In the new era of globalization, American companies often locate their manufacturing operations in countries outside the United States. Many countries are eager to attract American industries and the employment they bring; overseas factories usually can be run at sub- stantially lower costs largely because wages for foreign workers are much lower than wages for American workers. The treatment of these foreign employees has engendered many questions and raised many issues. Their working conditions may not be safe; they may be asked to work unreasonable hours; they may be paid less than a living wage. In some parts of the world, many factory workers are school-age chil- dren. Increasingly, the public is putting pressure on American corporations to improve the treatment of their foreign workers and to provide the same kind of safeguards that protect American workers.
PROS
Companies build factories overseas for one primary reason: Foreign workers are cheaper. When companies are driven by the profit motive, they have an incentive to pay as little as possible and to skimp on equipment and procedures that would provide comfort and safety to workers. Workers need to be protected from corpora- tions that care more about profits than people.
Some foreign governments are so eager to attract Ameri- can investment that they favor management over labor. They do not protect their own citizens with strong labor laws, and they do not guarantee workers the right to form unions. Workers are at the mercy of their employers.
American companies located in foreign countries have no incentive for making commitments to the local com- munity. If the workers become too expensive, or if the companies are forced to spend money to improve condi- tions, they simply pull out and move to another country with cheaper workers and lower standards.
Because they have no union protections, workers are often asked to work absurdly long hours, with no extra pay for overtime, and in dangerous conditions with hazardous materials. They fear that if they complain, or
CONS
Manufacturers know that mistreating workers does not pay in the long run. They know that a healthy and a happy workforce is going to be more productive and give their operation long-term stability. Certainly manufac- turers care about the bottom line, and it is precisely that concern that motivates them to treat their workers well. The presence of American companies has a direct ben- efit on the economies of their host countries. Workers are taught skills and exposed to new technology. Moreover, a strong industrial economy has been proved to be the best way to lift people out of poverty. In time, foreign workers will achieve wages and working conditions comparable to those enjoyed by American workers today.
Wages may be low compared to US standards; how- ever, the cost of living in these countries is also low. It is absurd, therefore, to expect American companies to pay the standard minimum US wage in a country where that wage has 10 times the buying power that it has in America.
Activists like to say that factory jobs in foreign countries are intolerable and undesirable, but the facts do not sup- port that assertion. People are eager to work in a factory, when their alternative is making less money for a full day
1|The Debatabase Book
of backbreaking agricultural work. To the workers, jobs in American factories represent opportunities to gain a higher standard of living.
The American objection to child labor is founded on the idealistic notion that children should be in school. But in many countries where the factories operate, universal schooling is nonexistent, and the child who is thrown out of a factory job goes back on the street. In many cases, the child who does not work in a factory will simply work someplace else; in poor families, it is expected that anyone who is able to work will earn a wage to support the family.
refuse to work when demanded, they will be fired and replaced by someone who is desperate for a job.
Child labor is condoned in many countries where Amer- ican companies do business, but American companies should refuse to take part in this abuse. There is little hope for the future of countries where a child must pro- vide labor, instead of getting an education.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House will not buy materials made in foreign sweatshops.
This House would force American companies to let foreign workers unionize.
Web Links:
• Ending Sweatshops. <http://www.sweatshops.org/> This Web site is sponsored by the activist organization Co-op America. It discusses “sweatshop” conditions in foreign countries and encourages citizens to take action to eliminate them.
• Sweatshops for the New World Order. <http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4628> This essay, from the Foundation for Economic Education, argues that American protests about foreign factories are ill-informed and ahistorical.
Further Reading:
Elliott, Kimberly, and Richard B. Freeman. Can Labor Standards Improve Under Globalization? Institute for International Econom- ics, 2003.
Featherstone, Liza, et al. Students Against Sweatshops: The Making of a Movement. Verso Books, 2002.
Moran, Theodore H. Beyond Sweatshops: Foreign Direct Investment and Globalization in Developing Nations. Brookings Institution Press, 2002.
PACIFISM
Pacifism has a long history in the United States. Although their numbers have been small, pacifists have opposed every American war from the Revolution to the Iraq War. Occasionally their voices have contributed to policy changes, as was the case in the Vietnam War. The debate between nonviolent objection and the use of force to achieve a goal brings up issues like morality vs. practicality: Is violence ever constructive; and, does pacifism in the face of a threat serve to increase or diminish evil. The debate also contrasts the lives lost in war with the liberty that might be lost if war is avoided and thus raises the difficult issue of sacrificing lives to preserve a principle.
PROS
Violence is never justified under any circumstances. Life is sacred, and no cause or belief allows a person to take the life of another.
CONS
We are not arguing that violence is of itself a good thing. We are saying that when others are using violence to endanger principles as fundamental as human rights, people have a duty to stand up against them. Not to do so would merely allow evil to spread unchecked.
Sample Motions:
This House would be pacifist. This House rejects violence.
This House would turn the other cheek.
Web Links:
• The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It. <http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thegoodwar/american_pacifism.html> PBS Web site providing overview of pacifism in American history.
• Pacifism. <http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pacifism.htm> Philosophical discussion of pacifism.
• The Paradox of War and Pacifism. <http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/clark.html> Historical discussion of pacifism from a Christian point of view.
Further Reading:
Gan, Barry L., and Robert L. Holmes. Nonviolence in Theory and Practice. Waveland Press, 2004. Zinn, Howard. The Power of Nonviolence: Writings by Advocates of Peace. Beacon Press, 2002
Neither side in a war emerges as a victor. War rarely set- tles issues. (For example, World War I created the con- ditions that led to World War II.) War always creates suffering on both sides. Often the innocent suffer, as in the case of the firebombing of Dresden or the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in World War II. Pacifists believe that violence begets violence. Pacifists do not have to retreat completely from world and domes- tic affairs. During World War I, conscientious objectors stood up against the militarism and cynical diplomacy that had led to the conflict. In many countries they were executed for their beliefs.
When war is inevitable, pacifists can protest the cruelties of war, such as torture, attacks on civilians, and other contraventions of the Geneva Convention, in an attempt to curb violence’s excesses.
Great religious leaders, such as Jesus and Gandhi, have always advocated pacifism. They believe that “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.” For thousands of years the wisest thinkers have believed that violence does not end suffering, but merely increases it.
Disputes do sometimes persist after wars, but often wars can lead to the resolution of some issues. For exam- ple, World War II prevented fascism from taking over Europe, and the Persian Gulf War led to Saddam Hus- sein’s withdrawal from Kuwait. In these cases, the failure to act would have led to the oppression of millions and permitted an aggressor to triumph.
Pacifism is a luxury that some can practice because others fight. Pacifists claim moral superiority while enjoying the liberty for which others have died. We fought both world wars to combat aggression and injustice. We did our moral duty in resisting tyranny.
This type of protest is not true pacifism, which rejects war outright. By admitting that war is sometimes inevi- table, you are acknowledging that sometimes people cannot sit by and do nothing.
In practice, most world religions have adopted violence, in the shape of crusades or holy wars, to serve their ends. And does not the Bible advocate “an eye for an eye”? When an aggressor endangers liberty and freedom, humanity must use violence to combat him.
10|The Debatabase Book