Child Labor Disregarding Child Welfare

Child Labor

Disregarding Child Welfare for Profit

As our world's economies grow, so do multinational corporations (MNC). Many of those corporations feel the pressure to stay competitive. In doing so they choose to ignore the social economic impact and the human rights violations they inflict on society, especially in third world nations where child welfare is not just second to the corporation's profit, but serves as a vital source of support for impoverished families. The effect of this social disregard and need is that a generation of young children will forgo school and the opportunity education holds for them in lieu of earning, in some cases, below U.S. minimum wage to contribute to the support of their family. Negative social and political implications arise out of exploiting third world impoverished labor, especially child labor. These same children perceiving developed nations, especially America, as a country whose pursuit of profit is ruthless and uncaring, and it casts a shadow over how these young people will grow up and perceive all Americans.

Thus, the problem of bringing attention to the problem of exploited children through labor for profit becomes the problem of all Americans. It is a problem that must be constantly exposed to public opinion, which has proven powerful in causing major corporations to take a different approach to increasing profit margins.

The Exploited Children - Beginning in America

It has not been long since American legislators and manufacturers turned a blind eye toward the exploitation of labor for profit in America. It was not until the mid 19th century when Americans began to notice the negative impact child labor was having on children and their families (Tierney, 2000, p. 54).

As the country industrialized and urbanized, and as the flow of immigrants increased to a flood, household economic pressures mounted for every member of the family to bring in income. Many poor parents-- and most urban parents were indeed poor -- sent even five-year-olds out to scavenge for cinders, rope, metal, and bottles to sell to junk dealers or neighbors (p. 54)."

Perhaps it is because Americans are accustomed, for the most part, to working hard, and have long had a tradition of beginning work at young ages that we fail to notice the exploitation of child labor in other regions of the world until an advocacy group calls it to our attention. That America seems focused on the importance of the quality of life for children between the age of eight years old (when they often began working in factories in America), and young adulthood is a fairly recent concept; especially as it concerns college education. However, that is now the focus for many Americans, and there is outrage when stories are revealed of major American corporations exploiting child labor - at ages that would be illegal in the United States - in third world countries.

South America to Pakistan

In 1996, Representative Jim Moran published a commentary article on child labor in third world countries (the Washington Times, 1996, p. 2). Addressing the Representative and his peers, one manufacturer of oriental rugs, who has operations overseas, but claims not to use child labor; Mason Purcell, advised the group:

The root causes of the problem are lack of education coupled with grinding abject poverty so appalling that most Americans cannot even imagine it. We are not talking here about children who, if they were not being exploited by their greedy, vicious parents, would be in school and happily involved in the normal day-to-day pursuits of American children. If they did not work, these children would be dead of starvation by the side of the road, or selling themselves as prostitutes just to earn a little bit of money for food. They don't have any other alternatives; neither do their families. I'm not saying, by any stretch of the imagination, that this is a good thing, simply that that's the way it is (.p. 2)."

There is a problem with the manufacturer's thinking, and although he claims not to be defending child labor, he is making excuses for it. Further, anyone who suggests that extreme poverty does not exist in the United States is very wrong. The United States is not free of abject poverty; agreeably a condition improved by education. However, the reason this employer, who would be so bold as to chastise the lack of understanding about the need to employ children in third world nations it is important to understand that these companies are not permitted to exploit the impoverished in America. That they are allowed to do it in Pakistan and other third world nations, is evidence of the still emerging governments and administrations that are just not seeing the light of the 21st century.

That children are exploited for corporate profit in third world nations like Pakistan, is significant, too, of the lack of opportunity for education for many groups of people, whose religious affiliations will probably continue to impact the labor over education philosophy for many decades yet to come.

Mr. Purcell, very critical of Representative Moran's fact finding mission to Pakistan where the Representative observed and reacted to manufacturers exploiting child labor; says that the way to resolve the problem is this:

If you want to end child labor, Mr. Moran, educate the kids. If you want to educate the kids, make it possible for them to go to school without the prospect of starving to death or becoming prostitutes because they have no money. These solutions, not sanctions and certification requirements, can end the problem of child labor (p. 2)."

Unfortunately, education is not the solution, nor is it the responsibility of the United States taxpayers, represented by the United States Government, to educate third world children. That, in some instances, would be tantamount to declaring war in many Islamic countries, like Pakistan. It is, however, the responsibility of American companies who send work to third world countries to take advantage of the savings in production costs that translate to their bottom line; to be as cognizant and conscientious of who they are employing, and to adhere to the same guidelines of employment as they would adhere to in the United States. The following excerpt taken from an article by journalist Jonatha Silvers appearing in the Atlanta Monthly, 1996, helped illuminate why Mr. Mason's theory about educating the children of third world countries as an answer to child labor does not work:

NO two negotiations for the sale of a child are alike, but all are founded on the pretense that the parties involved have the best interests of the child at heart. On this sweltering morning in the Punjab village of Wasan Pura a carpet master, Sadique, is describing for a thirty-year-old brick worker named Mirza the advantages his son will enjoy as an apprentice weaver. "I've admired your boy for several months," Sadique says. "Nadeem is bright and ambitious. He will learn far more practical skills in six months at the loom than he would in six years of school. He will be taught by experienced craftsmen, and his pay will rise as his skills improve. Have no doubt, your son will be thankful for the opportunity you have given him, and the Lord will bless you for looking so well after your own.

Sadique has given this speech before. Like many manufacturers, he recruits children for his workshop almost constantly, and is particularly aggressive in courting boys aged seven to ten. "They make ideal employees," he says. "Boys at this stage of development are at the peak of their dexterity and endurance, and they're wonderfully obedient -- they'd work around the clock if I asked them." But when pressed he admits, "I hire them first and foremost because they're economical. For what I'd pay one second-class adult weaver I can get three boys, sometimes four, who can produce first-class rugs in no time (Silvers, 1996, p. 79)."

In South America, the situation is equally serious, but it is a place where the opportunity for children to achieve education is even greater perhaps than it is in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and other nations where child labor is exploited in Asia and in the Middle East. In South America, studies have shown that Public Outcry Can Reverse Corporate Practice in Third World Countries

What can be done about corporate exploitation of child labor in third world countries? First, American consumers, and elsewhere around the world in industrialized nations, might begin by causing corporations to make disclosure statements as to their position on child labor in third world countries - do they exploit, or do they not. Consumers can then use this information to purchase, or not purchase in accordance with their personal views on child labor.

Also, when cases of exploiting children in third world countries comes to light - as it did in the highly criticized case of celebrity Kathy Lee Gifford in her personal clothing line; public opinion proved strong and influential enough to cause Ms. Gifford to make changes in how she operates and produces her products. It was public outrage stemming from the fact that an already wealthy celebrity would use child labor to further acquire wealth that caused Ms. Gifford to react. It was a very highly publicized case, and in a journal article appearing in a 1998 edition of Afterimage, journalist Rebecca Schreiber commented this way: