Discussion Topic #1

It is common for multinational companies to move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap. There are however people who claim that this is unethical because the companies are exploiting the people in these countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor conditions. What are your views on this?

well....the question was already phrased in a negative biased way, and people would naturally be against it....and i am one of them....a multinational company, being multinational would mean it's capable of managing it's production in more than one country and would very well be making lots of money. Yes, they go to third world countries and areas where are not so developed and give the people jobs....advancing the country and helping to pick up the economy....that's no doubt a good thing. The locals would actually think that these companies are doing them good, however....do they know that they are cheap labour ?....that in a more developed country, the employees would be paid many more times than what they're earning now ?...i do believe they don't.....
but then again....the standard of living there is most probably rather low....further more, people working there work willingly and would most likely be considered better off than those not working for the multinational company OR...(they really need the money)....it's pretty much the same here as it is over there in terms of the wages....we're paid according to the standard of living....let us compare Singapore to...Japan.....a bowl of noodles there...in a normal shop....about....800-1000 yen....that's like NORMAL kinda pricing there....800 yen's like...12 bucks over here....would you pay 12 bucks for wanton mee at a coffeeshop ?....any sane singaporean would probably say....SIAO AH ?....it's all about the standard of living....they probably get paid a lot more compared to us here in singapore because of their standard of living over there....so i think the same goes for the people in third world countries....BUT....then again...if you tell me they are complaining and what they are paid REALLY is ridiculously low even considering their standard of living then....what i just typed has been a waste of my time....hahaha...ok...on to the working in poor conditions....this, i don't know...there's no fight for this, it's downright wrong and violating human rights....even though the pay is higher, everyone should be entitled to work in a place with good conditions and there should be a limit to the number of hours each person can work....however, these ruthless companies take advantage of people with no education and make them work long hours knowing they need the money...
OK...if i put myself in the shoes of the CEO of the multinational company...i'd be like...hmmmm....the world is so competitive now....how am i to make lots of money with all these competition around ?....setting up a company in an already developed country would be risky as i have many competitors and it wouldn't be cheap at all...BUT....if i expanded my company to a developing country...ahhhhh....high risk yes....because we do not know if the people actually would need my product or my services or can they even afford it....but...IF it is successful....i'd want to squeeze out as much money as possible before some other competing company comes in to set up their company....in doing so...i'd want to produce as much as possible to ship out and sell...i want my labour to be cheap and producing continuously....basically...everything to be fully utilised with the smallest ever budget possible....so...in order to do that....i pay them my loose change knowing they need it and i force them to work for long hours....it's all win win for me....
ok...i'm done....hahaha....080946Y...C2....

“Paying them very little” – in the first place, how do you define “paying them very little”? Pay is quantified in terms of dollars and cents (or in other currencies). It is a rather subjective topic given the fact that we do not have a reliable method of determining whether the workers are being exploited by the companies (in terms of salary). For example, workers in China and India are being paid less than what they can get over here in Singapore (if we were to convert using the current exchange rates). To us, it may seem that those workers are being exploited. But we have to consider several key factors that will enable us to explore their current situation in more depth.

Firstly, we have to consider their current economy. In a competitive environment (like here in Singapore), the government readily accepts foreign talents whom will contribute to the local economy. This improves our current state of economy and will therefore strengthen our currency. However, rental fees will increase, and costs of goods will go up (due to taxes, in order for the government to sustain the level of competitiveness within our economy). In China and India, most of their labour consists mainly of locals. Due to the abundance of land, less-skilled workers (compared to Singapore), as well as other factors (especially the government economic policies), companies can afford to pay them lower salaries. It is all about the current state of economies between different countries all over the world. You cannot expect the workers in third world countries to be paid the same wages as those living in first world countries. No doubt globalization has bridged the gap between the first and third world countries. But it will take many more years before those third world countries can be on par or even exceed their first world counterparts.

If we were to interview these so-called “cheap labour”, I’m pretty sure that at least one of them will mention that he is happy with his pay as well as his working conditions. So can they be considered as cheap? In the first place, they themselves do not consider themselves as cheap. Why should we generalize them as “cheap labour”? Is it because they are getting paid less than us? But we must always bear in mind that if the workers are happy and content with their current working situation, the term “cheap labour” does not even exist in the first place. No doubt there will be others whom will not be happy with the amount they are getting paid with, but my point is that there are many areas that are highly debatable and we should never compare the salaries of two workers from two different countries based on exchange rates alone.

My personal opinion is that these companies have every right to choose where they want to set up their production plant. The primary aim of setting up a business is of course, to make money. There are other factors to consider as well, but location is definitely one of the key factors in determining the success or failure of a company. They will conduct feasibility studies and weigh the pros and cons of setting up a plant in a location where land and labour is cheap (compared to first world countries), in order to cut down on costs. Which owner would want to set up a production plant in a city area with high rentals and high standards of living? This will eventually result in unnecessary losses, as well as lower profit margin.

My conclusion – it is generally acceptable for companies to pay the workers little, as long as they are happy with their current conditions. As long as there are no complaints, anything goes.

For my point of view, I agree that the company should produce product at the capital such as India or China because it is cheap and can sell at the normal price to another country, so that people can afford it. I have 2 advantage and disadvantage.

1st advantage: The main company of pharmaceutical is at the U.S. But they have a lot of branch at Singapore, Indonesia, and India capital etc. So the production at the Indonesia can sell the product at Singapore at the price that people can afford it. The company at the Indonesia has a cheap capital and worker. The Singapore production will sell the product to the country that people can afford buying it.

