Madison Fuehrer
Assignment: Global Sweatshop or Great Opportunity?
The overall issue in this case is the concept of factory labor overseas (particularly in China) and
the treatment of the employees in that work environment. This also includes the issues of American
companies that outsource to these factories and how the Chinese government is affected by the income
brought from the so-called “sweatshops”. The stakeholders in this situation from greatest to smallest
are as follows: The American company owners, the Chinese government, the employees working in the
factories, the people and businesses supporting the outsourcing American company, and the customers
buying the factory made product. The greatest stakeholder in this situation is the American company
owners. When they choose to outsource their products to China, they are taking quite the risk. If
anything goes wrong with the production, it is difficult for them to fix it from thousands of miles away. If
this happens and is unable to be fixed, the company could end up losing great money and possibly even
losing thousands of customers. The Chinese government benefits greatly in economic terms from these
factories. The more income the factory brings in, the more the economy is stimulated. If these factories
were to be shut down, the Chinese economy would suffer greatly. The employees are also greatly
affected by this issue. After all, that’s what this whole case is about. They work tireless hours to provide
a small amount of money for their families, and are most affected by the success of the factory. They are
also affected by the hours they work, the income they gain, and the way they are treated. The people
supporting the outsourcing American companies are also stakeholders in this issue. If the American
company is successful they will benefit. If it is not, then they will feel the negative effects. Lastly, the
customers to the American company are the main source of the business’s success. If they don’t buy the
product, the company will not make money.
When it comes to the treatment of the workers, there are a few people or groups who are
responsible. First of all, the Chinese government is responsible for the conduct and well-being of its
people. Just like our government, China is in charge of making and enforcing laws. If it feels as though
the Chinese people are being harmed or treated unfairly, it is the governments job to put laws in place
to eradicate the bad practices. The factory managers are also responsible for the treatment of their
workers. They are in charge of overseeing everything that goes on in the area they manage. This
includes keeping track of employee’s hours and making sure they are paid what they deserve. It was
stated in the case reading that Qin didn’t often receive pay for the overtime she worked. A problem like
this is the responsibility of the manager. If he is not in charge of the payment, then it is his job to talk to
those who are about the shorted pay. Now, if the manager has no say at all in the distribution of the pay
checks, then the responsibility falls into the hands of the Clover Group. They are overall responsible for
all the factories they own. It would be within the company’s best interest to make sure their employees
are getting properly paid. This could be simply done by sending people out to the factories to talk to a
few of the employees and make sure everything is in balance. Another thing the company is ultimately
at fault for is the lack of an enforced conduct code. Perhaps they have one. Perhaps they do not. If they
do not, it is imperative that they make one to maintain order and peace in their factories (IALB most
likely has provided one for them) When there is order and fairness in a workforce, people will be more
eager to do their work, and more productive in their tasks. Once they have a code of conduct in place,
the next step is to enforce it. Enforcing this guideline will ultimately ensure the success of the code.
Establishing these things is overall in the hands of the company (Clover Group in this case) and the
managers of the factories. They both hold places of power in determining the inner-workings of their
factories. If they do not do anything different, the workers will continue to be treated poorly. No one
else but the government can change that. Van-Heusen has no responsibility in the treatment of the
workers, but must decide if he feels it is ethical to have his company’s products made in places that
support unfair practice or not. His company Warnaco and sub-company Calvin Klein have no
responsibility in this issue either. The only thing they are responsible for is deciding what they feel is
ethical with their products being made. Qin of all people has no responsibility in the unjust treatment of
her people. She only wanted to succeed in life and make a living. She works hard and does her job even
when it is unfair. Unless she was to risk her job by complaining to management, she can’t do much
about her situation.
Assuming the Chinese factory is in compliance with most Chinese laws and most of the IALB
Code, with the exception of pay shortage, there is not much more that can be done. We might ask it
would be best to have the factories operate under U.S. labor laws, but it would probably just aggravate
the Chinese companies and make matters worse. Perhaps if Warnaco refused to outsource their
products to places with poor working conditions, then the factories may choose to operate under U.S.
labor laws for the sake of not losing a client. But other than that, it is best that the factory continues
working as it is. China is quickly excelling in their exports and economy. They are still in the process of
growing their nation. It would seem very unfair to force the labor laws of a well-developed country into
the practice of a country that has not yet reached its potential. Don’t forget that there was a time when
America too practiced unethical and unfair treatment of employees. Child labor laws weren’t even
