Child Labor and Sweatshops
Child Labor and Sweatshops | Product Labeling Programs May Not Reduce Child Labor
Julie V. Iovine is a writer for the New York Times News Service.
Summary: Several carpet importers and manufacturers have responded to governmental and consumer aversion to child labor by participating in programs intended to assure customers that their rugs were made without child labor. These programs use inspectors to monitor the production of rugs and affix labels to carpets made by participating manufacturers. Such tactics may be ineffective, however. Labeling programs often have too few inspectors to monitor an entire domain of carpet...
[The entire page is 1606 words long]
Navigate
- Introduction
-
Table of Contents
- Child Labor and Sweatshops: An Overview
- An Indictment of Sweatshops
- A Defense of Sweatshops
- Sweatshops Must Be Recognized as a Human Rights Violation
- Sweatshops Often Benefit the Economies of Developing Nations
- Child Labor Is Beneficial
- The United States Should Ban Imports of Products Made by Children
- Efforts to Ban Goods Made by Children Are Counterproductive
- Consumer Pressure Can Reduce the Use of Sweatshops
- Efforts to Reduce the Use of Sweatshops Are Misguided
- International Partnerships Must Reduce the Use of Child Labor
- Campaigns Against Child Labor Are Protectionist and Imperialist
- Workplace Codes Could Prevent Sweatshop Abuses
- Workplace Codes Will Not Prevent Sweatshop Abuses
- Product Labeling Programs May Not Reduce Child Labor
- Youth Activism Can Help Reduce Child Labor
- Educators Should Encourage Student Activism Against the Use of Sweatshops
- Organizations to Contact
- Bibliography
- Copyright
Tell a friend about Child Labor and Sweatshops at eNotes.