2nd advantage: By doing this way each company will profit because the tax and capital is cheap. If one of the company branch went bankrupt, but the main company can still cover up their lost. The point is where people can afford the product. Let say if the company sell at higher price, people won’t buy it. They need to sell product that people can afford it and the product it efficient. People go for good quality and cheap product.

Disadvantage: The employee work hard but get less money because their country is a cheap and afford to eat and place to stay. They already use to poor condition in their daily life. People will work in any way just to get the money. Company has insurance on the employee by using the profit that they make. If the main company go bankrupt the whole branch will go down. If there has a lot of branch company it hard to maintain it.

This is how the company work. I think people who work as this line they will earn money that they can support themselves in 20 to 30 years. Pharmaceutical and petrochemical is where people need in their life. The production line should be in the top condition because every twice a year, the audit will come and inspect the whole company. The company should expand their business and help the people who cannot afford it.

From:Faris (084944J)

In my point of view i think that the company is doing a favor to the poor. Rather than being jobless, it gave the poor a chance to support themself by gaving them job. Although the enviroment and the pay may not be good but it can at least support them with food and providing their family with a better life. Without the company and the job provided by the company, the poor will be living in a worse enviroment. In a poor country the people are living in almost like * and cannot make ends meet. And alot of the poor become beggar. The job provided by the company to the poor is like giving them a second life, a brighter one. actually by doing so , both of the empployers and employees gain alot out of it. firstly the company can cut down on their cost by hiring the poor secondly they can hire more people. Looking at the surface of the problem it may seen like it benefited the comapny but in my point of view the one that are benefited most are the poors. the money may be not much but it can at least gave the poor a stable life.

In my own opinion, I think that it is ethical to do this. The multinational companies require abundant of cheap labour but at the current state, it is almost impossible for the developed countries (where most of the multinational companies are located) to have cheap labour. It is because the people in the developed countries have high expectation on their jobs as the standard of living is high. As the people in the developed countries needs to think about entertainments such as overseas trip for holidays, movies and gadgets such as PSP, handphones etc.

On the other hand, people on the less developing countries will has less demand as some of them could not even afford the basic necessities and all they hope is to feed their family and to have those necessities such as food, water, electricity and the money to pay for the medical fees and educations for their children etc.

The exploitation of the multinational companies is ethical. It is because before the multinational companies have exploit the countries, the people there may have a poor standard of living. If there is a choice given, would you choose a job which makes you work under a poor conditions. Of course not . Therefore I can say that on their point of view, the benefits given by the multinational companies are consider good even though it is something which is unacceptable. If it is not good they will not join the company itself. Not as if anyone force them to join the company. Moreover the exploitation of the multinational companies benefits the locals as it increase the tourism. The people from the multinational companies (which is from the country which the company origin) will need to go to the countries and therefore they will spend on the accommodation itself which will creates jobs for the local and allows the people to have more source of income which will increase the standard of living.

In conclusion, I can say that the exploitation of the multinational companies is ethical as not only it provides job for the people there, it also increase the standard of living there.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons why multinational companies move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap. There are namely global competition and global financial crisis. Companies must have either shut down or move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap because they cannot make any money where they initially were. Therefore, investors set up companies in countries which are profitable. To achieve low-cost manufacturing and great profits, these companies perhaps have no choice but to exploit its advantages.
And hey, I would definitely think the same way if I were a CEO of a multinational company. It may appear unethical but my concern would be to take advantage of the profit opportunities offered by cheap labour. Hence, as immoral as it may sound, cheap labour is deem to be an economic necessity.
Furthermore, it gives people jobs they wouldn’t have. As a CEO, not only am I prospering my company, I am also creating jobs opportunities to people living in poor conditions. Sure exploiting the people is bad but isn’t a bad job better than no job?
Say I am not a CEO of a multinational company. My perspective would without doubt differ of that of a CEO.
I would argue that this is unethical. This is because by doing so, it prevents these countries from pursuing any development. As a consequence, these companies no longer take advantage of cheap labour and poor working conditions, they are actually creating and maintaining them. How (and when) will these countries progress?
If I had to choose one word to describe extreme exploitation that include long work hours, poor working conditions and low wages, it would be inhumane. While accepting that a bad job might be better than no job, companies should not be permitted to benefit by violating human rights. Even if the people of these countries are low-skilled, abuse of human lives should never be allowed. Companies should adhere to the same labour, working conditions, health and safety standard and wages. I believe this would improve opportunities for their citizens and hence, the quality of life in these countries.
Now, say I am a poor worker. I would rather put up with such poor working condition, low wages and etc than starve. I am dead serious. If jobs were made any better, there is a possibility fewer jobs will be available. And if I were to be out of job, those dependent on me will suffer. Therefore, I would rather move from absolute poverty to something still awful but nonetheless significantly better.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that it is downright unethical to exploit the people in those countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor condition. By doing so, companies that move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap are not providing employment opportunities for workers but exploitation opportunities for companies.

Nur Atiqah Bte Rashid
082462K

company which set their company there is good. they can cut down their labour cost and the labour can earn some money to have a better living enviroment. all in all there is no right or wrong. depends which perspective u are looking at..

How do you define 'CHEAP' in this society?Well to me it means that i paid at minimum expense while acheiving what i wanted It is a world wide fact that most multinational companies move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap.This is what Business ethics in the marketplaces in this 21th century.PROFITS and BENEFITS is what they're looking forward to in return.Business ethics is a form of applied ethics that examines ethical principles and moral or ethical problems that arise in a business environment. It applies to all aspects of business conduct and is relevant to the conduct of individuals and business organizations as a whole.

In the increasingly conscience-focused marketplaces of the 21st century, the demand for more ethical business processes and actions is increasing.Simultaneously, pressure is applied on industry to improve business ethics through new public initiatives and laws e.g higher road taxes? In another way businesses can often attain short-term gains by acting in an unethical fashion; however, such behaviours tend to undermine the economy over time.
The part of exploiting the people in these countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor conditions is a kind of business ethics that overlaps with the philosophy of business, one of the aims of which is to determine the fundamental purposes of a company. If a company's main purpose is to maximize the returns to its shareholders, then it should be seen as unethical for a company to consider the interests and rights of anyone else.

Come to think for the POOR and unintellectual people in the third world countries,they have no rights in the society to ask or demand for a high pay.Since Knowledge and skills are valuable as it acts as a bridge to a higher pay check in this world.If i'm the commitee in a multinational company,I would definitely suggest the idea of setting up my production base in a third world countries,as there are several advantages that my company will definitely benefits from it. To me the principal purpose of a business is to maximize returns to its owners, or in the case of a publicly-traded concern, its shareholders. Thus, under this view, only those activities that increase profitability and shareholder value should be encouraged, because any others function as a tax on profits. I believe that the only companies that are likely to survive in a competitive marketplace in this 21th century are those that place profit maximization above everything else. However, i have to point out that self-interest would still require a business to obey the law and adhere to basic moral rules, because the consequences of failing to do so could be very costly in fines, loss of licensure, or company reputation in the marketplace.

Overall in my own perspective,i think that it's not unethical that most multinational company exploit the people in poor,third world countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor conditions.All these poor people should be glad that they could actually have a job they could support them for their basic needs even through they are most unintellectual.Having a proper decent job for them is better than they starve or rob out of desperation to survive in their countries.As for the poor working conditions, i feel that the multinational company sholud do something to rise it's working conditions as the working conditions for all those workers reflects directly on their working attitude and commitment to the company itself.

joycelin ong 083849E

It is common for multinational companies to move their production bases to countries where labour is cheap. There are however people who claim that this is unethical because the companies are exploiting the people in these countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor conditions. What are your views on this?
In the first place,this topic is already one sided.From our common knowledge,we all know that it requires a lot of capital to actually build a production bases in another country therefore it is only right that they try to minimize the cost and aim for gaining some profit.Those countries whose labour cost is cheap usually face the problem of unemployment therefore building a production bases can also provide some job opportunities.Even if the pay is cheap,at least they will still have some income.
However,if what the topic says about those companies is true, then i think the company should at least make sure that the workers are working in a favourable conditions.If the pay is so little,then they should not save money on making the conditions of the working environment more comfortable.We are humans so nobody would like to work in poor conditions so i think the company management should do something about it...

TYK
Toh Yong Kang
C2
081739M

Before a verdict can be placed, it would probably be wise for us to analyse the question based on different scenarios. Firstly, we need to define ethics. Ethics itself encompasses three types namely, common morality, personal morality and professional ethics. Each may sound very profound, but in actual fact, everyone bound to practice one of the three ethics in everyday life.
What common morality stands for is actually the basis set of ethics or moral beliefs shared by almost everyone. For instance, when we think of ethics or morality, we would link with precepts as that it is wrong to murder, lie, cheat or steal, break promises, harm others physically, and so forth.
As for personal morality, it is dependent on individuals but closely parallel to common morality. Just based on the facts of the scenario, that is multi-national companies moving their production bases to countries where labour cost is low, it is inevitable to provoke the voices of people as each of us holds different moral beliefs.
In the stand of the multi-national companies, the purpose of starting a business is to earn profit. Therefore, lower costs incurred would definitely guarantee larger profit margins. Most companies would actually adopt the mindset, that is as long as the company operates legally, it will be considered to have abided to their professional ethics.
However, the viewpoints of the community may not be entirely similar. Suppose that the community does not include the people directly linked to the companies, then the others’ perceptions would stand in two ways: that is, either for or against the actions of the multi-national companies.
For those who are for the idea, they would most probably feel that the step taken by these large companies is a promising one. Why is this so? Firstly, the setting up of production bases would mean the need for employment, which definitely serves as a source of income. Moreover, if the company is involved in technology business, it would also aid the country in terms of technological and economical advancement. Not only that, other business opportunities might open up for the country, such as interests in setting up of their businesses by other companies or even the expansion of tourism industry. Thus, it may seem appealing for the large corporations to set up their bases in those countries.
As for those who are against the idea, there are valid reasons to back up as well. Like what was mentioned above, in order for the corporations to hike up their profit margin, the only way was low costs. Since labour costs in less developed countries are much lower, this surely projects a promising view. However, if we will to think of it, wouldn’t this be against our personal morality? More in shouldn’t we try to improve the lives of the people there than take advantage? Also, it is generally noticed that the residents are being compensated in any case of mishap. So does this imply that if a human life is lost, that precious life is only worth in monetary terms? And do you still recognize this as ethical?
In summary, I feel that each party definitely has their own ethical approach with regard to every situation. The best method they could resort to is probably finding a middlea way solution which compromises both parties, unless human lives are at stake.

When MNCs set up their base in any counties, there are several factors that the companies will consider, such the basic infrastructure, the stability of the country, the support from the government and of course the labour resources and abilities. In a modern country like Singapore, many MNCs set up their base here because of the excellent geographic location and the stability of the country as a whole. The “quality” of the labour force here and the ability to handle the operation is one major factor that MNCs are considering.

