A tipping point in long struggle against Nike and its policies?

After a worker rights activist, Jeff Ballinger, started targeting Nike in 1992 for its anti-labor policies, a prominent union leader advised him to forget it: Nike was just too big to expect to make a dent in it. That negative view long seemed accurate, but student leaders by the hundreds, some encouraged by Jeff himself and his publication, “Press for Change,” refused to believe it.

On April 9 the University of Wisconsin-Madison announced that it is severing its ties with Nike – the first to do so in a national campaign coordinated by the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS). That followed a significant breakthrough in which two Dominican Republic factories have started making sweat-free products for U.S. university bookstores (see the April 8 issue of Human Rights for Workers).

Could this be the tipping in a campaign long deemed hopeless?

The Wisconsin university’s decision came after its monitoring agent, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC), found and publicized grievous violations of the university’s code of conduct by two of Nike supplier factories in Honduras, including a refusal to pay $2,200,000 in benefits and severance pay.

“It’s a major victory national,” Jonah Zinn, 19, a sophomore at Wisconsin, who was part of a student campaign urging the contract cancellation, as the university’s own Labor Licensing Policy Committee had recommended.

Not stopping there, USAS and its affiliates nation-wide are in the midst of a multi-campus “NIKE: Pay for It” tour. It includes a demonstration Sunday, April 12, at Niketown, off Central Park in New York City. Speakers include Rod Palmquist, USAS national organizer, and two former workers at the Honduras factories.

What can you do?

For one thing, check the USAS Website at for news, background, and action ideas.

In my view, the Nike Swoosh is a symbol of shame. I’d suggest, at the minimum, removing it from anything you might own.

Print Page Read more!

Different anti-sweatshop strategy wins breakthrough

A factory in the Dominican Republic has begun production on sweatfree goods for delivery to university bookstores starting this fall or earlier. It is a breakthrough for a new strategy pioneered by the United Students against Sweatshops (USAS) and its partner, the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC).

Under an arrangement that took two years of dialogue, Knights Apparel, one of the largest vendors of apparel bearing university logos, and the DR factory management have committed to pay workers a living wage, as defined by a study conducted by the WRC. Knights will pay its supplier factory a price designed to make this possible.

Both Knights and the factory management have also made a commitment to respect the right of workers to organize and to recognize any union chosen by the workers. The WRC will be responsible for verifying these and other standards.

A noted health and safety expert, Garret Brown, and a colleague have already made an inspection of the factory, and will work on health and safety issues in cooperation with worker representatives in the factory.

To meet expected demand for no-sweat goods, Knights has launched a new brand, Alta Garcia, which for now will be sold only to campus stores, beginning with those that have already declared their intention to carry the product.

Says Scott Nova, WRC director: “It is a pilot project, not a comprehensive solution, to the challenges we face, but it is an exciting step forward.”

The project puts into practice key elements of the WRC’s innovative Designated Suppliers Program (DSP). Its aim is to enhance the enforcement of university codes of conduct, which as stand-alone documents have proveen pretty much useless without the institutional and incentive framework to make them effective.

The WRC is a Washington- based research and investigative non-governmental group funded by more than 170 U.S. colleges and universities. Its 15-member governing board comprises five persons from each of the three WRC constituencies – the universities, the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), and independent labor rights experts comprising the WRC advisory council.

Illustrating the universities’ basic interest in the endeavor is the desire not to have their names smirched by complicity with sweatshops. Duke University’s “trademark licensing policy” affirms “a policy of protecting the symbols that are associated with its name and reputation as one of the finest universities in the country.”

Once resistant to any such policy, Duke in the spring of 1998 adopted one of the first comprehensive codes of conduct against sweatshops. Months later its officials joined Duke Students Against Sweatshops in signing an agreement committing the school to seek disclosure of all licensing factory locations, and it later had contracts with 409 licensees renegotiated to require such disclosure.

In the fiercely competitive global marketplace, however, this approach made little impact.

Duke’s director of trademark licensing, Jim Wilkerson, supported the founding of WRC in 2001, and went on to become a key officer of its board and of its 36-member DSP working group. It took an arduous decade of discussion, planning, negotiating, getting legal advice, writing and rewriting DSP – plus the pressure of USAS chapters on hesitant universities – for the WRC to come this far.

It still has a long way to go, as a phone conversation with Wilkerson, a fan of this blog, made me realize.

For a report by the Maquiladora Health & Safety Network, see “Network Assists Start-up of Real ‘no sweat’ garment factory.”

Note: The WRC is a joint initiative aimed at the procurement policies of universities. A parallel movement, the SweatFree Consortiium, is a joint initiative aimed at the procurement policies of governments, local, state, and national. See my December 14, 2009, posting on SweatFree Communities and the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium.

