I wish to expend energy on other areas of my life rather than logo-checking.
Naomi Klein's book is fairly ridiculous (although, in person, she's not quite as dense as I would have imagined.) People that argue against the concept of "sweatshops" generally don't have the strongest grasp of economics (not including child labor, which of course should be prevented):
Every thriving Asian economy started as a sweatshop economy. Honk Kong was there 30 years ago, as was Singapore, Thailand (now booming), and Eastern China (also booming.) Sweatshops--in other words, large-scale manufacturing factories with many employees working for very low wages--are a necessary starting point for economic development. This has nothing to do with morality: it is simply economics. Corporations invest in poor countries for cheap labor. Were the labor markets in these countries to unionize to raise wages, Nike, Reebok, and every other international corporation would pull out of the country in search of higher educated labor that they could find for the same wages (now that they have been artificially raised.)
Klein and her supporters respond that the entire world labor market should unionize to raise global wages in these sectors. Well, that's all fine and good, but the trade-off is higher wages for some but many fewer jobs for others. It's also simple economics: If a company has to pay higher wages to its employees, it must necessarily employ fewer of them.
It may sound callous to defend the idea of sweatshops (excluding, again, child labor and inhumane conditions) but it really is the most rational position. People who boycott sweatshop-utilizing companies think they are hurting the companies--in fact, they are hurting the very same poor people that they, in their misguided way, are trying to support.