Taking into consideration one of the factor mention above, labour plays an important role in any form of industries. In order for companies to market their products at their products at competitive prices, the factors in getting raw materials and labour are important. However, raw materials are now globalizing with better transportation network and it has now not seen as a major factor. However, manual labour in providing hands on production is still seen as essential and indispensable.

Coming to the question on whether is it unethical to set up base at countries where labour cost is cheap, I believe there are two sides to how we view this. I believe that by setting up production bases in these countries, the companies is providing a source of income for the people, These countries are mostly developing countries which their GDP are low and depends heavily on agriculture. By having foreign countries investing in their countries, it will greatly enhance the quality of lives of the people. Taking into consideration that these countries are less developed, the people might not be highly educated and thus their labour contribution becomes an important element for their livelihood. It is undeniable to face the cruelty of the Society that people of higher education will be doing jobs that require more thinking and those of lower or no education will end up in more physical jobs. Pay and incentives are closely linked up with education. The higher education you attained, the higher pay you get. That is something that we can’t deny. Although there are cases whereby a person who is less educated earns more if he takes up a more dangerous job like working in oil mine is also possible. As such, the issue of exploiting these people in these countries may not be justifiable here.

I am wondering if MNCs are setting their bases in these countries, how poor will the working condition be. As we look in a larger perspective, the question here seems to be looking at a minority of the situation. There are often debate on human rights and freedom. But at the same time, people abuse their rights and demanding more for what they are already enjoying. The working conditions are defined differently by people. What determines as poor working conditions? Is not having air-conditioning regard as poor working conditions? I believe that these people in less developing countries are thankful of having a job and the ability to honour their families with basic daily needs. As the meaning of exploiting these people, it is really on a case to case basic.

Tan Jin Siong, S084346J

Since it is already acknowledged as a ‘common’ practice for most of the multinational companies, would they bother whether it’s ethical or morally wrong?

Companies’ priority is to earn the maximum profit using the least capital. If they were to set up their production base in their local country, area where they might find difficulty in minimizing cost. E.g. they couldn’t afford the expected wages to the local workers, yet they can’t possibly trim down the salary. If they pay the expected wages, their profit won’t be as much as desired. While the other choice would bring them much troubles such as riots. It is an either way decision to make.

Consequently, cheap labour is their most advantageous alternative. Without having the need to provide high wages for the workers, companies are able to hire more manpower. Additionally, the resources and rental for land are most probably cheaper resulting in cost decreased.
- Achieving the mass-production-low-cost situation is their optimal goal.
Indeed, with the cheap labour on-going, it’ll be a win-win situation for both the companies and labour workers. Companies gained the manpower which they need while those labour workers are able to earn a living, making ends meet.

According to an online article, Bangladesh was benefitted from the cheap labour. Their ability to produce textiles and footwear cheaply attracts buyers to invest in them. Quoted from the article, “DHAKA - AN ARMY of cheap labour has made Bangladesh a hotspot for growth as the rest of Asia struggles through the global financial crisis and observers say the country must now exploit its advantages.”
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_330558.html

However I think that companies should never risk the safety of those workers for the sake of earning more profits. Without availability of safe working environment, it is absolutely not acceptable. The amount they earn is seriously too little; we can’t expect them to work well in environment that contains nothing but poor conditions! (Excuse me, no matter how undeveloped countries they are from…they still have their human rights!)
- Completely unethical.
This will eventually lead to further complications, such as outspread of disease and disorder.

We can put it in a nice way that both parties actually rely on each other for individual intention, or they are just ‘using’ the other party to achieve what they want. It do make sense that both can’t do without each other.
- Multinational companies might result in winding up when cheap labour is terminated.
- Most people from less-developed countries will be jobless without multinational companies who need manpower.

All in all, this is how things work to make the world go round. To attain individual’s aim, trading is required in most cases. Unavoidable, there might be a short changing of people in trade in some cases. Since there are always two-sided perspectives in most situations, there’re bound to have someone who benefit lesser.

I would remain my stand, exploiting people without considering their well-being should never be tolerated.

There are always reasons why multinational companies move their production bases where the labour is cheap. This is because they can make a lot of profit and with cheap labour and cheap land; they can also sell their product at low price. Through this, there will be an increase in their consumers’ rate as they sell their products at lower price than other products from other multinational countries. Even thought they gain a lot of profit as they are in countries where the labour is cheap, they cannot treat the workers unfairly just because they are cheap labour. Every workers from different countries should get the same treatment doesn’t matter they are cheap labour or expensive labour. For me everyone is same so there should not be unfair treatment.

As multinational companies, they should give the workers good work environment even though they are from countries where labour is cheap compare to other countries such as USA and Britain. They also must get the same treatment with the workers from other countries where the labour is high. For me it is unfair that they have to work under poor conditions despite their working time and contribution is the same with workers in countries where the labour is high. As they also contribute to the company’s profit margin. If without them, will the companies make profit? Surely the answer is no. As there will be no workers to make the product and if there is there will be only few workers who can withstand to work in that kind of environment thus there will be only few products being made per day. Hence, the companies won’t make any profit without them.

Since the production bases are located in countries where the labour is cheap, thus the multinational companies will pay the workers low. Maybe for us the pay that the workers get every month is not proportional to their hard work and the time they spend working at the companies per day. Even though it sounds unfair that the companies pay the workers low, maybe for the workers the pay is quite or more than enough for them to survive every month as their standard of living is lower than us. In their countries, things that they spend every month are much lower than us.

