“Are garment workers’ deaths on our hands? No”
Date of Submission
- Article title and publication
The article under criticism is “Are garment workers’ deaths on our hands? No” by Doug Saunders. It was published on April 27, 2013, by the Globe and Mail Newspaper in Toronto, Canada. It was published in English and has a total of two pages.
The introductory part of the essay provides the thesis of the critical response to the article. I support the work of Doug Saunders by arguing that trade between Western countries does not cause poverty, rather it promotes economic empowerment.
- Article Summary
The article disclaims the notion that Western countries are responsible for the miseries that Bangladesh workers undergo because they are direct consumers of their products.
- Analysis of the article
Saundersuses valid and adequate evidence to explain the miseries of Bangladesh workers. The author also proves that developed countries do not cause misery in developing countries by citing examples of countries like China that benefited from global trade.
- Response to the article
I second Saunders on the opinion that developed countries are not to blame for the cases of misery and poverty because various countries that were considered underdeveloped are now among the developing nations due to theglobal market.
I second Saunders opinion because developed countries play a huge role in strengthening the economy of developing countries.
Doug Saunders’ article “Are garment workers’ deaths on our hands? No” was first published in Globe and Mail Newspaper on April 27, 2013. The article is about the miseries that the Bangladesh garment workers undergo in the effort of meeting consumer needs in Europe and North America. This paper provides a critical response to the article by supporting the claim that trade between Western countries and Bangladesh does not cause poverty, rather it promotes economic empowerment.
Saunders articulated the issue of the exploitation of Bangladesh garment factory labour workers by their owners. The article indicates that garment labor providers work long hours and receive low wages (Saunders, 2013). The factory owners focus on profitability from the Western market to an extent that they undervalue the safety of the workers by ignoring work safety warnings. As a result, tragic incidences such as theoutbreak of fire at Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and the collapse of an eight- storey garment manufacturing building led to the loss of over 400 lives (Saunders, 2013). Saunders further proceeds to state that Europe and North America are the main consumers of the Bangladesh Garments because they are cheap.Thus, Saunderswonders whether the West are to be blamedfor the death, poverty and misery in poor countries (Saunders, 2013). The author, however, believes thatWestern countries are not to blame for the death or misery of people in Bangladesh, rather their involvement with the West is a means of empowerment.
According to the tone of the writer, this article presents an argument on ethical concern about the existing business relationship between the developing and the developed countries. Precisely, could it be possible that developed countries such as Europe and North America go for cheap markets in countries like Bangladesh but in the process they affect the welfare of such countries? The author clearly uses the incidences of tragic fire outbreak and collapsed eight storeys building related to garment business as evidence for the suffering of Bangladesh workers. However, Saunders claims that clothing bargains by developed countries do no cause poverty, misery, and death. To support the claim, Saunders started by pointing out that the owners of the factories had ignored safety warnings to imply that they were the main cause of the tragedies (Saunders, 2013). The author also uses the evidence of the Triangle fire in North America to imply that the Bangladesh tragedies could bring change regarding wage increment and safe working environments for the workers (Saunders, 2013).At this point, Saunders fails to acknowledge the economic disparity between the Western countries and Bangladesh by assuming that workers in Bangladesh can push for increment in salaries and better-working conditions.However, the article provides enough information that can be useful to policy makers, government bodies and organizations for both the producer and consumer countries.
In response to the article, Isecond Saunders on the opinion that developed countries are not to blame for the cases of misery and poverty experienced in Bangladesh. In support of my opinion, most countries that were considered underdeveloped are now among the developing nations because of the global market. Thus, it is true that employment opportunities in garment industries empower workers. However, I disagree with Saunders support of the occurrence of tragic incidences as triggers for reforms in employment sectors because the severity of such incidences in low-income countries is higher as compared to developed countries.Countries such as Bangladesh need interventions that focus oneducating employees on their rights.
Saunders Dog articulates the challenges that Bangladesh labor workers in garment factories undergoin the effort of understanding the source and solutions to the problems. The garment workers work for long hours but receive low wages. They also work underdangerous working environment. The critical part of the situation is that they work hard to provide a cheap market for developed countries. Thus, the author wonders whether the West should be held accountable for the related deaths and miseries in Bangladesh. Saunders, however, claims that developed countries are creating opportunities for developing countries to grow economically. I second Saunders opinion because I believe that developed countries play a huge role in strengthening the economy of the developing countries.
Saunders, D. (2013, April 27). Are garment workers’ deaths on our hands? No. The Globe and Mail [Toronto], p. 2.