Child Labor Is Condemned Across the Globe,

Child labor is condemned across the globe, but is it fair for a multinational to terminate relationships with suppliers when incidents arise regarding the use of child workers, regardless of the implications to the community as a whole? It is fair for a multinational to cease doing business with suppliers that fail to comply with ethical labor practices. This does not mean that an isolated violation justifies doing so when the suppliers are really committed to respecting acceptable labor conditions.

If a multinational allows supplies to violate ethical labor practices, it would imply that the multinational is not seriously committed to those practices and is as guilty of the violations as the suppliers. The argument that maintaining the level of employment in the community takes precedence over ethical labor practices is wrong. It would mean that any level of exploitation is preferable to having to find alternative employment or being unemployed for a period of time.

The case of Nike's decision to terminate its business with Saga illustrates the importance of adhering to ethical labor practices. Saga's violations of the code of conduct advocated by Nike were systematic, not isolated events. Nike conducted a six-month investigation of labor practices at Saga operations and found repeated compliance violations of codes of conduct regarding child labor, safety, and health and environmental issues. Violations included worker harassment, unjustified termination, and shortchanging workers on payment of wages.

Moreover, the Fair Labor Association conducted an independent audit of Saga and found similar labor violations. According to Nike's CEO and president, Saga had repeatedly failed to honor commitments made to Nike to correct the pattern of violations. In terms of the impact on the community, economics and ethical labor practices are not mutually contradictory, as will be explained in the response to the second questions.

Adherence to ethical labor practices by large companies, such as Nike, can be an important part of enforcing labor codes of conduct and economically benefiting communities in the long-term. 2. lf parents in economically deprived areas willingly allow their children to work in order to survive, should it be inappropriate for international companies to allow this? To allow child labor under any condition because they make some money is wrong. The position that Nike took seems to be right one.

As a concession to the level of poverty in a community, children at a certain reasonable age, maybe 14, could be allowed to work, but under certain conditions such as limitations on the length of the workday, following workplace safety and health standards and environmental regulations. Guaranteeing the health and safety of young workers and ensuring that they receive their correct payment makes economic sense for their families. A child who is injured or develops health problems can cease being a wage earner.

The adherence to ethical labor codes of conduct could lead also to include better wages. 3. Do international companies have an obligation to help rectify these problems? If not, why not? lf so, to what extent and in what forms? Yes, they have an obligation to help enforce ethical codes of labor practices, but such behavior on the part of international companies is insufficient. The involvement of international organizations, such as the Fair Labor Association, and governments are also necessary to enforce compliance.

In the 1990s, major companies such as Nike, Adidas and Puma started working with the International Labor Organization (ILO) and local suppliers to.