Where the law and ethics diverge...

November 1, 2007 1:12 PM

Of course it's unethical/immoral for companies like Gap to use factories that use child labor, but do they have a legal obligation under American law?
posted by metacort to Law & Government (13 answers total)

Senator Tom Harkin introduced the Child Labour Deterrence Act in 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999, claiming that "This bill would prohibit the importation of products that have been produced by child labor, and included civil and criminal penalties for violators."

It did not become law. Since this bill failed, I imagine there is no obligation on American companies to not use child labour in developing countries (obviously, sending American children to work is prevented).

You might think it's obviously "unethical/immoral" for Gap to use child labour, but consider the consequences of Harkin's law:

Then, when Senator Harkin reintroduced the Bill the following year [even though it did not become law], the impact was far more devastating: [Bangladeshi] garment employers dismissed an estimated 50,000 children from their factories, approximately 75 per cent of all children in the industry. The consequences for the dismissed children and their parents were not anticipated. The children may have been freed, but at the same time they were trapped in a harsh environment with no skills, little or no education, and precious few alternatives. Schools were either inaccessible, useless or costly. A series of follow-up visits by UNICEF, local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) discovered that children went looking for new sources of income, and found them in work such as stone-crushing, street hustling and prostitution — all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production. In several cases, the mothers of dismissed children had to leave their jobs in order to look after their children.

This is from a UNICEF report. Child labour is not unequivocally bad, and laws to prevent it are not unequivocally good.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 1:33 PM on November 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

For factories in the United States, yes. American companies operating in foreign countries only have to operate under the local law. The only deterrent is bad publicity.
posted by empyrean at 1:34 PM on November 1, 2007

It is illegal to use child labor inside the United States, with some caveats and restrictions (here is a general run down). However in some cases the laws are ignored (such as migrant laborers picking crops) because those systems pay for by the output (x many shirts sown a day, y many bushels of cucumbers), and there is little to no supervision. In the case of producer pickers, the more people you have in your family picking, the more money the family makes, so everyone participates.

This is what I've read as the state side child labor law violations.

For international businesses, they are usually only bound by the laws of the country they are doing the labor in (which is why corporations love fascists, they keep dissenters and unions at bay, and minimize cost and overhead if you know who to talk to).

If there are any international / UN laws to prohibit such things, they are not enforced (UN has been against antipersonal land mines forever, but they are still being made, and now made to look like toys, since 'that is what the market demands').

It would take the consumer countries (the US) to ban the import of child made goods, but I doubt any legislation exists or would be enforced with the current powers that be.

I doubt you could let the free market decide, because until there is a financial incentive to not exploit children, it will keep happening (pesky un accountable externalities, like carbon output, etc.). Of course someone could come up with child credits, like carbon credits, which allows for X amount of exploitable children per year, and let people trade that on the open market.
posted by mrzarquon at 1:39 PM on November 1, 2007

Even if Harkin's law passed I doubt it is enforceable. I mean, what are we going to do? Send labor inspectors into factories in BFE to verify that no underage laborers are there? Further, it's important to note that most companies outsource their labor to foreign manufactures. It's not like the GAP reviews applications and only hires 8-year-olds, dude.

Lastly is child labor really that big of a problem? Sure it gets our attention, but I think plain'ole vanilla labor exploitation and wage slavery is a bigger problem.

Ideally this wouldn't even be a question for lawmakers. Ideally we as Americans wouldn't support (and by proxy sponsor unfair labor practices) corporations who do business like this.
posted by wfrgms at 1:44 PM on November 1, 2007

Ideally this wouldn't even be a question for lawmakers. Ideally we as Americans wouldn't support (and by proxy sponsor unfair labor practices) corporations who do business like this.

ideally nothing would be a question for lawmakers, because everyone would miraculously agree on what was the "right" thing and then do it all the time.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:11 PM on November 1, 2007 [1 favorite]

Send labor inspectors into factories in BFE to verify that no underage laborers are there?

Yes. We do it for other things all of the time. A friend of mine used to inspect Chinese factories to see if they were complying with anti-dumping laws. It isn't rocket science.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:33 PM on November 1, 2007

It depends on the trade agreement we have with the country producing the goods. One of the big campaign issues in 2004 was outsourcing, because many think American jobs are shipped overseas to countries that produce goods much cheaper by using child labor, low wages, poor working conditions, etc. Countries can add labor agreements into the trade pact if they choose to, but the U.S. hasn't done so for the most part.
posted by HotPatatta at 3:36 PM on November 1, 2007

Child labour is not unequivocally bad, and laws to prevent it are not unequivocally good.

True in theory, but given that the point of American companies contracting with companies who employ children is to cut costs, I have a hard time believing the children work under humane conditions and are paid fairly.
posted by Rykey at 5:01 PM on November 1, 2007

Under most WTO/free trade stuff you generally can't discriminate between like goods based on process (although this may be changing).

However, one thing to remember is working in a factory is the way a lot of children are able to eat and avoid child prostitution in this world. It's sad but true. These kids aren't working instead of going to 2nd grade. And often these jobs in western factories are the best paying and best conditions available, often way better. I hate to be a cultural relativist, but in this case I think it's a pretty valid argument for allowing it.
posted by whoaali at 5:18 PM on November 1, 2007

I have a hard time believing the children work under humane conditions and are paid fairly.

Of course they aren't paid fairly, and of course conditions are terrible. The point is that working in a sweatshop is, for lots of children, an awful lot better than any of the alternatives.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 6:04 PM on November 1, 2007

seconding Aloysius Bear.

"be careful what you wish for" applies here. Clearly children not having to work is the best thing for everyone but children (and their families) being able to eat is more important still.
posted by southof40 at 6:49 PM on November 1, 2007

Of course they aren't paid fairly, and of course conditions are terrible. The point is that working in a sweatshop is, for lots of children, an awful lot better than any of the alternatives.

Spoken like a true first-world entrepreneur. If only those abolitionists in the mid-1900s had been so charitable.
posted by Rykey at 4:24 AM on November 2, 2007

Oops! Mid-1800s.
posted by Rykey at 4:27 AM on November 2, 2007