Norashikin 081398G

Hmmmm…*thinking*

MNC’s are companies with branches located worldwide with its headquarters and main factories usually based in developed countries. However, branch factories are located in developing countries. From a business standpoint, it is a way of increasing profitability.

One large factor that attracts MNCs to developing countries is because labour is cheap. Feeding on that factor, they are able to cut cost and spend it on R&D, which is the focal point of such companies. From my point of view, such companies are not exploiting the people of these countries. When an MNC enters a developing country, they usually set up a factory that specializes in manufacturing a part of the whole product. Usually the people are given training and taught skills, in a way; the MNCs are sharing their insights and expertise to these people. These people have been living in poverty and poor conditions. However, given the skills they attain eventually, they will be able to fend for themselves as they have a guaranteed income. MNCs also help to attract foreign investors into the country. This will help increase the marketability of the country as they help diversify the economy. Employment and economic structure will start to balance out.

Despite it being cheap labour in the eyes of those from developed countries, the gains of the developing country is much more. It is obvious that people of developed countries are far more educated and have higher expectations monetarily. But if we were to change that to a country of developing status, with low education and skills, being paid less is a norm. To these people, having a guaranteed income would improve their lives.
They are paid lowly and yet, they have to work in poor conditions. It is a fact that when MNCs set up factories in developing countries, the locals are hired for jobs in the blue-collar sector. Poor conditions to work in are bound to be improved on in time to come. However, such poor conditions compromise the safety of the locals. Especially in the world of today where one is granted many rights and allowance to voice out, it is crucial for companies to ensure that risks are minimized. Risks that could be avoided should be eliminated. Therefore, I do agree that risking the safety of the locals, is a definitely no-no

When there is a victim, it is far more troublesome and costly then what it would have taken to avoid them. This will then be redundant to set up a MNC, They try avoiding spending more on labour yet by setting up factories for locals to work in poor conditions, they are bound to fork out more money in future. WHY? Workers victimized, malfunctioning equipments or even their products. For example, if the MNC is an Auto car maker, a part of a product was produced with a fault it would be more costly to cover up the damages.
In conclusion, it is alright to pay people low if their skills are of a certain level. It is like paying you for what you are capable of with the economical value of the country in mind. It would be the same case anywhere else in the world, given your skills, you would be paid accordingly, keeping in mind the Gross National Product per capita. It differs per country. In such advanced time, the know-how of doing things is very important.

I believe everyone plays a part in the society, be it the rich ones or the poor. Companies move their production bases to countries where labor is cheap. The entire idea lead me thinking of those foreign workers who came over to Singapore just to work as construction workers, moving stuffs in the construction sites and those maids who came all the way here to work just to send money home to support their family’s financial needs. To prove that they are cheap labor, a full-time maid from other countries and a part-time house cleaner from Singapore have a huge number of digits difference in their paycheck, without said we all know that the part-time house cleaner earns more comparing the amount of time both spent. These are daily life examples of cheap labor.

This cycle works both way, the company needs the laborers to keep the products on going and the laborers needs the paycheck from the company to support their family. There must be reasons for the laborers to accept such low offers, able to work in such undeveloped environment without holding any degree. Companies moving their production bases to less developed countries and hiring cheap laborers is a technique they uses to boost their profit with a lower capital. This technique is what most company desired as it will benefit both the company and the workers. So since both parties don’t mind the condition, this is a good deal.

Unethical? Like all other topics in the world, this idea has also a side which people have different comment as they will have different perspective on the topic.

Advantages of it is it benefit both the company’s profit as they have to only pay a low sum of money to the workers and produce the same quality of products. Another advantage is people from the less developed country will be employed and able to earn enough to support family and a living.

Disadvantages are the company will have to ship their products to and fro just to get the package of the products ready. Another disadvantage is that the safety of the worker must be emphasized, though they are just foreign workers, their life is as important as any others. So to ensure everyone’s safety, the company must provide the required safety gear for workers.

Wrapping up all the points, individual will have their own perspective and comment on the companies’ form of earning profit but no matter how good the idea may be, it will always have a undesirable effect. Just like the sun, no matter how strong or bright it is, there will always be half of the earth in darkness.

There are many multinational companies that are moving their production bases to countries with cheap labour. Some people defines this as unethical as they claim that the company is exploiting the workers and is underpaying them. But what does unethical actually means? It is defined as unfair, dishonest and immoral. In the subsequent paragraphs I will be discussing on it this issue is unethical, are the company actually exploiting them, are they underpaid and made to work in poor conditions.

Is this issue really unethical? I would say that it is no to a large extent, because it is after all business. So it is very essential to look for and choose the cheaper or more lucrative options. Some more it’s a multinational company so therefore it is very important to make the decision that is most beneficial to their company as they have lots of share holders to answer to.It also makes the country that they go to, with the cheap labour, prosper and boost the economy of the country.

To a small extent I would say that it might be unethical as it seems that the multinational companies are making use of the country’s cheap labour. But then to think again from another view, it can be seen that both the company and the country are making use of each other to gain their own benefits. The company gain cheap labours and the country gain job opportunities for their citizens.

Are the companies really exploiting their employees? I think that it is no to a large extent, in my opinion I think that since the multinational company it willing to invest in the poorer country, which may actual provide a lousier quality of work and requires more training as compared to the initial country’s labour, and the poorer country is willing to accept the investment to their country, then I wouldn’t consider the multinational company to be exploiting them.

