Sweatshop Culture in Australia: A Threat to Workers and Patients

This article discusses the emergence of sweatshop culture in Australia, particularly in the plastic surgery industry. It highlights the exploitation of workers and the use of faulty products, posing a threat to both workers and patients. The article emphasizes the need for stricter regulations and better communication between the government, society, and businesses to address this issue.

Running head: BUSINESS SOCIETY
BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s Note:

2BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
Introduction
Sweatshop's culture is becoming rampant in different parts of the worlds. It refers to a
certain manufacturing facility where the workers or the laborers are made to work in a very bad,
u healthy working condition. They are made to work for very long hours and are given a
minimum amount of money as their pay scale. However, this has to be avoided. Lim and Shim
(2019) have stated that one ironical and alarming facts are the rapidly advancing presence of
sweatshops in developing countries. It is expected that developing countries are the ones where
people will be getting a free flow of educational and income opportunities. There will be a
reduction in rate or poverty and unemployment. However, Warner and Sullivan (2017) have
argued that just the opposite is taking place. Australia is one among those developed world
economies where the sweatshop culture is becoming prominent.
Presentation on the issue
Orleck (2017) has stated that the sweatshop culture is present in almost different job
sectors of society. Cook and Ryan (2015) have stated that there are many new and innovative
discoveries being made in Australia. Australia is said to be one of the most advanced counties in
terms of technology. It is a very good and advantages aspect for the overall development and the
growth of the different organizations in Australia. The Australian economy will be able to
provide an equal opportunity to all the citizens irrespective of their socioeconomic and ethnic
backgrounds. However, Harrison et al. (2015) have argued that slavery is one of the harshest and
prominent evils that is existing in the Australian modern economy.

3BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
There are many people who have to spend their lives under the clutches of poverty.
That’s the picture in Australia, not in countries like the UK. In England, a social enterprise
approach is used. Efforts are made to protect the rights of the workers. However, the picture is
worsening in Australia with the passage of time. Workers are paid the minimum legal wage,
£6.50 ($11.80 AUD). This is the minimum and the lowest unacceptable amount of money that is
paid to the workers who are working in the sweatshop cultures. However, the Government of
Australia or other policymakers often feels that Australia legally pays people with disability
working in Australian Disability Enterprises. They often criticize India claiming that they
appreciate sweatshop culture. However, Berlage (2018) has argued saying that the picture in
Australia is no different. They exploit the disabled worked by categorizing them under the
special employment setting but pay them very low wages for their hard work and effort.
Cook and Ryan (2015) have counter-argued saying that the Australian Government has
formulated many important laws and principles in order to fight these issues. However, slavery
and inequality exist due to the improper enforcement of the Acts, policies, and laws. McKenzie
(2017) has stated that apart from slavery the exploitation of the people have become another
major social evil. As per the opinion of Davy (2016), there are many stores in Australia that
provide the goods at a considerably lower price. For example, the shoe sat Kmart is available at a
much lower price. There are hardly any investigations that are carried on beyond the lines to find
out the exact reasons. McMillan (2017) has suggested that these products are made at the
sheltered workshops by the poor workers who are paid very low wages and are brutally
exploited. workers are scaled by ‘productivity scaling’ – despite the fact that the government’s
own productivity scaling tool (BSWAT) was declared discriminatory and illegal but still this
tradition is illegally carried on in many different parts (Berry 2018). Sweatshop shaves become

4BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
rampant not only in the industrial or the manufacturing units but also in the fields of medical
surgeries and cosmetic plastic surgeries as well (Berry 2018).
However, in recent years, it has been seen that the plastic surgery business in Australia is
coming under the scandal of using this sweatshop culture for increasing their production.
Cosmetic surgery is in great demand in the modern day scenario and patients from different parts
of the world often come to Australia for getting the plastic surgeries done. As per the opinion of
Warner and Sullivan (2017), the major reason behind the alarming and rampant growth rate of
the sweatshops in the companies is due to the fewer expenses. Organizations try to save more
amount of money for their personal benefits by putting the lives of their customers and
employees at stake.
Presentation of original case 400
As per the opinion of the Australasian Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, who have
warned: "cosmetic surgery sweatshops" have become "rampant". The media report that is
covered by Sydney Morning Herald in this volume says that some cosmetic surgery providers are
engaging themselves in the illegal activities by encouraging the presence and operation of
sweatshops (plasticsurgery.org.au.2019) This is not only posing a major threat onto the
employees who are being exploited but also the customers or the patients. Dr. Somia said the
lawsuit against one of Australia's biggest cosmetic surgery "sweatshops” is promising and he
hopes tighter regulation of the cosmetic enhancement industry will follow. As per the opinion of
the doctors and other professionals of the Australian Society of Plastic Surgeons, many non-
medical professional and underqualified professionals are entering into the business channel and
providing low-quality products. The industry – which spans minimally invasive injectables to

5BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
more invasive treatments including breast augmentation – is still not as well regulated as other
forms of medicine, Dr. Somia said, partly because it has grown fast in the last two decades. As a
result of this under qualified and unqualified practitioners saw a career opportunity in this and
have started exploiting people. Sweatshop's culture is hidden, illegal manufacturing set up that is
carried on in an under-covered way without any registration or without fulfilling any formalities.
Many non-medical and non-registered professionals and surgeons take part in the production
process thus giving rise to unethical business activities.
Thus it can be said that the connection or the communication between, society, business,
and the Government is not efficiently interwoven. Government has formulated several Acts and
laws to safeguard the interest of the workers. Acts like Anti Discrimination Act, Fair Works
Commission, Fair Works Act, and others are formulated by Government to make sure that they
are being enforced at different organizational setups in order to provide complete protection to
the workers. However, the Sweatshops totally defy these rules and do not provide any kinds of
protection to safeguard the rights and the interests of workers. On the other hand, there have been
complaints regarding the poor quality of the products that are sold to the customers or the
patients of plastic surgery. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons Report estimates about
17.5 million cosmetic procedures in the past year, and Australians usage is higher per capita
(Berry 2018).
Discussion of case
The case covered by the Sydney Morning Herald shows that the workers or the disabled
laborers are made to work for very long hours in return for a very low wage. This is done by the

6BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
companies as they want to save their money for some personal benefits or in order to get a higher
ROI. However, making profits or personal gains in this manner are totally unethical. Customers
or patients who are paying a huge sum of money for getting the plastic surgeries done have to
suffer a lot because of the faulty products like artificial body parts. The article has shed light on
the issue of the faulty and botched breast that were used during breast plastic surgeries. These
transactions are done by social media platforms. Patients are desperate to pay any amounts of
money for getting cured and are unable to know the right details about the backgrounds of the
doctors, manufacture ring agencies or even the surgeons. Thus they are often misguided and
misled by the company that is business, by the society and in turn by the Government. Berlage,
(2018) has suggested that there is a lack of coherence, unity, and understanding among
Government agencies, the social policy framers and the respective business units.
Theory of ethics
Utilitarian ethical theory is prominent in this case. As per this theory, the welfare and
interest of one minority section of the society are overlooked due to the protection of the interest
of a majority group. However, this is really unfortunate. This is evident in the emerging
corruption between the Governing bodies, business units, and society. The main reason behind
the emergence of Sweatshops is the low capital funds needed for their maintenance and the
cheaper operation cost for the plastic surgery business. However, there have to be proper rulers
that will pay equal importance to all the workers (Tsalikis 2018). Labors who are disabled must
be given specialized support and some extra payment rather than subjecting them to immense
pressure. Deontological ethical theory must be initiated among all the stakeholders including
Government, society, and business so that they can provide fair and equal treatment to all the

7BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
members irrespective of their background. In other words, they have to make sure that workers
belonging from the disabled or any other minority group.
Common Good Approach must be followed by the organization in order to assess the
certainty of the common good of the society from the implementation of the processes (Doppelt
2017). Government, society, and business must use the common good approach method as this
will be helping in undertaking strategies that will be helping for protecting the rights of the
workers belong from all the different sections of the society. Virtue Approach must also be
used in order to deal with this issue. Organizations like Australian Society Of Plastic Surgeons
that are working for the welfare of the cosmetic surgery patients must ensure that they are
investing a generous amount of capital funds for the proper production of the cosmetic surgery
materials and also for building employee-friendly work ambiance. Fairness/Justice Approach
must be implemented in order to treat everyone as equal. Labors or the workforce are the assets
of the business units just like the customer. It is because of the handwork of the workers and the
price paid by customers that the economy enjoys steady growth.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Thus it can be concluded that sweatshops are emerging as one of the societal evils at different
layers of Australian Society, It can be said that the Government is taking due steps to look after
the welfare interest of their workers but somewhere or the other there is a lack of proper
connection or communication between the employees or the managers of the business
enterprises, the society and the Government.
 Proper awareness campaigns are to be conducted that will help customers or buyers to
know about the illegal activities that take place at Sweatshop manufacturing units. The

8BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
patients and their family members who want to opt for the plastic surgery materials must
be made aware of the exploitations and the inhumane treatment done towards the workers
working in the sweatshop units. Apart from this, the buyers must be made aware to check
the quality of products before they buy. There has to be a joint and collaborative effort by
Government, business and the society to make the customers aware of demanding for
sweatshop-free products.
 Organizations or business units dealing with the plastic surgery like Australian Society of
Plastic Surgeons have to enter into proper collaboration with Government so that strict
rules can be formulated for the purpose of safeguarding laborers
 Government has to set up a strict investigation team that will comprise of special
inspectors, medical experts, law and enforcement officers and others who will be able to
keep a strict check on all the cosmetic or plastic surgery manufacturing units.
 The Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) must formulate and implement the
policy of banning the title cosmetic surgeon. There must be proper rules for verification
of the qualified doctors and the surgeons only. Employees working in the manufacturing
units must be paid proper remuneration and an employee-friendly ambiance
 None of the employees are to be exploited physically or mentally. Flexible shift hours
have to be given so that the workers do not face any extra burden of overtime.

9BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
References
Aguiar, L.L., 2016. 10. Sweatshop citizenship, precariousness and organizing building
cleaners. Neoliberal Capitalism and Precarious Work: Ethnographies of Accommodation and
Resistance, p.255.
Berlage, E., 2018. Australia in three books [Book Review]. Meanjin, 77(4), p.15.
Berlage, E., 2018. Australia in three books [Book Review]. Meanjin, 77(4), p.15.
Berry, S. 2018. 'Rampant': Surgeons warn on cosmetic surgery sweatshops. The Sydney
Morning Herald. [online] Available at:
https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/surgeons-warn-cosmetic-surgery-
sweatshops-have-become-rampant-20181207-p50kvb.html [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Cook, D.T. and Ryan, J.M. eds., 2015. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption and
Consumer Studies. John Wiley & Sons.
Davy, D., 2016. Human trafficking and slavery in Australia: pathways, tactics, and subtle
elements of enslavement. Women & Criminal Justice, 26(3), pp.180-198.
Doppelt, B., 2017. Leading change toward sustainability: A change-management guide for
business, government and civil society. Routledge.
Harrison, J.S., Freeman, R.E. and Abreu, M.C.S.D., 2015. Stakeholder theory as an ethical
approach to effective management: Applying the theory to multiple contexts. Revista brasileira
de gestão de negócios, 17(55), pp.858-869.

10BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
Lim, J.S. and Shim, K., 2019. Corporate Social Responsibility Beyond Borders: US Consumer
Boycotts of a Global Company Over Sweatshop Issues in Supplier Factories
Overseas. American Behavioral Scientist, p.0002764219835241.
McKenzie, L., 2017. A precarious passion: Gendered and age-based insecurity among aspiring
academics in Australia. In Being an Early Career Feminist Academic (pp. 31-49). Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
McMillan, C., 2017. Who gets a fair go? A Žižekian reading of representations of asylum
seekers in Australia. Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 22(1), pp.33-51.
Orleck, A., 2017. Common sense and a little fire: Women and working-class politics in the
United States, 1900-1965. UNC Press Books.
plasticsurgery.org.au. 2019. plasticsurgery.org.au. [online] Available at:
https://plasticsurgery.org.au/ [Accessed 29 May 2019].
Thompson, N., 2016. Anti-discriminatory practice: Equality, diversity and social justice.
Macmillan International Higher Education.
Tsalikis, J., 2018. Can We Act Ethically? Implications of Determinism, Chaos Theory and
Unintended Consequences.
Vedung, E., 2017. Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In Carrots, sticks and
sermons (pp. 21-58). Routledge.
Warner, M. and Sullivan, R. eds., 2017. Putting partnerships to work: Strategic alliances for
development between government, the private sector and civil society. Routledge.

11BUSINESS SOCIETY AND POLICY
Yazdani, N. and Murad, H.S., 2015. Toward an ethical theory of organizing. Journal of
Business Ethics, 127(2), pp.399-417.