Jennifer Riera on Naomi Klein's, "How Trump Won By Becoming The Ultimate Brand"

In Naomi Klein’s chapter, “How Trump Won By Becoming The Ultimate Brand,” Klein explores

how that branding of his name, mixed with the social and political environment at the time,

helped give rise to Donald Trump and his presidential victory. However, while the author makes

an astute observation and analysis by connecting the significance and value of the “Trump” brand

to his unfortunate victory, I’d like to focus more so on the other aspects of “branding” and how

increasing the value of the brand while decreasing ownership of the manufacturing aspect leads to

the systemic use of sweatshops, which, as we’ve discussed in class, disproportionately affects

poor women (and children) around the world and increasingly exposes them to hazardous

working conditions, long hours, and incredibly low pay.

 As Klein so thoroughly explains, where once companies saw a direct link between profits and

manufacturing, while that is still the case to a certain extent, companies now also recognize that

as long as the brand itself has a great deal of value and significance attached to it, then the actual

making, or manufacturing, of the product to which the brand would represent no longer matters. It

is this particular aspect of branding that the author refers to as the subcontracting and outsourcing

of jobs overseas, where the same labor and manufacturing can be done at a significantly cheaper

price without holding the brand name itself responsible or accountable for the sweatshop-like

conditions that this strategy depends on. In other words, by subcontracting the

manufacturing aspect of this process, the brand essentially signs off responsibility for that

particular step and, thus, cannot legally be held accountable for the factory conditions, since the

subcontractor, not the brand name, is now responsible for the manufacturing of the product.

How does this relate to women? Since it is no secret that, not only in the US, but also all around

the world, women—poor women in particular—overwhelmingly make up the majority of 

factory manufacturing workers, they are also the ones that disproportionately get affected by the

subcontracting and outsourcing of manufacturing jobs. Not only are women poorly paid and

poorly treated, they are also subjected to hazardous, life-threatening working conditions and long

12-hour-plus shifts, often times with no break or opportunity for paid overtime. However, because

this segment of the manufacturing process is technically owned by a subcontractor and not the

brand name directly, the brand name not only gets away without being legally responsible for the

unlawful working conditions of its subcontracted workers, but it also gets to save a ton on cheap

labor and enjoy the profits yield through the immense monetary value placed upon its brand

name. 

Since this idea of “sweatshops” is brought up in the article to explain the poor working conditions

that often come when manufacturing jobs get subcontracted and outsourced overseas, I couldn’t

help but be reminded of the horrific and neglectful incident that took place in Manhattan on

March 25, 1911, otherwise known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. Because this

unfortunate event took place in the early years of the 20^th century, labor laws and workplace

safety regulations weren’t heavily enforced or reinforced, which meant that factory workers--predominantly poor, immigrant women—were forced to endure long hours, low pay, and life

threatening working conditions (among many other abusive and/or neglectful work conditions).

However, once this fire took place, people—primarily women—began to organize and protest

these neglectful working conditions until finally labor reforms were passed. While this tragedy,

fortunately, ended with labor reforms, it is quite unfortunate to know that sweatshop-like

conditions are still forced upon manufacturing workers all around the world in the 21^st century.

Although sweatshops are the focus when discussing outsourced manufacturing jobs, I’d like to

discuss further how cheap, if not nearly free, labor from prisons have also been used by big brand

names in order to refrain from paying manufacturing workers a livable wage and providing them

safe and fair working conditions.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/547df270e4b0ba184dfc490e/t/56f406e390634094305670c0/1458833164800/