We can also think of the multinational company of giving the poorer countries’ citizen a chance to acquire better knowledge and upgrading themselves as the multinational company would train them before giving them the job. It also allows the value of the countries citizens to be increase since they have proper training thus in the future other investors that come to invest in the country do not have to give them any more training or just minimum amount of training.

Yes to a small extent, if the multinational company is really giving them working environment or treating them that is against the human rights then I would say that they are exploiting them.

Are they really underpaying their employees? Or rather I would say that the pay employees receive should be greatly depended on the level of knowledge or qualification they have. So it means that since the poorer countries’ citizen mostly have not much of a knowledge or no knowledge in the field that the multinational company is, as compared to the developed countries citizens that are educated and properly trained, of course they should be paid a lower pay then the trained personnel. As the multinational company still have to fork out or put aside an amount of money to train the untrained employees. So this should be taken into consideration as well.

I would say yes they might really be underpaying their employees to a small extent, some as I have discussed in the previous paragraph that is involved with human rights. Of course the multinationals employers should pay their employees enough. And not underpay them.

Are they really made their employees work under poor conditions? I would agree to a large certain extent that they are making them work in poor conditions. As there are many cases of companies and employers, even some multinational companies) are providing their employees with poor working conditions in order to save costs. And it usually occurs when the employees are not so educated so they don’t really know the danger of working in poor conditions.

I would agree to no to a small extent, since the pay of the employees, the rent of the land and many other costs are much lower in the undeveloped countries as compared to the developed countries. So the multinational company should be providing an adequate working condition to their employees.

In summary, I would say that it is not unethical to move their bases to country that provides cheap labour. I feel that this after all business so when both parties benefits from the deal. So it is after all hard to put a define answer as to if it is ethical or not.

Done by:
Jasmine Tan
082708U

Exploitation or not, in one way or another, both the MNC and people who willingly worked there would definitely benefit from this. MNC brings in profit to the host country, and solves (maybe a little) problem of unemployment, which would in turn boost the economy, contributing to high standard of living, no?
It's a give and take situation.
MNCs gives them job opportunities, economy boost. So in turn, they would get their workers from the host country, and perhaps also gain access to the resources available. Aren't all these the reasons for MNCs to be set up in poor countries with abundant cheap labour/resource?
These are all tactical resorts to thrive in the ever competitive global economy, and you've gotta be shrewd sometimes.
I would rather see it as an opportunity for economic growth which would benefit both parties.

Cheap labour...hmmmm...
Scenario: I could buy a bottle of coke from Thailand for less than 50cents. In Singapore the price for the same bottle would probably be 3x the amount. For us people who live in Singapore, we would say paying less than 50cents for a bottle of coke would be freaking cheap, but for the Thai people living there, it's just the "right price" or probably expensive to the poor. Another scenario: Compare a Thai accountant who has the same qualification/education as a Singaporean. They (basic pay) earn roughly 12000bhat++ per month. That's like $500++? Even a McDonald's worker would earn more than them! Aren't they better off working in Singapore's Mac's then? People who lives in good economy countries would probably call that exploitation. But who could say the same for those living in poor countries? A piece of bread means nothing to a Singaporean child, but give that to a African child, it could save him from starvation. We pay the price to live the kind of standard of living we want to live. The same goes for them. And i don't think anybody in the right mind would accept a job that pays VERY LITTLE. If it's so much more worth it than working in local companies, i say why not? Well, unless they're damn desperate...but the point is, they work there willingly, no one forced them. And if you call this exploiting, what about the thousands of Bhangras/Indians/China-nese who came to Singapore to work? They came here willingly too. And look at those mistreated maids from Philippines/Indonesia! Their working hours are so much longer than anybody, and they're paid peanuts. Their current pay is so much more than what they would be earning back at their own country. You call this exploitation? Hello, it's the same everywhere.

As for poor working conditions....hmmmm...
It's absolutely unforgivable to violate basic human rights...but it's no say for us. I mean, personally, I WOULD FIGHT FOR MY OWN RIGHTS. And if it was so harsh to work there, why stay on? Because of money/job issues? In the first place, THEY LIVED IN POOR CONDITIONS, would they know if they're being subjected to working in a harsh environment? I don't think they'd bother. It's like, been there done that, so what could be worse than what they've always been doing? Scenario: A road sweeper being hired to sweep office floors. From a sunny environment to an air-conditioned place. Poor working conditions? Hah. They'll still be sweeping what! These people (should) know what they are bargaining for the moment they accepted the job. They know what they're getting into, and if they're satisfied with whatever they're doing, i wouldn't call it "poor working conditions". It all depends on the individuals working there. As i said, for those living in a good economy country, you can't expect the same kind of luxury from a poor country. STANDARD OF LIVING IS DIFFERENT. We sleep on a bed, for them it's A LUXURY TO EVEN HAVE A MATTRESS. See the difference?

We should stop stereotyping these workers as "cheap labour working in poor conditions". It would be an insult to them. They themselves may not have the same thinking as us when they accepted this kind of job. What's unethical is US having this kind of shallow and stereotypical thinking. If everyone's fine and working happily, and there are no complaints whatsoever, why bother. At the end of the day, both the worker's and MNCs's aim/goal is still the same; both wants to benefit from this (hint: MONEY). Let them speak for themselves. Then perhaps, we could make a better conclusion for this discussion. They way it is now, we're just judging them according to what THEY SHOULD BE GETTING by comparing the difference in economy and such. Remember, we pay the price for the kind of standard of living we want to live.

