Student activism continues
Campaign for Labor Rights
/* ---------- "Student activism continues" ---------- */
Labor Alerts: a free service of Campaign for Labor Rights
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to C...@igc.org
Web site: www.summersault.com/~agj/clr
Phone: (541) 344-5410 Fax: (541) 431-0523
Membership/newsletter: Send $35.00 to Campaign for Labor Rights, 1247 "E"
Street SE, Washington, DC 20003. Sample newsletter available on request.
STUDENT ACTIVISM CONTINUES
posted May 6, 1999
"Hopefully, the coming year. . .will see an increase in student solidarity
with actual worker struggles. The entire anti-sweatshop movement has taken
inspiration from the upsurge of student activism. In our euphoria, we must
not lose sight of the workers who are the reason for our movement. What is
at stake is whether we see ourselves merely as enlightened reformers or as
true allies of labor." - see commentary, below
In this alert:
Waiting for the other shoe - commentary
Victorious sit-in at UNC-Chapel Hill
Victorious sit-in at UA-Tucson
<><><><><>
WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE
Commentary by Trim Bissell, national coordinator, Campaign for Labor Rights
Student sit-ins at Duke, Georgetown, the University of Wisconsin, the
University of Michigan, UNC-Chapel Hill and UA-Tucson all (all!) have
resulted in full victories. At Brown, UC-Berkeley and other schools,
administrators have met student activist demands without waiting until a
sit-in has begun.
And these are not weak demands: a living wage, full public disclosure, truly
independent monitoring, withdrawal from the FLA if it falls short of
promises - that is a sampling of some of the concessions wrested from
administrators on various campuses.
So, what is going on? Are corporate-friendly administrators being won over
because student activists of the late 90s are more polite than their
counterparts of the 60s? Will companies synonymous with sweatshops suddenly
reform in the face of new standards? Will colleges and universities forsake
multi-million dollar licensing deals if companies don't reform? Is
there a
Santa Claus?
STRATEGIES AND COUNTER-STRATEGIES: Will the FLA displace student activism?
At last count, some 56 schools had joined the Fair Labor Association
(FLA -
the implementation structure for the Apparel Industry Partnership
code). At
the University of Michigan, students succeeded in delaying their school's
entry into the FLA. At UNC and elsewhere, students extracted promises that
their school would withdraw from the FLA if it failed to meet certain
standards. On other campuses, students have opposed the FLA but have not
mounted an active resistance to their school's membership. In spite of
student opposition, membership in the FLA has become almost a norm for
collegiate administrators.
Students are now debating whether to accept an offer of a student position
on the FLA board. Given the FLA structure and requirements for a
super-majority vote on key questions, a student seat seems unlikely to
change the dynamics of the FLA. Representation on the board might give
students a more audible voice. It might also result in coopting or divisions
in the student movement.
It would be amazing if administrators from major universities did not confer
this summer to develop a joint strategy for reversing or undermining student
gains. We can only guess what the strategy will look like. Meanwhile,
student activists will hold important national meetings before next
fall, to
develop their own strategy. And students on hundreds of campuses are eager
to join United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and become part of this
national movement.
If the last two months are any indication, student activists have firmly
grasped the principle that their power comes from mobilizing their
base, not
from their access to administrators behind closed doors.
REASONS FOR DOUBT: Agreements struck between activists and
administrators in
recent months are unlikely to produce direct and immediate improvement in
the lives of sweatshop workers who produce the shirts, hats and other
paraphernalia bearing school logos. The apparel industry has way too
much at
stake in its profit margins simply to stop treating workers like money
machines.
IMPORTANT GAINS: But we should not underestimate the importance of what the
students have achieved. In mere months, they have re-set the bar of public
discussion several notches higher. A living wage, full public disclosure,
truly independent monitoring - these were idealistic goals a year ago. Now
they are becoming accepted as the norm. The debate has shifted from
"whether" to "how." The student movement has the moral momentum.
TWO MODELS OF CHANGE: The student movement wants colleges and universities
to play a leading role in reforming the apparel industry's labor practices.
It's natural that students would seize on this model of change. They
see the
educational institutions they attend profiting from sweatshops. They rightly
insist that their schools should be agents of liberation, not exploitation.
The weakness of this model is that it makes workers the objects of reform,
rather than the agents of their own liberation. This model sees change
emanating from above.
In the solidarity model, on the other hand, activists respond to workers'
calls for solidarity and they take their direction from those workers. If
only life were that simple!
