Sweatshops and the Catholic Difference
By TODD DAVID WHITMORE
Given that the next session of the symposium on sweatshops (Sept. 27) is on Catholic teaching and sweatshops, it is worth looking at least one way in which addressing the issue from a Catholic perspective can make a difference.
Any effort to come to grips with the reality of sweatshops must consider the questions of the working conditions of the laborers and the just remuneration for their work. Creating acceptable working conditions and a living wage, however, will in most cases increase the cost of production. Most discussion of this likelihood focuses on whether consumers will continue to buy the product when the additional cost is passed on to them.
In the case of Notre Dame apparel, for instance, it can fairly be asked whether persons would be willing to pay more money for a sweatshirt. This was the question that William Hoye rightly posed to the audience at the last symposium. How many would be willing to pay a dollar more? five dollars? ten dollars? Hands went down as the dollar amount went up.
The problem becomes more complex when, as was pointed out by a member of the audience, the decline in demand due to the pricier sweatshirt may well lead to the laying off of some of the workers. People and institutions who wish to help the workers are therefore stuck with a conundrum: Improving working conditions and raising wages for workers may mean that fewer persons actually have work at all. At minimum, the decline in demand will reinforce pressures to go back to previous conditions and wages.
It is at this point that Catholic teaching may make a difference. Most economic theories that seek to include a moral component focus primarily and even exclusively on improving the lot of the least well-off, with reflection on the most well-off generally limited to the presumption that their gain itself helps the poor. Catholic teaching, however, highlights the gap between rich and poor as a specific moral problem. In "Dives in Misericordia," for instance, Pope John Paul II writes, "This fact is universally known. The state of inequality between individuals and between nations not only exists; it is increasing. It still happens that side by side with those who are wealthy and living in plenty there exist those living in want, suffering misery ... this is why moral uneasiness is destined to become more acute."
How might a focus on the rich-poor gap get us out of the conundrum where better conditions and pay leads to fewer jobs? If we assume that the university in question and the apparel company are both relatively well-off (which is not to say that they are being wasteful), then the way is open to suggest that they also, and not just the consumer, should absorb some of the cost involved in improving conditions and wages. Splitting the cost three ways means that less of the increase is passed on to the consumer. More consumers buy sweatshirts and more people work in better conditions with higher wages.
In Notre Dame's case, the University receives a percentage of the manufacturer's profit. Notre Dame could arrange a deal where it agrees to take less of a cut in exchange for the manufacturer agreeing to have less of a profit margin. One objection would be that the money the University makes from licensing Notre Dame products goes to scholarships. The counter-argument is that whatever is lost could be reallocated from another budget line, perhaps (even though I like our campus very much) landscaping. My sense is that if the income from apparel were to diminish for whatever reason, the University would attempt to find other avenues of funding for the scholarships. The well-being of the workers who make our apparel seems to be about as good a reason as one might imagine.
When Mr. Hoye asked who would be willing to pay an extra dollar, virtually every hand went up; when he asked who would be willing to pay ten extra dollars, only one hand remained. Sharing whatever cost is involved in improving worker conditions and wages is one way to assure that while the requirements of justice are being met more hands remain in the air and more workers remain on the job. The fact that the University has already allocated significant sums to address from a moral perspective the multitude of issues that surround licensing its products is an indication of its good will. If the task force appointed by President Malloy finds that better conditions and wages will lead to a decline in jobs, then even more will and resources may be necessary.
Todd David Whitmore is director of the Program in Catholic Social tradition and associate professor of theology. His column appears every other Friday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Friday, September 17, 1999
