Would you agree that in order to eliminate sweatshop conflicts large corporations such as Russell Athletic should retain the same high labor standards and regulations that they have in the home country (for example, in the U.S.) when they conduct business in developing countries? How hard or easy can this be to implement?
• I believe that they should use a survey analysis to scoop the labor standards and regulations in that country.
• The ...view middle of the document...
That shows that their morals and values are low, and that their intentions are limited to truly benefit the people for future investments.
• There is a huge income difference compared to the capita in the United States, so it is hard to have the same labor standards throughout the world.
Do you agree that Russell made the right decision by conceding to USAS and union demands? Isn't a less expensive way to handle this sort of situation simply to ignore the scandal? State your pros and cons regarding Russell’s decision to compromise with the workers’ union and NGOs as opposed to ignoring this scandal.
Yes, Russell cannot operate by exploiting the people for their own profit. It is their duty and responsibility to set the example for other businesses to follow.
Yes, never exploit the people in the first place.
• That there is now safe working conditions for the Hondurans.
• Shows that Russell has integrity, and is good business.
• Better working conditions makes better quality of products.
• Respect to human rights leads to social and economic development.
• Business that respect labor rights put more money in the hands of workers to better educate their children and live healthier lives.