The reality is that there is a scarcity of viable struggles for us to
be in
solidarity with. Production is increasingly concentrated in countries, such
as China, whose governments actively repress freedom of association. Workers
everywhere are forced to moderate their aspirations because of the threat
that companies will cut and run. In most countries, money for hiring
organizers is in short supply.
Hopefully, codes and monitoring systems will create spaces for workers to
organize, so that we will have more struggles to be in solidarity with.
Still, we must not underestimate the danger that monitoring systems can
become a replacement for, and a barrier to, worker organizing. It is
worrisome that we hear much more talk about monitoring mechanisms than about
worker empowerment.
LOOKING AHEAD: We can be sure of hearing a lot more debate and seeing much
more struggle next year over codes, monitoring systems and the role of the
FLA. Hopefully, the coming year also will see an increase in student
solidarity with actual worker struggles. The entire anti-sweatshop movement
has taken inspiration from the upsurge of student activism. In our euphoria,
we must not lose sight of the workers who are the reason for our movement.
What is at stake is whether we see ourselves merely as enlightened reformers
or as true allies of labor.
<><><><><>
VICTORIOUS SIT-IN AT UNC-CHAPEL HILL
[Based on an April 23 report by Tyrell Caroline Haberkorn
<thab...@email.unc.edu>]
Our 72 hour sit-in ended today as Acting Chancellor William McCoy
signed and
approved the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. This gives
UNC-Chapel Hill a position of leadership on the issue of elimination of
labor abuses in the collegiate apparel industry. The news was greeted
by an
exuberant rally of approximately 200 students, faculty and community members.
RECOMMENDATIONS (Adopted 4/23/99)
By the Licensing Labor Code Advisory Committee to the Chancellor, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
I. Disclosure
The February 2, 1999 report of the Chancellor's Task Force on Labor
Codes in
Licensing noted in its conclusions that "All members of the Task Force
support the principle of full disclosure, and most are not convinced that
secrecy regarding manufacturing facilities is necessary, legitimate, or even
sustainable." Since any monitoring proposal will only realistically allow
access to a small percentage of manufacturing sites, students and many
others in the University Community see full public disclosure of factory
locations as a necessary check on any monitoring system. Full public
disclosure will allow local NGOs and human rights groups to be involved in
ensuring compliance to the code. See also section IV below.
II. Living Wage
A. The report of the Task Force also stated that "The University should
endeavor to participate in identifying the elements of a 'living wage' in
areas where products bearing its name are manufactured; in analyzing the
impact on families of failure to pay a living wage; in exploring the
possible impact within local economies of implementing such a wage; and in
advocating, where proper, the implementation of such a wage."
B. We recommend, therefore, that UNC-Chapel Hill agrees to participate in
the living wage symposium sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison
and to engage its faculty expertise in defining a living wage in areas where
UNC-Chapel Hill's products are manufactured.
C. We also recommend that once a living wage and its implications have been
determined to the satisfaction of the Task Force and the University, the
Task Force recommend to the Chancellor as to what steps UNC-Chapel Hill
should take to achieve implementation of such a wage as a minimum on the
part of its licensees.
1. Preferably as part of the Code of Conduct already approved by the
Chancellor
2. Or, contractually between UNC-Chapel Hill and its licensees upon the next
renewal of the licensing contract.
III. Principles of Independent Monitoring
A. We recommend that UNC-Chapel Hill commit to the principle of independent
monitoring of sites of production of UNC-Chapel Hill licensed products in
accordance with the following minimum standards.
1. Independent monitoring excludes manufacturer control of the
selection of
sites monitored, the timing of inspections, and the instrument or procedure
used to monitor the facility.
2. Independent monitoring includes off-site worker interviews, and
cooperation with and the involvement of local non-governmental organizations
(i.e., religious, human rights, and labor advocates).
B. We recommend that UNC-Chapel Hill continue to negotiate actively both
with the Fair Labor Association and its member institutions and with other
universities and stakeholders to create an effective shared monitoring
mechanism, noting that the Fair Labor Association currently does not provide
independent monitoring according to the aforementioned standards and has
unresolved issues as to the roles of universities in its governance as well.
We recommend that UNC-Chapel Hill also actively work with any other
universities that seek to explore alternative monitoring systems that uphold
our standards of independent monitoring.
IV. Notification of Licensees
A. We recommend that as soon as possible but no later than August 15, 1999,
UNC-Chapel Hill notify all its licensees, through the Collegiate Licensing
Corporation, of the principles contained in the proposed CLC labor code
which Chancellor Hooker endorsed on behalf of the University in February
1999, and that after a period of 90 days those principles will be
incorporated into all UNC-Chapel Hill licensing contracts.