Print Page Read more!

In fashion or not, students still campaign against sweatshops

The signs are everywhere, says Newsweek, that “the age of global human-rights advocacy” is over. Everywhere? Certainly not in the ranks of the United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and its chapters in some 250 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada.

USAS, whose worker-rights advocacy reaches all across the world, is bringing together hundreds of student activists at a national conference at the University of Tennessee campus in Knoxville over the February 19-21 weekend. Among other things, they will celebrate a major victory for garment workers in Honduras.

“We are impressed by the social consciences of students in the United States,” a Honduran union president said after a 10-month nation-wide campaign in the United States ended in victory last month. Workers from Honduras will be at the University of Knoxville campus to describe how, against overwhelming odds, the student campaign caused Russell Athletic, a leading sportswear company, to reverse its anti-union position.

The final key to victory was the action of nearly 100 colleges and universities canceling or suspending licensing deals under which Russell Athletic makes clothing and sports equipment with colleges’ names and logos. The company’s decision came after a wide-ranging of USAS campaign that included picketing NBA finals at Orlando and Los Angeles, distributing flyers in retail outlets, and sending Twitter messages urging customers to boycott Russell products.

In the settlement, Russell agreed not only to reinstate 1,200 discharged workers but also to work with unions at its Honduran factories, eight in all. Russell’s reversal is a “giant breakthrough for labor rights in the region,” says Scott Nova, executive director of Worker Rights Consortium, USAS partner, which monitors compliance with standards adopted by dozens of colleges and universities.

As a writer and supporter of USAS since its very beginning, I am especially impressed by two things about this movement:

1. Despite the built-in annual turnover of members and leaders, USAS is pursuing the cause of worker rights with unremitting dedication.
2. It is struggling for the rights not of its own student members but of others -- workers, mostly women, whom they do not know personally and will never get to know. With a few exceptions.

Among the foreign guests at Knoxville, weather permitting, will be a delegation of unionists from Honduras. They will report on the succces of a coordinated effort and the work of repeating it throughout Central America.

(For an article of mine,"Freshmen Are Teaching Elders Lessons in Global Ethics," click on http://www.senser.com/biv-4.htm.)

≈
Print Page Read more!

Imbedded in WTO: Human Rights for Some

Does the WTO promote human rights? No, it does not. At least that would be the unqualified answer of the WTO and trade experts generally. But that answer should be qualified, and one trade expert, Susan Ariel Aaronson, nails down a partial qualification in a new study.

“Human rights are seeping into WTO deliberations and activities,” says Aaronson, associate professor in the business and international affairs schools at George Washington University and co-author of "Trade Imbalance: the Struggle to Weigh Human Rights in Trade Policymaking" (Cambridge 2008).

Aaronson makes clear that the WTO has no mandate on human rights and that the various trade and investment agreements under its umbrella make no explicit mention of human rights as such. Yet “a wide range of human rights concerns” arise in day-to-day WTO operations, and she documents examples in the following categories:

-- “Members use trade waivers and exceptions to promote human rights at home or abroad.”
-- “They occasionally bring up human rights during accessions and trade policy reviews.”
-- “They have amended the TRIPS agreement to make it clear that nations can use the public health exception to TRIPS in times of public health emergencies.”
-- “Human rights concerns have even entered into trade negotiations (e.g., food security).”

John Ruggie, the UN secretary general’s special representative on business and human rights, who is preparing a report on business and human rights for the UN Human Rights Council, commissioned Aaronson’s study. Her overall conclusion is that although nation-states are limited by WTO agreements in their ability to advance human rights, they still have a good deal of leeway to do so at home and abroad.

Outside the paramaters of this study is another fascinating dimension to the global network of trade and investment agreements. Here, too, there is no explicit mention of human rights, but that doesn’t mean they are non-existent.

Actually, human rights linkages are evident in a surprising number of WTO trade agreements. That’s especially so for two major WTO concerns: the protection of intellectual property rights and the protection of the rights of foreign investors. Check the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its article 27 proclaims the right to the protection of various types of intellectual property; and article 17, “the right to own property alone as well as in association with others” and the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property.

These particular human rights are implemented at the WTO (or multilateral) level by two key global agreements: more than amply by the “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights” (TRIPS) agreement and, less satisfactorily (from the typical investor’s perspective) by the “Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)” agreement.”

Country-to-country (bilateral) agreements carry this implementation even further, with TRIPs and TRIMs protections strengthened beyond WTO requirements. Take, for example, the administration’s trade agreement with Colombia, which Congress has just shelved. The Colombia FTA devotes

-- 33 pages to protecting intellectual property rights, 11 of them on enforcement alone
-- 35 pages to protecting foreign investment, very broadly defined, 13 of them on enforcement through dispute settlement procedures in which only the investor can bring a claim.

