The status of sweatshops has caused several arguments among the public. There are those who perceive sweatshops from the companies' point of view, while the others analyze them from the employees' perspective. From whichever angle the issue is analyzed, benefits of sweatshops outweigh their disadvantages.
Sweatshops have been criticized for having poor working conditions and low wages. The criticism has been a basis for discrediting their existence. While it could be true that poor wages and working conditions exist in sweatshops, workers voluntarily choose to work there. Such choice indicates that compared to other options, workers find sweatshops better despite the perceived critical working conditions. The prohibiting of sweatshops' existence would deny people their right to freely make a choice. Consequently, this would lead to worse living conditions for the workers as they would be forced to choose less preferable alternatives. Therefore, it is a great upside of sweatshops, since they provide those who choose to work there with favourable working and living environment.
Sweatshops are also found in less developed countries, where the cost of labor is cheap for multinational corporations. The existence of sweatshops is beneficial to the United States since it is a developed country with a considerable number of multinational corporations. Although critics of these small factories may argue that developed countries exploit the developing ones due to their poverty, sweatshops create employment. Apparently, governments of these countries are unable to create enough job opportunities for their citizens. Although sweatshops may not meet all good standards expected in terms of minimum wage and working conditions, their existence does more good than bad. A lot of human rights organizations are numbered among those who are against sweatshops . Their campaigns may lead to the closure of some sweatshops, hence causing the loss of employment of local citizens. The conditions in which employees are left are worse than they were when working in sweatshops. Those against sweatshops do nothing to alleviate poor working conditions, while sweatshops try to reduce the level of poverty by offering some form of employment.
The relationship between employers and employees in sweatshops is mutually beneficial rather than one-sided as critics of sweatshops tend to insinuate. Such mutual benefit exists irrespective of whether working conditions are good or poor. Therefore, sweatshops are as good as the workers consider them. Both employees and employers benefit from this relationship. The relationship should not, therefore, be seen as exploitation of poor countries by the developed ones. The decision on whether sweatshops are good or not should be left to those who work there. The workforce is the only one who can objectively evaluate the merits and demerits of sweatshops. In a situation when a sweatshop was closed down in South African due to its failure to meet the minimum wage requirements, workers protested the government's move. Consequently, the question raises why would workers protest sweatshop's closure if it was bad for them. The answer to this question lies in the fact that sweatshops are much better than other jobs; such reality is acknowledged by the workers' protests.
In conclusion, sweatshops are good for various reasons despite being criticized by many people. First, customers choose sweatshops over other alternatives, indicating that they are more valuable to them than other jobs. Secondly, sweatshops supply people with the employment in developing countries, which their governments have failed to provide. Therefore, they make employees' lives better than they would be without them. Thirdly, both employees and sweatshops' authorities mutually benefit. Thus, the theory of sweatshops exploiting employees is disproved. Apparently, the sensible way forward to solve the problem associated with sweatshops is to analyze them from the employees' perspective. As a result, the judgement would be beneficial to both sweatshops and employees.