The Importance of Labor Standards

In our recent discussion about Wolf’s chapter on trade, we discussed the merits of encouraging higher labor standards abroad. Wolf and his supporters contend that, while nice for Westerners to think about, these higher standards represent inefficiency and cause a loss of desperately desired factory jobs in developing countries. But this raises an important question: does the fact that someone is willing to work under certain conditions mean that those conditions are inherently justified? My position is no.

It is unsurprising that, facing desperate poverty, men, women, and children in developing countries are willing (and possibly even happy) to accept factory jobs, despite the poor conditions and low wages relative to Western standards. However, there are two important caveats to consider in this situation. First of all, it is unlikely that workers know exactly how dangerous a workplace is until it is too late. Last month, I wrote a blog post about a September fire at a Pakistani clothing factory. The fire killed more than three hundred workers, who had trapped in a building that lacked adequate emergency exits. The danger that this building posed, both in the state of its mechanical features and its lack of safety features, would not have been easily apparent to the workers who entered its doors each day. These are costs associated with sweatshop employment that only increased labor standards and inspections (which, by the way, can be demanded by those annoying trade unions that Wolf despises).

Further, even if we assume that workers have perfect information regarding the safety of their workplaces, should we accept that they are willing to risk their own lives in order to earn factory wages? The willingness of those facing desperate poverty to take incredible risks in order to provide for their families should not be open to exploitation by multinational corporations. When society establishes safety laws, we often declare that even if individuals do not value their own safety, we will prohibit them from taking undue risks. This is the case with seatbelt laws, for example. It is also the logic behind many of the health and safety regulations currently in place in the United States, in which individuals are prohibited from working under unsafe conditions even if they think the risk is worthwhile. If American lives are not worth risking for profit, then neither are the lives of workers in developing countries.

As Wolf highlights, there are certainly costs to enhanced safety and health regulations. It is likely that companies will be able to higher fewer workers in order to comply with such regulations. It is also likely that these companies would be able to find individuals to work despite unsafe and harmful conditions. These, however, are not sufficient justifications for placing workers in dangerous, potentially life-threatening situations.