, by adopting the strategy of offering job opportunities to the minor is aimed at offering low wages a great violation of human rights. Tentatively, the united states do not have the effective guidelines and regulations to govern the operations of the sweatshops in the third world countries. Based on this analogy, the sweatshop company therefore intentionally contravenes the international regulations which poised unwarranted working conditions to the workers. On the other hand, the policies in the sweatshops outlets in the third world countries show that the health status of the workers is not covered due to low wages. Significantly, such conditions are not worth adopting by the future leaders since they periodically render the working conditions pathetic more so in the third world countries.

How Should a Good business leader act in this matter?

In a bid to bring sanity in the sweatshops, a good business leader should ensure a full implementation of the classical liberal standard in the third world countries (Kates 2015). Notably, such factors should aim at improving the poor working conditions by focusing on the unwarranted conditions they are subjected. Therefore, it is essential to acknowledge the fact that, relevant positive measures ought to be employed at this point by the able leaders to help correct the poor working conditions witnessed in the sweatshops. Such circumstances include building a good relationship among the workers primarily by addressing the poor conditions. On the other hand, a good business leader should work towards offering attractive salaries as defined in the classical liberal standards to enable the workers to meet their daily expectations in life. Also at this point, the active group leaders in the sweatshop company are expected to adopt the relevant strategy to ensure the health status of the workers is taken care of.

On the same account, the leaders should also employ applicable policies to guide the working hours of the third world workers within the sweatshops' companies. Tentatively, it is true that most of the sweatshops in the third world countries depend on the minor as a source of cheap labor. This inhuman act violates the fundamental human rights of the workers. Therefore, the effective business leaders should define the relevant guiding principles to govern the terms of employment and the recommended age to be employed. In most of the third world countries, child labour in the sweatshops is a standard paradigm which affects the general welfare of the young people in the society. To render the sweatshops habitable and worker-friendly, the able business leaders must address case surrounding the 170 million of the children employed in the textile and garment industries in the third world countries. Besides, a good business leader at this point should address the massive pollution imparted by the sweatshops not only to the workers but also to the entire neighbouring environment. Therefore, the environmental laws set up in the developed countries should be employed to help reduce the pollution due to untreated wastes in all the affected areas in the developing countries (Kates 2015).

Conclusion

In summary, the working conditions at the sweatshops across the entire third world countries are criticised even though some few capitalism and supporters of the free-market economy to support the business. Based on the critical analysis of the Ian Maitland argument, the third world workers are subjected to the pathetic working conditions along with the low pay since they lack alternative employers. Conversely, to provide the effective working conditions which favour human lifestyle, the business leaders must employ some of the motivating policies to help save the third world worker in both the garment and textile industries within the sweatshops.

References

Carson, T. L. (2013). Free Exchange for Mutual Benefit: Sweatshops and Maitland's "Classical Liberal Standard". Journal of business ethics, 112(1), 127-135.

Kates, M. (2015). The ethics of sweatshops and the limits of choice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25(2), 191-212.