Again, there is no mention that the rights involved are human rights. That omission holds true for a bundle of other WTO-protected rights in this FTA, as well as across-the-board in all multilateral and bilateral trade agreements.

This is not a semantic quibble. It is an issue that leads to a fundamental question: is the present global trade regime serving the common good or not?

In response to demands that the WTO start protecting the human rights of workers, the usual answer is that the WTO does not do human rights. The truth is otherwise. The WTO does indeed do some human rights, and that limited mission is imbedded in the policies and rules of the whole trade and investment regime.

Open acknowledgment of this fact – by putting an end to mislabeling – would turn the spotlight on who now benefits from the human rights provisions that the WTO promulgates globally, but under other names. Such transparency would reveal the way that selected human rights are woven into the very fabric of the WTO. It would expose the inequity, the lack of inclusiveness, of a WTO system that ignores the human rights of stakeholders indispensable to the global economy – the world’s working men and women.

My congratulations to Professor Aaronson for her provocative study. It should be complemented by an analysis on how extensively the WTO and its agreements support the human rights of global business without acknowledging the human rights principles of the enterprise.


Print Page Read more!

Life After Corporate Codes of Conduct?

Even with factory monitoring, corporate codes of conduct can’t be relied on as the tool to eliminate sweatshops, and must be replaced by a new way to achieve that purpose. That’s the conviction of two pioneers in the anti-sweatshop movement:

-- Neil Kearney, head since 1988 of the global labor federation that now represents 10,000,000 garment and shoe workers in 110 countries, and

-- the United Students against Sweatshops (USAS), whose affiliates in more than 200 universities, colleges, and high schools just celebrated their national organization’s 10^th anniversary.

Kearney, who has visited sweatshops in more than 140 countries, assesses the current working conditions in his industry as worse than they were a decade ago. In a talk to a recent European Union conference on corporate social responsibility, Kearney painted what he called “all in all, a pretty depressing picture.” The specifics he cited, according to a press release of his organization, the International Textile, Garment, and Leather Workers’ Federation (ITGLWF):

“While some reduction in child labor had occurred and health and safety had improved, wages in the sector had fallen by 25 percent in real terms over the past decade, and working hours had increased with a 60-hour work week now widely accepted as the norm…Employment was less secure, and abusive treatment of workers was more common.

“On key compliance issues like freedom of association and collective bargaining no progress had been achieved. Indeed, in some cases social auditors are promoting employer-dominated worker committees as alternatives to genuine trade unions.”

Meantime, USAS and the implementing arm it founded, the Worker Rights Consortium, have also been disappointed about achieving their anti-sweatshop goals. Factory violations of codes of conduct persisted. More serious, some key factories adhering to the code closed down in recent years. In the highly competitive global marketplace, they were not rewarded with enough business to keep them afloat.

Increasingly, therefore, especially over the past year or two, both the global garment union and USAS/WRC became convinced that code-dependent systems are too fragile. Instead of just tightening up the language and enforcement of the codes, they concluded that a new approach was needed. Both are preparing for a life beyond corporate codes of conduct. Each is working on a successor system adapted to its own environment.

But could the international labor market of the garment and shoe industries be such a jungle that it can never be civilized? Kearney and his ITGLWF are well into the process of finding out.

Global Cooperation Born of a Tragedy in Bangladesh

It started during a garment factory disaster in Bangladesh in mid-2005. There Kearney had his first direct contact with Inditex, the giant Spain-based global clothing retailer, which imported from a factory whose collapse killed over 61 workers and injured many more. From low-key cooperation to bring relief to families of the dead and to the injured, Inditex and the global union went on to deal with labor problems elsewhere in the multinational’s supply chain.

“Inditex and ITGLWF soon concluded that global problems required global solutions, implemented locally,” says Kearney Late last year the two sides signed what Kearney calls a “trail-blazing international framework agreement.” Under it, Inditex recognizes the ITGLWF as the chain’s global trade union partners throughout its supply chain.

The agreement has typical code provisions -- no child labor, no forced labor, no discrimination, no excessive working hours, no unsafe or unhealthy workplaces – adds another, “payment of a living wage,” and affirms a stronger “right of all workers to unionize and bargain collectively as the cornerstone of decent work.” But to insure that the standards aren’t empty words, the agreement also puts in place a: a labor-management relationship that extends beyond the domestic and into global levels, including not only direct suppliers but contractors and subcontractors.

Does it work? The Inditex Framework Agreement now has five major garment manufacturing companies under its umbrella. About 1,100 workers dismissed for union membership or activity have been reinstated. Moreover, in February, two Inditex suppliers signed company-level agreements with ITGLWF affiliates in Cambodia. Significantly, Kearney outlined these achievements in a presentation in Phnom Penh before Her Majesty, Queen Sophie of Spain, during her visit to Cambodia..