B. We further recommend that UNC-Chapel Hill notify its licensees that it
intends to begin requiring full public disclosure of all fully owned and/or
subcontracted manufacturing sites involved in production of UNC-Chapel Hill
licensed products.
C. Finally, we recommend that these notifications express UNC-Chapel Hill's
desire to work closely and constructively with all its licensees to
work out
reasonable and good-faith steps for implementation of these principles,
including a pilot project beginning as early as this summer with
representative licensees of varying sized and types.
<><><><><>
VICTORIOUS SIT-IN AT UA-TUCSON
[Based on a message from the students, posted by the National Labor
Committee]
The University of Arizona sit-in concluded in victory on Friday night -
after one week and 2 days! We're satisfied with many aspects of the
agreement, including the formation of a campus watchdog group and FLA
withdrawal dates if our provisions are not implemented. Now that we've won,
we're stressing that continued Students Against Sweatshops activism is
extremely important. The campus watchdog group provides one vehicle in
ensuring that the university meets its obligations.
Commitments Relating to Sweatshops
Peter Likins - April 30, 1999
I am actively committed to the elimination of labor abuses in factories
known as "sweatshops."
Initially, I will work toward these ends by personal and institutional
participation in the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and by authorizing
representatives of the University of Arizona to participate in the work of
the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) and the Living Wage Symposium in
Wisconsin (June 1999).
I will also recommend to the Faculty Senate the formation of an advisory
task force to specifically address labor and human rights issues. This task
force will be composed and ready for its first meeting by September 1999,
and will meet monthly.
Within the framework of the FLA and the CLC, I will strive to achieve the
following goals:
1. Full public disclosure of factory addresses for apparel companies and
their contractors.
2. Assurances that all workers will receive a "living wage" by
definition to
be established through independent scholarly research and consensus among
such scholars.
3. Provision for unannounced visits and unannounced independent monitoring
of factories selected without the participation of the companies whose
factories, or whose contractors' factories, are being monitored.
4. Enforcement of the rights of women workers to equal pay for equal work,
for pregnancy and maternity leave, and for freedom from discrimination and
sexual harassment.
In order to assure compliance with the living wage and women's rights
principles and to be able to identify any abusive labor conditions on a
timely basis, it is essential and of the highest priority that the
disclosure and monitoring provisions be implemented with all deliberate
speed. As a result, vigorous efforts will be made to adopt the disclosure
and monitoring principles no later than March 1, 2000 and implement
them by
September 1, 2000.
The University of Arizona commits to withdraw from the FLA if the FLA has
failed to adopt all four principles in its Code of Conduct by August 1,
2000, and seek alternative means. Any goals adopted by the FLA must be
implemented by six months after their respective adoption dates, and if all
four goals have not been implemented by February 2001, the University of
Arizona will seek alternative means. If full disclosure has not been
implemented by February 1, 2001, the University of Arizona will withdraw
from the FLA, and seek alternative means.
The disclosure and monitoring provisions are to be adopted by the CLC
in a
Code of Conduct by March 1, 2000, and implemented by September 1, 2000.
Should the task force and the president address the need of extension of
adoption and implementation dates in the case of small corporations, the
dates may be extended for adoption and implementation no later than the
specified dates of May 1, 2000 and November 1, 2000, respectively. If the
disclosure and monitoring provisions are not adopted and implemented by the
said dates, the University of Arizona will seek alternative means,
understanding that withdrawal from the CLC will not be required.
Beginning March 1, 2000 the University of Arizona's new and renewal
licensing contracts will require that licensees release directly to the
University task force the addresses of all factories involved in manufacture
of finished products and/or pieces thereof. This location disclosure
requirement must be implemented within 30 days of signing the contract with
an additional 30 days allowed for licensees contracting with brokers. The
special provisions in the preceding paragraph for delaying the adoption of
this requirement to May 1, 2000, for small companies also apply here.
Beginning as soon as possible but no later than August 15, 1999, the
University will notify its licensees through the CLC of the following:
1. The incorporation of the principles contained in a CLC labor code into
all new and renewal university licensing contracts after 90 days.
2. The University of Arizona's intent to work closely and constructively
with its licensees to develop a reasonable plan for implementation of the
principles enumerated in the CLC code.
3. The content and purpose of this commitment and its addendum.
If by the deadlines specified herein the CLC has not been found to be a
viable option for implementation of the four goals, and the University has
adopted an alternative means, the University will supplement or substitute
the CLC labor code with the labor code of the alternative means that the
University has adopted.
In my capacity as President of the University of Arizona, I hereby promise
to adhere to the letter and spirit of this commitment.