You're assuming that people everywhere value their working conditions equally. They don't. If you already have plenty of money for food, shelter and health care, then you can start worrying about workplace safety and comfort. Otherwise, you'll probably tolerate longer work hours if it's the only way to feed your family or care for your sick grandparents. Boycotting those countries is only going to make their population's more serious problems even worse.

If you really care about people, let them move into your comfortable safe country and share it with you. I mean all of them, not just the few highly educated and wealthy.

Human rights are rights for humans - not just a luxury of those with free time and money. If people can be coerced to waiving their rights, then the mechanism of oppression changes - not the oppression itself.

Second, boycotting isn't as effective as demands. When consumer bases set labor, environmental and other standards on imports, historically speaking, compliance follows.

Lastly, I'd welcome lots of immigrants. No problem. I want more of them.

I am not sure why you are conflating labor & environmental laws and human rights.

Because I think their the same thing and you do not - and that's a fascinating thing.

It's an interesting discussion about taxonomy, membership, identification, and language.

Broadly speaking if we are to define "human rights" as a "floor" of respectability that should be respected - different political leanings (e.g., neoliberalism, collectivist anarchism, libertarianism etc) paint their picture differently while at the first blush level, are all advocating for the same principles.

When rights becomes a question of membership and dynamics, the linear two-dimensional political narrative of left-right break down into a multi-dimensional set-membership identity.

I'd love to go into more details with you about it if you'd like to have an ongoing intellectual discussion.

You can hit me up on google chat at my username @ gmail or just email me if you want.