Sweatshop Products

A sweatshop in a New York City tenement building, 1889

A common anti-vegan argument is "what about sweat shops", as though vegans unthinkingly and uncritically purchase sweatshop made goods revealing either hypocrisy or misanthropy in veganism. While it is true that some vegans do this in ignorance, and a small minority even do so in misanthropic indifference, this is not the norm. A significant number of vegans oppose sweatshops as strongly as mainstream human rights advocates, or as effective altruists may support them as the lesser of evils (see defense of sweatshop products). In either case this is not an argument against veganism as an important moral issue, but merely a demonstration that veganism is not the only important moral issue in the world, and it is not necessarily a demonstration of hypocrisy when vegans do not spend time advocating against sweatshops any more than when anti-sweatshop advocates do not spend time advocating veganism (see practical problems with intersectionality).

Sweatshop

A sweatshop is a factory or workshop where manual workers are employed for long hours at poverty-level wages, and usually with poor working conditions. The work is typically arduous, dangerous, and underpaid, regardless of laws mandating overtime pay or a minimum wage; child labor laws may also be violated. The U.S. Department of Labor's "2015 Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor" found that "18 countries did not meet the International Labor Organization's recommendation for an adequate number of inspectors." [1] Though sweatshops exist everywhere, they are most likely to occur in poor countries, where cheap labor is most available. Working conditions are typically deplorable, and pose numerous health risks to workers. The International Labour Organization (ILO), established in 1919, develops international labor standards in an effort to improve working conditions throughout the world. [2]

History

Anti-Sweatshop Movement

Sweatshops have been heavily criticized as being exploitative and cruel by paying workers unconscionable wages. Some have attempted to outright abolish them. Anti-sweatshop sentiments stretch as far back as the early 19th century, and the first significant law to address sweatshops (the Factory Act of 1833) was passed in the United Kingdom, and redused the maximum amount of working hours and the use of child labor. Later, the International Labour Organization, initially under the League of Nations and currently the United Nations, was established in 1919 with the goal to to address the plight of workers around the world. It wasn't until 1938 that the United States passed it's first labor law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, that creates the right to a minimum wage, and "time-and-a-half" overtime pay when people work over forty hours a week. It also prohibits the employment of most minors.[3]

Distinction with Animal Agriculture

People in poor countries who need jobs are nothing like animals in agriculture; the former already exist in unfortunate circumstances the latter only exist because we breed them into existence.

It's more difficult to compare non-existence to an existence of suffering because there's no choice being made there to use as hard empirical evidence of preference Incomplete knowledge complicates the reliability of the evidence from choices (for instance, employees are sometimes lied to, and wage theft is a serious issue globally), but it would be a mistake to assume people in poorer countries are completely ignorant and in need of Western Saviors to tell them what's good for them and deny them their own autonomy.

When it comes to sweat shops, the question is whether those additional (not forced as in slavery) job opportunities improve their lots or break even rather than making them worse. It's pretty easy to argue they're better than the alternatives on the basis that people freely chose them to the alternatives. It may be a choice between bad and worse, but it IS a choice when you choose a sweat shop over prostitution or working in a field or mine. Not a pleasant choice, but as long as it's freely made otherwise we can surmise the sweat shop is better, and having the choice is even better than not having it.

Animals in farms can't choose not to be born so we can't draw any conclusions about non-existence vs farmed existence on the basis of them being born, meaning we can not say we have any evidence from this kind of inquiry that a farmed life is better than none (it may or may not be the case, but we can not know this).

When we do something for what we believe (erroneously or not) is to our hedonic benefit (like eating meat, or buying fancy shoes) it can be important to follow the precautionary principle when there may be net harm involved -- and there is plenty of evidence to tell us how plausible net harm in animal agriculture is. Vegans are pretty well in the clear when it comes to charges of hypocrisy around welfare in purchasing the average sweat shop product compared to animal farming because we can appeal to those choices to distinguish the circumstances. There are of course arguably exceptions like blood diamonds where we can point to a disproportionate amount of death and slavery, but the virtue of choice provides clear evidence that lawfully operated sweat shops in stable countries align with the preference of the workers over nothing.

