[PEN-L:131] [Fwd: Coalition at Odds on Monitoring Factory Codes]

[michael <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------171987CFD6AF4086FD1B9313



Sid Shniad wrote:

> The New York Times
>
> Coalition Against Sweatshops at Odds on Monitoring Factory Codes
>
>         By Steven Greenhouse
>
> Eight months past its self-imposed deadline to set up a code of conduct
> for apparel factories, a presidential task force remains at
> stalemate over a number of pivotal issues, including the frequency with
> which those factories ought to be inspected and whether any of
> them ought to be in China.
>
> The working group's corporate members, including Liz Claiborne, Nike and
> Reebok, are now fighting several proposals recently put forward
> by its human rights organizations and labor unions, and the split is such
> that several members warn that the whole effort may soon fall apart.
>
> The task force, the White House Apparel Industry Partnership, has 18
> members: clothing manufacturers, labor unions, and consumer and
> human rights groups. It is trying to set up a system of voluntary labor
> standards, at home and abroad, that will assure consumers that the
> clothes and the footwear they buy was not made in sweatshops. It envisions
> an arrangement in which manufacturers that met the standards
> would be entitled to stitch certifying labels inside their products.
>
> At a White House ceremony 15 months ago, all sides announced an agreement
> setting maximum work hours (60 a week), a minimum
> working age (14) and wage guidelines, varying by country, for thousands of
> factories used by American apparel companies in the United
> States and overseas. But the group's corporate members remain at odds with
> the unions and human rights groups on monitoring and other
> issues.
>
> Deliberations of the task force are confidential, but a copy of the
> proposals recently set forth by the unions and human rights groups was
> sent anonymously to The New York Times by a member that, some on both sides
> suggested, wanted the debate aired in public as a way of
> pressuring the industry.
>
> One of those proposals called for more stringent monitoring than the
> companies want, demanding that independent inspectors examine 30
> percent of a given manufacturer's plants each year, twice the rate suggested
> by the corporate members.
>
> Another proposal concerned a suggested study of apparel wages around the
> world. While the two sides agree that the U.S. Labor
> Department should perform such a study, the labor and human rights groups
> say it should focus on whether those wages are high enough to
> meet workers' basic needs -- that is, what is called a "living wage."
>
> The industry representatives suggest that the proposal for such a focus is
> intended to embarrass them, and note that in the earlier
> agreement they pledged to pay at least the local minimum wage, though not
> necessarily a living wage, in their overseas factories. The
> companies also dislike a proposal under which the Fair Labor Association,
> the organization that would be created to oversee the code of
> conduct, would examine whether the factories were paying a living wage.
>
> China is also a subject of contention. The nonindustry members have proposed
> that in any country that does not allow employees freedom of
> association and collective bargaining, employers shall nonetheless take
> steps to insure that those rights can be exercised. This proposal says
> that if, despite such efforts, no participating company can demonstrate
> progress in guaranteeing its employees those rights, then the Fair
> Labor Association can determine that producing garments in that country is
> inconsistent with the code of conduct.
>
> Such a determination might not require companies to leave, but it would
> certainly apply pressure on them to do so, since they could
> otherwise no longer assure consumers that they were complying with the code.
> The nation's largest apparel union, the Union of
> Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, a member of the task force,
> has long backed such a proposal, aimed largely at China, which
> has large numbers of factories that turn out clothes for the American
> market.
>
> In light of disagreements like these, a representative of one noncorporate
> member said, "We're teetering on the edge of collapse."
>
> But Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human
> Rights, which is also a member, was less pessimistic.
>
> "We are still engaged in a process about which there are significant areas
> of agreement, and a few key areas where there are real
> differences," Posner said. "I remain cautiously optimistic that we're going
> to find a path that leads to an agreement."
>
> Roberta Karp, co-chairwoman of the task force and general counsel for Liz
> Claiborne, criticized the disclosure of the recent proposals and,
> particularly with regard to the China proposal, suggested that some members
> were pushing a protectionist trade agenda.
>
> "It is regrettable," she said, "that someone chose to try to leverage
> through the press a proposal that would impede the mission of the
> Apparel Industry Partnership. However, we believe many groups remain willing
> to make further progress by focusing on improving working
> conditions rather than supporting this proposal, essentially a trade policy
> that would force companies to pull out of countries like China."
>
> When the task force reaches an impasse, its members often ask Gene Sperling,
> economic adviser to President Clinton, to jawbone the two
> sides. Asked about the latest stalemate, Sperling said: "When you're trying
> to put together a novel and indeed historic partnership, you have
> to expect it's going to be a rocky road every step of the way. But I'm still
> confident that we'll get there."