For its part, United Students against Sweatshops has been working for two years on a plan to transform how its anti-sweatshop policies are implemented. Its “Designated Suppliers Program” would require that university logo apparel be made only in factories producing mainly for the collegiate market and certified as paying a living wage and meeting other labor standards. Moreover, it would require licensees, such as Nike, adidas, Wal-Mart) to pay those factories a price sufficient to meet those standards.

Those responsibilities of course need more than a one or two-page code of conduct. In fact, the Designated Suppliers Program needs 11 pages to spell out its requirements on transparency, the living wage standard and how it is determined, licensee obligations, implementation, and enforcement, including binding arbitration.

So far 40 major universities – including Duke, Georgetown, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and other 1990s pioneers in adopting codes of conduct – have given written support to DSP. So far, that support has not yet reached the critical mass needed to put DSP into operation.

Both ITGLWF and USAS/WRD are engaged in heroic struggles that pit modern Davids against today’s Goliaths. What side is the U.S. government on? In a contorted act, it is on both sides. The rhetoric aims to cheer David and his side. But the administraion’s zeal for Free Trade Agreements puts it firmly on the side of multinational Goliaths.

Print Page Read more!

Students Still Teaching Elders about Ethics

“Stop using sweatshop labor!” That’s the rallying cry of a group of students at the University of Houston in their campaign to persuade the school’s administrators to stop doing business with sweatshops that produce sweaters, T-shirts, caps, and other athletic items bearing the University’s logo.

On Monday (3/31) dozens of students will participate in a dramatic protest starting at noon in front of the campus library. It will feature a mock funeral ceremony , complete with a coffin, symbolizing the death of worker rights at UH. A “funeral”procession will follow, wending its way through the campus and ending at the office of President Renu Khator, who just took office two months ago.

One of her first acts was to appoint a committee to study the sweatshop issues that an activist group, the UH Students against Sweatshops, has been raising since June last year. Tim O’Brien, a graduate student in history and head of SAS at UH, sees the committee as “nothing more than a publicity stunt,” and said so in an interview with the Houston Chronicle.

His frustration is that Khator, like her predecessors, is not calling on SAS to help in solving the problem. Her new committee, headed by an economics prof, has six other members, including one student representative, who is not O’Brien or a SAS member.

SAS has the support of the UH student government association, which in January passed a resolution in favor of SAS’ twin goals: that UH join the Worker Rights’ Consortium, an independent monitoring organization, and endorse its Designated Suppliers Program, a plan for a new source system of sweatshop-free factories.

In a March 3 letter to O’Brien, President Rhator, after scolding SAS for an “antagonistic manner,” defended the university’s position as follows:

-- Although not a member of the Worker Rights Consortium, “our current practices embody the same spirit and commitment to worker rights.”
-- Adidas, one of the three largest vendors of apparel at UH, is a member of the Fair Labor Organization (FLA), “an organization created to promote a uniform international labor standard and to improve working conditions worldwide.”
-- The other two UH vendors, Collegiate Licensing Corporation and Barnes & Noble, “have adopted a code of conduct consistent with that of the FLA.”

Pointedly, Rhator mentioned that, as a newcomer, she depended on a cabinet briefing for her knowledge of the UH’s “spirit and commitment to worker rights.” The cabinet’s perspective is predictable. She would be wise to supplement it with a briefing from SAS. So far she has declined to meet with SAS.

“It is absolutely clear,” she writes, “that the University of Houston is committed to fair labor practices.” SAS is not impressed by her assurances about UH’s commitment, however. I can understand why.

How does a university carry out that commitment when the university routinely buys goods from countries where sweatshops thrive? The question is important to anyone proud of the UH logo displayed on those goods. To answer it truthfully, madam, some of your students are very much better informed than your cabinet.

The University of Houston is not the first university to face this crisis. It is not a crisis of “disruptive behavior,” as the university states, but a crisis of conscience. In the late 1990s some of the country’s leading universities – Duke, Georgetown, and the University of Wisconsin – underwent similar crises, and came to understand that their students knew how to make a genuine commitment to worker rights. I urge you and your committee to look into the experience of these “peer institutions” too.

Because of the victories achieved by those campaigns to end university complicity with sweatshops, I wrote in February 1999: “Thank the Lord for the college students, many of them just freshmen and sophomores, who are teaching their elders powerful lessons in global ethics.”

In the past decade, many universities have recognized the wisdom of listening to their students, even to students who have engaged in sit-ins and other disruptive behavior. Later, those universities wondered why they didn’t start listening much earlier. When will the elders of the University of Houston start listening?



Print Page Read more!