There is a larger philosophical argument we can consider regarding taking advantage of people, and giving them only marginal benefit when we could afford to offer them much more and give them good jobs instead of jobs that are only slightly less shitty than the alternative they already had, but that question comes down to the ethical obligation to do good vs. avoiding harm, and that's beyond the scope of most vegan argumentation around animal agriculture rendering the vegan argument on the topic non-hypocritical.

Defense of Sweatshop Products

There exists are growing number of people who do not seek the abolition of sweatshops. Arguments put forth on the defense of sweatshops highlight the more pernicious alternatives available to people in poor countries.

Fairer Pay & Better Conditions

The reduction or abolition of sweat shops could lead to greater levels of unemployment in poor areas and an increase in even riskier jobs such as prostitution or subsistence farming. The International Labour Organisation estimates that agricultural workers suffer 250 million accidents every year, and say that in some countries the fatal accident rate is twice as common in agriculture as in other industries. [4] Purchasing sweatshop goods is also putting money into the pockets of those who need it most regardless of the arguably unfair benefit to the sweatshop owners. Despite the small wages, sweatshop workers in developing countries typically earn more than their national average income, particularly in the apparel industry. In Bangladesh and several African nations, sweatshop workers earn more than three times the national average. [5]

Safer for Women

In Bangladesh villages close to sweatshops, girls are substantially less likely to get pregnant or be married off, 28% and 29% respectively, and this affect is strongest amongst 12-18 year olds. [6] Girls who work these jobs are also more likely to attend school.

Potential to Increase Animal Suffering and Environmental Harm

This is probably the most valid critique of sweatshops from an ethical standpoint, but they nonetheless can still be addressed.

Whenever more money comes into a developing country, almost always, this leads to increased animal product consumption. Increased animal agriculture is a result of wealth, since it's generally expensive to provide so many people with animal products. Hence, when you drop more money into an economy, and put more money into people's pockets, they consume more meat, which of course leads to more animal suffering, and by extension more greenhouse gas emissions through meat consumption and more infrastructure.

While it is true that you could give to any animal charity that focuses on reducing consumption of animal products, donating to a more localized place could potentially make more sense if you want to not set back progress on animal rights in a region that you're supporting. Given how many products are made in China, if you frequently buy products made there, if you want to offset the harm to the animals and the environment due to factory farming and meat consumption in China, there are some options available for donations. The Good Food Fund is a reccomended charity by ACE which operates in China, with a goal of reducing meat consumption in China. According to their evaluations, they estimate that every US Dollar donated to them influences two and a half people to reduce their consumption of animal products. Another charity operating in China is the China Vegan Society, which received a positive evaluation from ACE, and while there aren't any hard numbers as of yet, they also focus on outreach and reduced meat consumption. Of course, besides helping compensate for the animal suffering, it also helps reduce any negative environmental effects.

As for other countries that have sweatshops, a charity that operates in the global south is Singeria Animal, which focuses on welfare and meat reduction in Latin America (namely Peru and Ecuador), Indonesia, and Thailand, which are all countries that have high sweatshop ratios. A US Dollar to them is estimated to help over 50 animals. If you want to help reduce animal product consumption globally to cover more bases, you can donate to ProVeg International, another charity that has received a positive ACE evaluation, and they also focus on reducing meat consumption, though they focus their efforts globally.

As for the environmental aspect, just like with increased meat, there will be increased emissions with more money meaning they can have a higher quality of life. These donations again will also help offset environmental harm, but donating to any animal charity can be useful for this (particularly the Good Food Institute). However, developing countries, particularly China, are increasing their nuclear and renewable capabilities, which in turn will reduce emissions from industry and improved lifestyles.