ALRIGHT.
I'm out. 082048K.

If I were a member of the company and faced with such a question my reaction would probably be: Yeah, why not ? Cheaper labour costs would mean a higher profit for the company. That is a decision that people would make, it is only reasonable to do that. The claim that doing such is exploiting people of developing countries to work under poor conditions is something I cannot agree with.

These people that are working for MNCs may be considered getting low salaries when compared to us but is the standard of living and currency rates incorporated into such comparatons ? I seriously doubt so. In Singapore, people holding a salary of $1000 might be barely making ends meet, but if people in developing countries reed a salary of 1000 SGD dollar equivalent to their countries I think they will have quite a bit of money left over after deducting their daily living expenses. This situation is due to the standard of living and the prices of products in different countries. Salaries that appeears low to us, might be a lot to people working for MNCs in developing countries as compared to working for one of their local companies.

The moving in of MNCs to developing countries would also no doubt be a great boost to their economy and thus increase the living standards of the peoples. As of a successful launch of MNCs factory happen, this would reflect a stable and effective workforce in these countries. Thus attracting other MNCs to set up their factories there too, solving the problems of employment. The setting up of such factories would also bring in new technologies, new products and impart new skills to the workers there. THus I think the decision of setting up factories in developing countries is a win-win situation ofr everybody.

Toh Jia Xin
083950U

I believe there are 2 sides of the story in this case.

In an MNC's view,
I would definitely want my company to earn the most with minimal costs at the same time. Currently, it is possible in Bangalore, India where land, raw materials and labour especially is within reach and at such a low cost even. It is THE ideal place for my company to function. It isn't because I do not want to pay my labourers a higher pay, it's simply because it is that way. With the hundreds of MNC's functioning at the same place, and if I were a new MNC coming to set base where I know labour is cheap, I want the same treatment as all the other MNCs are getting.

In a Labourer's view,
I have just attained a diploma or a degree at the local university. MNC's come to my country to set up their productions. My diploma/degree allows me to work at one of the MNC's here. Despite the relatively low wage, I would be ecstatic if they even hire me from the tens of thousands who graduated with me. Especially during the economic crisis now, it is crucial for me to find a job that would put food on the table never mind the poor working conditions as long as we get past the economic down turn.

In my opinion, it feels unethical yet it doesn't feel. Seeing from the recent writer's strike that occured in America, where Hollywood writers went on strike because of the low pay and as a result, many american serials and movies had to be cancelled due to it, shows how cheap labour can react differently. We can see from the American writers that they decided to go on strike, and we can see from the labourers in india that they just hung on. It's just the way it is right now, that people are stereotyping developing countries to have cheap labour. But apparently, no one seems to be de-stereotyping the way of thinking of these developing countries. Hence, more and more MNC's continually set up their productions there and get what they want which is cheap labour.

Quick thought, Macdonald's labourers are getting dirt cheap wages even in Singapore. Why is that we always think and feel that everything there is extremely overpriced (which is true) yet we still patronize them?

In my opinion, the MNC will always be the ultimatum.

MNCs set up production line in developing countries because of their cheap. MNCs can reduce their operation cost and increase their profit. The product will be selling much more expensive in developed country because people can afford it. As a result MNCs earn more money. If the production line will be set up in developed country MNCs need to pay more salary for the worker than because they have higher cost of living than worker in developing country. In addition, developed countries have worker union to protect their worker rights and benefits. While, developing countries some of them may have worker union but not so influence like worker union in developed countries. As the result, the union can’t protect the worker right and benefit.
Another point of view is MNCs set up production line in developing countries giving them jobs to do better than jobless. They are cheap labour because they have low skilled and don’t have high education.
How you define that MNCs paying them very little and work under poor conditions? For example $1000, $800 or $500 isn’t very little? This must depend the country cost of standards living. If this amount of money for us may be very little for them may be a lot. How poor is the conditions? For example, the company don’t have air-condition or need to work at least 6 days. In this situation, isn’t consider work under poor condition? People who claim that this is unethical. Have any evidence to proof it? Some more this is only one sided view, you can’t confirm that is true. We need to compare those people opinion who work in MNCs from developing countries. Different people have different point of views is depend how you look at different angle.
In conclusion, MNCs is ethical or unethical not for us to say. In order to raise the standard of living, developing country must invest a lot of money in education. This is the only way to break the poverty cycle in the country to let the poor have the chance to get rich. Also, the country polices important to determine where are for example have law to protect the basic right for the worker.

Done by: vincent (086278J)

Is it really unethical that companies are exploiting the people in these countries by paying them very little and making them work under poor conditions when they hired them?

Hmm… how do we define poor working conditions? To some, they may refer those poor working conditions of theirs to places without air conditioner, but yet there are tables, chairs, clean environment for them to work in. And yet to some, poor working conditions may refer to places whereby there are no proper shelter and in a dirty environment.

You may randomly catch any working adults or young adults on the streets in Singapore and simply ask them what their poor working conditions are. I can assure you that over 90% of them would give you an answer that as long as there are no air conditioner and proper tables and chairs to work on and no proper shelter to work under will be their poorest working conditions. Needless to ask them whether if there is no proper shelter and the environment is dirty would be considered as poor working condition. Definitely, guarantee they will say that is not poor working condition, they will tell you that that is *!!

Well, let’s try again. This time round we randomly catch any working adults or young adults from places where cheap labour are, for instance China and ask them the same question, probably they will tell you as long as there is job for them, who cares if there are no proper shelter to work under and the environment is extremely dirty. That condition given to them will be their best working condition already. If provide them with proper shelter, table and chairs but no air conditioner, that will be their heaven already!!

