sweatshops, etc.

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

[Liza asked me to forward this. - Doug]

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:45:13 -0400
From: Liza Featherstone <lfeather32@xxxxxxxxx>

Though my name has dropped out of these tirades, I co-authored the articles
that this person attributes to Doug. These posts reflect a lack of specific
knowledge about the student anti-sweatshop movement. USAS and UNITE are not
the same organization. USAS doesn't campaign for labor standards in trade
agreements. Nor do they tell people to look for the UNITE label -- I agree
that approach smacks of Buy American-ism and in fact I say exactly that in a
book I'm finishing on the subject. I think we can all agree that some
anti-sweatshop campaigns led by people in rich countries are protectionist.
The question is, is it possible for people in rich countries to work in
useful solidarity with workers in the Third World who wish to be paid more,
and to improve their work conditions? Perhaps the author of these posts
thinks it isn't, and that kids at Ivy League schools should relax, prepare
to take their places in the ruling class and not trouble themselves about
the women who worked unpaid overtime making their prestigious sweatshirts. I
disagree, and think that USAS's work provides an interesting example of
anti-sweatshop work that is principled and not xenophobic. Students try to
directly pressure companies to improve wages and conditions, and, realizing
that garment factory jobs are often much better than the alternatives, they
campaign equally vigorously against companies' attempts to pull out of "bad"
factories. Students investigate worker complaints, and campaign for
remedies. Most of all, they support workers' own organizing efforts. Thanks
to USAS's pressure, workers at a Nike supplier in Mexico have already won
significant wage increases and improvements in conditions, and may be close
to getting recognition for an independent union.  Who besides maybe Thomas
Friedman could possibly find that protectionist?

Liza Featherstone