Sweatshop: Federal Government of the United States and Global Workforce
From the second e-Activity, determine at least three ways in which United States’ businesses can address the adverse effects of sweatshop labor practices. Provide one specific example of each way that you have just determined to support your response.
One way that U.S. businesses can address the adverse effects of sweatshop labor is that they should decline the products that come from sweatshop.
Secondly, American businesses have a responsibility to make sure that their suppliers working conditions are humane, just as we expect to be here. In the early-morning hours of December 3, 1984, a toxic cloud spewed out of a Union Carbide pesticide plant and drifted through the city of Bhopal, India. More than 2,000 residents died within hours of the leak and activists place the eventual death toll from the accident as high as 20,000. Hundreds of thousands of people
Who were exposed to the gas still suffer injuries ranging from chronic lung ailments to neurological disorders. The ironic thing is that “the US reacted to
Bhopal by passing a law designed to prevent such accidents from ever happening within our borders—but it didn’t do anything to protect people like those in Bhopal. U.S. companies should not put unreasonable pressure on their foreign suppliers, because the savings will only come off the back of the disadvantages workers. So I believe that U.s companies should try their best to adhere regulation. It is very hard to regulate practices in another country.
I would suggest that the U.S. limit outsourcing to other countries. This would also create more jobs for U.S. citizens, and it would allow the U.S. government to regulate the companies.
Considering the effect of worker rights on global and developing economies, take a position on whether or not the United States government should regulate the global workforce of the United States corporations. Justify your response
I think that United States should regulate the global workforce of the U.S
One way that U.S. businesses can address the adverse effects of sweatshop labor is that they should decline the products that come from sweatshop.
Secondly, American businesses have a responsibility to make sure that their suppliers working conditions are humane, just as we expect to be here. In the early-morning hours of December 3, 1984, a toxic cloud spewed out of a Union Carbide pesticide plant and drifted through the city of Bhopal, India. More than 2,000 residents died within hours of the leak and activists place the eventual death toll from the accident as high as 20,000. Hundreds of thousands of people
Who were exposed to the gas still suffer injuries ranging from chronic lung ailments to neurological disorders. The ironic thing is that “the US reacted to
Bhopal by passing a law designed to prevent such accidents from ever happening within our borders—but it didn’t do anything to protect people like those in Bhopal. U.S. companies should not put unreasonable pressure on their foreign suppliers, because the savings will only come off the back of the disadvantages workers. So I believe that U.s companies should try their best to adhere regulation. It is very hard to regulate practices in another country.
I would suggest that the U.S. limit outsourcing to other countries. This would also create more jobs for U.S. citizens, and it would allow the U.S. government to regulate the companies.
Considering the effect of worker rights on global and developing economies, take a position on whether or not the United States government should regulate the global workforce of the United States corporations. Justify your response
I think that United States should regulate the global workforce of the U.S