See, just by comparing adults from Singapore and china, how great is their definition of poor working conditions.

So, where will you stand to define your poor working conditions? Is it somehow the same as Singapore adults? Or is it somehow same as the Chinas?

Okays, let’s narrow down to the point saying that the workers are paid very little.
Yet again, what would be a lot to you? What would be very little to them?

Like some of my classmates have mentioned, pay wise can be referred to many situations. For instance, the currencies and the current exchange rate can make lots of difference to it.

Take for example again; a Singaporean adult would say very little refers to 2K per month? But converting that amount to china renminbi, it would be 9,448.91CNY. There is a lot of difference to that.

So, what is your stand if you are the CEO of one of the multinational company?
You will say that yes, I have given lots more than enough to my workers.

And yet again, what will your stand be if you are one of the workers?
No, I don’t deserve so little.

So..

From my personal opinion, this can be unethical and this can also be ethical. It is a matter of fact on how you define your terms in this situation.

What will affect your mindset in defining your terms in this issue? One factor will be the current living conditions you are living in will greatly affect how you define it.

For instance in Singapore, we are more or less a developed country with good facilities, good environment etc. however, there is a gift and a take. If you want good facilities, you have to pay more. (This is what we are doing now, GST increased, the richer you are, the higher the taxes you pay). This will generally leads to people having a mindset to work harder and to desire higher pays to accommodate to their current living conditions.

Yet again, for a third world country citizen, their country is not developed; there are no good facilities around etc. Of course, they will have to pay lesser for their taxes. Also, they will generally produce mindset that as long as they have earned enough for a living, it will be considered alright for them already.
Let’s say given my situation in Singapore, I will definitely say that it is unethical, since you are a multinational company, you are so capable of setting up so many companies, why are treating your own workers this way. Why are you paying so little to them? Do you think that they can survive with that amount of pay and such working conditions? I would probably keep saying that they exploit workers by bla bla bla, pay little to them bla bla bla etc.

Then again, if im given the situation of a cheap labour, I will say it is ethical what. They came over to our country, provide us with jobs. We have our pay; we have the income to support ourselves. We don’t have to be afraid of hunger, as long as I can survive, it is good enough already. The pay is good, our country’s environment is all along that bad, it is impossible to change it, the working conditions they given us is the same. Moreover, they have help to improve the standard of living of our country. Why say that it is unethical?

So..

Overall, what I can only say is put yourself in the CEO’s shoes and put yourself as a cheap labour before you give any conclusion about this issue. Look at things in different angles, sometimes what you think may not be what others are thinking. Different people have different thoughts and feelings about issues around the world, not leaving out this issue too.

It is the situations that you are in that leads you to set your own points of view.
Everything is all up in your mind.

Okays..
IM DONE !!

Milfred ong
082411A

Business is all about making profit. Those who agree that it’s unethical, ask yourselves is there another way out? There probably is. However, why would a company who controls everything from production line to human resource want to go for something less when they themselves (employees) are willing to work as hard for the salary offered? It is all about the standard of living between different countries. People living in third world countries can’t expect to be paid as much as those living in first world countries.

However, companies should not let their workers work under poor conditions. It’s unkind to practice that. Let’s have a bit of conscience. After all, they are just like us who are trying to earn a living.

In conclusion, I strongly feel that companies have the right to choose how much they want to offer because that’s business but never let them work in poor conditions.

On my point of view, there is a both ethical and unethical point to consider before the multinational companies could move their production bases to countries where the labour is cheap.

For the unethical point of view, if the companies were to move to countries with cheap labour, the local will lost their jobs. Therefore this will results in increase in retrenchment. Thus there will be an increase in unemployment. This will decrease in the standard of living in local because more multinational companies are moving their production bases to countries where labour is cheap.

As for the ethical point of view, if the companies were to move to countries with cheap labour, the companies and the country that they invest on will be at an advantage. This is because if they move their company there, they will save in the cost of labour as the cost of labour is cheap. This will lead to increase in the profit. Therefore, with the increase of profit the company could invest more on the product. As for the country, with the present of the multinational company, the standard of living in the company will increase. This is because more local in the country will be employed. This will also increase in the wealth of the local.

Therefore after analysing both the ethical and the unethical point, I conclude that I agree more on ethical as it benefits both the company and the country.

I feel that the moving of multinational companies (MNCs) to countries with cheaper labour than their own home countries have both ethical and unethical reasons.

If you look at the situation from the ethical point of view, the MNCs are actually helping the jobless people in that specific area by providing them with a way to earn money for their own living. Thus enabling them to improve their standard of living. As they improve their standard of living, they can contribute to the economy of the country. This will help to improve the state of the country in overall. Also, the MNC itself can make some profits of its own by reducing the cost of production via reducing the workforce’s labour cost. The MNC might be also able to use the country’s natural resources and put them to good use.

From the unethical point of view, the MNCs are actually making use of the workforce by paying them lower wages than the workforce from their home country. People would put forward the argument that ‘what is better in the people from your home country than our country?’

A suitable solution, in my opinion, would be to make a law to make it such that part of the profits made by MNCs, actually go back to the workforce that they employ. This way it would be fair.

So in conclusion, although the moving of multinational companies (MNCs) to countries with cheaper labour than their own home countries has both ethical and unethical reasons, the majority of the reasons lie in the ethical region.

Vikneshvaran S/O Chandra

083726Q