Double Standard That the United

¶ … double standard that the United States corporations condone when it comes to industry. The writer explores the standards that United States workers demand and are given in the workplace as compared to the substandard working conditions that United States companies provide foreign workers overseas. The writer then discusses the impact of this practice on society, environment and the labor standards in general. There were four sources used to complete this paper.

During recent years, workers in the United States have watched helplessly as U.S. corporations move their operations to other countries. While the corporations defend their actions with financial rhetoric the news media continues to uncover unsafe working conditions, environmental dumping and dirt poor wages for those foreign employees who were initially thrilled to have an American company come to their area of the world. When the world looks at America they often see a land of opportunity. They are aware that United States workers have a high standard by which they work. They are provided breaks, safety equipment, regular wage increases and many times, benefits for not only themselves but also for their families. U.S. corporations hold their heads up proudly and point to the many ways that they take care of their workforce, citing the belief it is their "civic duty " to do so. When the same corporations decide to move their operations overseas the waiting locals there are eager to work for an American company. They envision high wages, safe working environments and the chance to make something of their lives. Unfortunately U.S. corporations seem to have lost their memory as soon as they cross the ocean. Their sense of civic duty falls by the wayside and they subscribe to a double standard when it comes to the treatment of their employees and the conditions that they provide. The time has come for those companies to uphold their civic duty because it is the right thing to do regardless of the local laws allowing them to turn a blind eye to working conditions. If these companies want respect and consumer loyalty they need to start changing the face of the world by providing model working conditions for their overseas employees that can serve as blueprints for the local companies to follow.

ENVIRONMENT

Mankind has pretty much figured out that the world's natural resources are not going to last forever. In the United States great strides have been made to be sure that corporations do not continue harming the environment with their manufacturing processes. Companies can either pay very high dollar amounts for the clean up when they provide a negative impact on the environment or they can spend some money getting their manufacturing process environmentally friendly which not only helps the preservation of natural resources but at the same time often provides a healthier work environment for the company's employees.

Many companies have been accused of providing a double standard between the working conditions in the U.S. And what they allow and promote overseas. New Balance Athletic Shoes has been accused of running sweatshops in China. Other companies have been accused of similar measures. While the companies in question may feel it is their right to save money by doing so, they need to understand that in the long run it is going to cost them and others many times more in the cost of lost natural resources, injured or contaminated workers and angry consumers.

When New Balance was accused of using unsafe labor practices and being unfriendly to the environment they found that it also angered their consumers. They worked hard to polish their tarnished image and portray a better face for the world (Reidy, 1998). Companies need to practice the same civic duty regardless of whether or not it becomes public.

New Balance has portrayed itself as a David that employs U.S. workers to take on such sneaker Goliaths as Nike Inc. And Reebok International Ltd., which routinely contract out the manufacturing of their shoes to overseas factories with cheaper labor costs. New Balance has acknowledged previously that some parts of its shoes are made overseas, but the bulk of the work is done by U.S. employees, the company said (Reidy, 1998). "

The double standard was evident when examined and it was discovered that the standard of labor and safety regulations for the company's U.S. operations were much higher than the standards for the overseas operations were.

In one case, Nike and New Balance shoes were made at the same Chinese factory, where workers were sometimes paid as little as 19 cents an hour, Marblestone said. "New Balance has a responsibility to these workers (Reidy, 1998)."

While new Balance was moving operations overseas and reducing their safety and environmental costs for their workers their bottom line continued to climb. Several years ago the company grossed $630 million which represented a 15% jump in profits.

With the profits on the constant climb there is no reason for the company not to instill the same working conditions for the overseas operations that are followed here in the states.

LABOR CONDITIONS

Labor standards and conditions are another area in which the United States corporations seem to practice a double standard. In the U.S. breaks are regulated by federal law as our meal periods. Safety regulations must be adhered to and inspections are held to be sure that they are. The company is expected to provide any and all safety equipment needed for that purpose. To not do so can mean very expensive fines and possibly being shut down by the government.

Many U.S. companies have moved their operations to Taiwan because they can get away with ignoring those regulations there.

Taiwan's Labor Standards Act covers a broad range of labor-related matters, but generally in no way in as much detail as does American law (Kohl, 1996). "

While many debates can become heated when it comes to globalization of corporations few can match the intensity of a debate regarding labor standards overseas by American companies.

Proponents of workers' rights argue that trading nations should be held to strict labor standards -- and they offer two quite different justifications for their view. The first is a moral argument whose premise is that many labor standards, such as freedom of association and the prohibition of forced labor, protect basic human rights. Foreign nations that wish to be granted free access to the world's biggest and richest markets should be required to observe fundamental human values, including labor rights. In short, the lure of market access to the United States and the European Union should be used to expand the domain of human rights (Burtless, 2001)."

The next argument in favor of fair labor standards is the economic interest that comes with it. If a trading partner is allowed to gain unfair advantage and power over its competitors by using unfair labor standards with its workers that company will eventually gain enough power to force the competitors out of business. The economic repercussions of allowing companies to skirt fair market labor standards simply by moving overseas sets the economy up for serious future issues back in the states.

If each country must observe a common set of minimum standards, member countries can offer and enforce worker protections at a more nearly optimal level. This second argument, unlike the first, can be assessed with economic theory and evidence (Burtless, 2001)."

THE PROBLEM

The problem is that while most nations will agree that there should be fair labor standards they have a hard time agreeing on where to draws the line. Poor nations are eager to lure big American businesses to their area to provide jobs for their residents. Those nations are at a disadvantage and more inclined to allow things that other more prosperous nations would never allow to happen.

The United States corporations that take advantage of the weak and vulnerable position of those nations are displaying a double standard.

Many proponents of labor standards would expand the core list of ILO protections to cover workplace safety, working conditions, and wages. The U.S. Trade Act of 1974 defines "internationally recognized worker rights" to include "acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health (Burtless, 2001)."

THE SOLUTION

One of the strongest messages that can be sent to a corporation is a financial message. The message is heard loud and clear when it is going to impact the bottom line. The World Trade Organization needs to implement fair labor standards for all of its members in addition to any nation that is hoping to become a member.

The United States corporations also need to develop a conscience. They need to understand that they have within their power the ability to change the way humans are being treated on a world wide basis. They need to hold themselves to standards that are equal to what they do for their American-based employees.

This will serve the world in two ways. The first thing that it will do is created a model that other companies in foreign nations can follow. If American companies are setting examples the local companies will soon have to follow suit or face angry employees.

The second way it will benefit the world is by maintaining a fair competition in the market for other companies. Going overseas for the sole purpose of cost and then shipping the product back to the states at reduced prices also hurts the U.S. economy. American workers spend their money within the boundaries of the U.S. And it is important for companies to remember the very people who work for them also buy from them.