Here in America we have it pretty good. Compared to many people in the world, it can be hard to imagine how we could complain about anything. According to a 2008 World Bank estimate, 1.4 billion people live on less than $1.25 per day. In America, even our lowest skilled workers, who are being paid the federal minimum wage earn that much in roughly 10 minutes. Given our privileged perspective, it is not hard to see how an American’s views on labor issues around the world could become warped. On no issue is this more apparent than in the University of Wisconsin’s agreements with all of the various companies that manufacture Badger gear.
Last Thursday’s break with Nike is just the latest in what is becoming a clear message from our administration: If you don’t play by our rules, you won’t be allowed to put our logo on your apparel. Thankfully, the economic system we live under has provided us with no shortage of companies that manufacture clothing and no shortage of Badger fans willing to buy the versions that come in red with a white ‘W’ fixed on the front. However, just because we have every right and are able to meet both our standards and the needs of the drunken Camp Randall tailgater, does not mean we shouldn’t put careful thought into crafting just what those standards should be.
Whether your economic thoughts fall in line with Marx or Krugman or Friedmann or Rothbard, we can all agree that lying and fraud are immoral. If a company is not living up to agreements it has made with their workers or chooses not to follow the laws of the countries in which it chose to operate, we are entirely justified in deciding to terminate our relationship with said company.
The problems, however, start when we start attempting to impose our own visions of what workers are justified in receiving for their efforts. The fact of the matter is simply that there exist places in the world where people would jump for joy at the thought of getting to work 12-hour days in sweatshop conditions for a couple of dimes an hour. What it comes down to is that for some people, their lives right now are even worse without such a job. With a position in a sweatshop, they would have the little bit of money they need to put food in the stomachs of their children and a roof over their heads.
I guarantee there are people willing to work without the benefits of severance pay, a government-assured right to be in a union, or whatever minimum rate of pay appeases your conscience enough to allow you to sleep at night thinking you have done your part to help someone.
Now I know there is someone out there saying, “Patrick, there shouldn’t be people faced with this decision.” And if that person is you, you’re probably right. It would be really swell if there weren’t millions of people living in situations so desperate they would be willing to trade places with the workers who make collegiate apparel for Nike or Reebok. But the fact of the matter is, there are. Otherwise, these companies wouldn’t be able to relocate their factories to places with workers willing to work for pennies, much less afford to pay for all of the costs of moving their production somewhere new.
In terms of poverty relief efforts, the really neat thing about providing people with a job is that it doesn’t affect any other poverty relief efforts. If the opportunity arises for someone to receive food aid, an additional educational opportunity or even a better job, holding a job won’t stop these efforts from doing good for the world, no matter how poor the pay or working conditions might be.
While I would never condone companies breaking contracts with workers, committing illegalities or engaging in violence against their workers, until the day comes when people no longer face decisions about whether to suffer in sweatshops or suffer in complete poverty, we should let apparel companies pay whatever they can find people willing to work for.
Patrick McEwen ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in nuclear engineering.
