That's essentially colonialism. You can't go into other countries and change their labour laws, it's a violation of their sovereignty. Obviously there's a huge problem with uneven development across the world that makes outsourcing possible and difficult for workers in the developed world, but I'm not sure such a solution would be politically feasible.
Eh? That’s such a stretched definition of colonialism that it ceases to have meaning.
Firstly, This is how things are being done now - post colonialism. America has many laws and drives to avoid labour from sweatshops. This was a whole thing, it may not have been the most effective, but it was a political force that drove change.
Foxconn factories having workers commit suicide and place safety nets around buildings was a huge issue for Apple, and it resulted in changes to working conditions.
And as I mentioned before, the FDA inspects factories around the world to ensure that something sold within America that has the FDA approved label actually meets standards.
The idea is feasible I just don’t know how effective it will be. Political will can be found in America, and this affects only foreign outsourcing while supporting American workers. You don’t need political will in other nations.
On top of that, it moves competition away from a race to the bottom, which reinforces worker rights. If worker rights in India and America are at parity, then the attractiveness to move to America changes as well. America will remain attractive because of standard of living.
It’s an issue for outsourcing, and firms that buy outsourced services, but not that much of an issue.
One issue is that worker rights in America are kind of a low bar.
>You don’t need political will in other nations.
Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws.
> Yes you do if you want to change their labour laws.
You aren't changing the labour laws in their nations.
If firms want to trade with American firms, then they have to have certain work norms that they abide by in their contracts/.
Which is an extremely aggressive trade policy that would not be accepted by other states and would be viewed as an infringement on their sovereignty.
I think you are unaware that this is the status quo as of this moment, and is not aggressive in the least.
America (or any country) can set whatever rules that it likes on firms that exist within its boundaries.
Those rules currently cover things like not taking bribes, not using sweatshop labour, not enabling terror groups - all which America is well within it's rights to set.
Those firms float contracts goes out, and international firms that can satisfy those rules, take them up.
If they don't want to, or cannot fulfill those contracts, they don't win the contract.