Читать реферат по английскому: "Sweatshops And Disney Essay Research Paper Consumers" Страница 1

(Назад) (Cкачать работу)

Sweatshops And Disney Essay, Research Paper

Consumers can play an important role in closing sweatshops, and they have a right to know what

companies are using sweatshops to produce their product there are simple steps consumers can

take to help fight against the use of sweatshops. Right now many famous companies are using

sweatshops readily to save money. However, ironically, the companies that use them are the

companies that can afford to spend the extra money for regular labor. Some of these name brand

companies include; Nike, Disney, Kathie- Lee Gifford, Gap, Liz Claiborne, Ralph Lauren, and

Wal-Mart. Many people have no idea that these companies are using sweatshops. Disney for

example is a very well known company. No one would ever expect that their favorite childhood

Disney memory could have been created through sweatshops and child labor. Disney is just one

of the many well respected, loved companies with dark secrets. It is hard to believe as a

consumer that a company that consumers have grown to trust and love uses such forced labor,

with underaged sweatshop employees making consumers favorite characters come to life. Well,

Peter and Rochelle Schweizer makes it clear that it could be a possibility: ? The face of Disney the

manufacturer is not a pretty one. All too often Disney clothes, toys, and trinkets are made by

child laborers. Disney licensees have been caught using child labor on three continents? (245).

Many other companies are practicing the same type of labor policies without consumers?s

knowledge. If companies feel that sweatshops are a decent and fair way of doing business and

have no problems with continuing to use them, they should at least make these reasons public and

confront their consumers?s concerns. They should let their consumers know why they choose to

conduct their business in this manner. Consumers would then have the real information on the

product that they choose, and not only what the company wants them to

Mueckler 2

know. Consumers would then be able to base their product choice on work place conditions as

well as the over all product information.

Some companies?s use of sweatshops have been made public. Kathie-Lee Gifford?s

designer clothes company for example was widely evident in the news in 1996. Gifford was

shocked when she heard of the sweatshop conditions her company was using. Since this Gifford

has been involved in organizing the Apparel Industry Partnership with the U.S. Department of

Labor. This organization tries to crack down on the use of child labor. This is one example of

where the public influenced a company to change its policies. This gives hope that with consumer

support other companies can be influenced in similar ways.

Disney, however, has not been so noteworthy in their efforts. Disney licensees go out of

their way to bring their company to countries such as Burma, where the practice of child labor is a

normal everyday event, and they exploit this to create their product as cheaply as possible.

Schweizer explains how remote the locations that Disney licensees use, ? For years Disney

licensees were manufacturing in a country few Americans could locate on a map. Burma- also

known as Myanmar, the name given it by the ruling military junta- is a poverty – stricken nation

wedged between India, China, and the lush mountains of Thailand.? (251). This is an ideal

location because so few people are aware of it. This makes it easy for the Disney licensees to

continue their business without being detected. Another insight to Burma is that drug lords hold

great power and are protected by the government. Disney licensees had to get the permission to

have sweatshops in Burma from these drug lords. This shows how the drug lords are the ones

with the power in Burma. First companies must win the respect of these drug lords before they

are able to work there. ? Burma?s attraction as a manufacturing site is obvious: ultracheap labor.?

(252).

Mueckler 3

When consumers and human rights groups along with labor organizations took action in

1996, they did get a response from Disney. The National Labor Committee and other

organizations together made Disney?s involvement in Burma public with the Free Burma

Campaign. Disney denied these claims. They pretended they had no involvement in Burma.

They knew how the negative public announcement would hurt the company, which is the major

reason why companies hide the facts from the consumers. Schweizer explains that many other

respectable companies have volunteered to monitor their working conditions, however, Disney is

not one of them. This shows that Disney is aware that the problem of sweatshop exists in their

licensees operation.

Disney may have changed its ways concerning Burma after public protests, but it

seems less than interested in tackling the child labor problem. Retailers and

manufacturers have been asked by the U.S. Department of Labor to voluntarily

pledge to monitor their contractors to make sure no child labor is being used.

Dozens of well- known companies have joined, including Abercrombie and Fitch,

Guess, Lands? End, Lerner New York, Levi Strauss, the Limited, and others.

Disney has not (254).

However, Disney continues to be a very hypocritical company by continuing to stay active in

UNICEF activities. Yet, Disney can continue to entertain millions of children everyday. It is a

shame that the children that are

Похожие работы