--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--------------171987CFD6AF4086FD1B9313

Return-Path: <owner-sid-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
	Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 1998 17:38:14 -0700
To: ccpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Sid Shniad <shniad@xxxxxx>
Subject: Coalition at Odds on Monitoring Factory Codes

The New York Times

Coalition Against Sweatshops at Odds on Monitoring Factory Codes

	By Steven Greenhouse

Eight months past its self-imposed deadline to set up a code of conduct
for apparel factories, a presidential task force remains at
stalemate over a number of pivotal issues, including the frequency with
which those factories ought to be inspected and whether any of
them ought to be in China.

The working group's corporate members, including Liz Claiborne, Nike and
Reebok, are now fighting several proposals recently put forward
by its human rights organizations and labor unions, and the split is such
that several members warn that the whole effort may soon fall apart.

The task force, the White House Apparel Industry Partnership, has 18
members: clothing manufacturers, labor unions, and consumer and
human rights groups. It is trying to set up a system of voluntary labor
standards, at home and abroad, that will assure consumers that the
clothes and the footwear they buy was not made in sweatshops. It envisions
an arrangement in which manufacturers that met the standards
would be entitled to stitch certifying labels inside their products.

At a White House ceremony 15 months ago, all sides announced an agreement
setting maximum work hours (60 a week), a minimum
working age (14) and wage guidelines, varying by country, for thousands of
factories used by American apparel companies in the United
States and overseas. But the group's corporate members remain at odds with
the unions and human rights groups on monitoring and other
issues.

Deliberations of the task force are confidential, but a copy of the
proposals recently set forth by the unions and human rights groups was
sent anonymously to The New York Times by a member that, some on both sides
suggested, wanted the debate aired in public as a way of
pressuring the industry.

One of those proposals called for more stringent monitoring than the
companies want, demanding that independent inspectors examine 30
percent of a given manufacturer's plants each year, twice the rate suggested
by the corporate members.

Another proposal concerned a suggested study of apparel wages around the
world. While the two sides agree that the U.S. Labor
Department should perform such a study, the labor and human rights groups
say it should focus on whether those wages are high enough to
meet workers' basic needs -- that is, what is called a "living wage."

The industry representatives suggest that the proposal for such a focus is
intended to embarrass them, and note that in the earlier
agreement they pledged to pay at least the local minimum wage, though not
necessarily a living wage, in their overseas factories. The
companies also dislike a proposal under which the Fair Labor Association,
the organization that would be created to oversee the code of
conduct, would examine whether the factories were paying a living wage.

China is also a subject of contention. The nonindustry members have proposed
that in any country that does not allow employees freedom of
association and collective bargaining, employers shall nonetheless take
steps to insure that those rights can be exercised. This proposal says
that if, despite such efforts, no participating company can demonstrate
progress in guaranteeing its employees those rights, then the Fair
Labor Association can determine that producing garments in that country is
inconsistent with the code of conduct.

Such a determination might not require companies to leave, but it would
certainly apply pressure on them to do so, since they could
otherwise no longer assure consumers that they were complying with the code.
The nation's largest apparel union, the Union of
Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, a member of the task force,
has long backed such a proposal, aimed largely at China, which
has large numbers of factories that turn out clothes for the American
market.

In light of disagreements like these, a representative of one noncorporate
member said, "We're teetering on the edge of collapse."

But Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights, which is also a member, was less pessimistic.

"We are still engaged in a process about which there are significant areas
of agreement, and a few key areas where there are real
differences," Posner said. "I remain cautiously optimistic that we're going
to find a path that leads to an agreement."

Roberta Karp, co-chairwoman of the task force and general counsel for Liz
Claiborne, criticized the disclosure of the recent proposals and,
particularly with regard to the China proposal, suggested that some members
were pushing a protectionist trade agenda.

"It is regrettable," she said, "that someone chose to try to leverage
through the press a proposal that would impede the mission of the
Apparel Industry Partnership. However, we believe many groups remain willing
to make further progress by focusing on improving working
conditions rather than supporting this proposal, essentially a trade policy
that would force companies to pull out of countries like China."

When the task force reaches an impasse, its members often ask Gene Sperling,
economic adviser to President Clinton, to jawbone the two
sides. Asked about the latest stalemate, Sperling said: "When you're trying
to put together a novel and indeed historic partnership, you have
to expect it's going to be a rocky road every step of the way. But I'm still
confident that we'll get there."



--------------171987CFD6AF4086FD1B9313--