Article focusing on new perspectives gained by the various organizations involved in the International Forum on Clean Clothes

Clean Clothes Campaign

English

Article focusing on new perspectives gained by the various organizations involved in the International Forum on Clean Clothes.CCC_International_Forum_on_Clean_Clothes_Brings_New_Perspectives_for_campaigns_May_1998.pdf: 115 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for Campaigns

DigitalCommons@ILR

May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
 
 International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives
for Campaigns
From April 30th to May 5th 1998 the International Forum on
Clean Clothes took place in Brussels. A jury of the Permanent
Peoples' Tribunal listened to 15 witnesses from all over the
world, testifying on working conditions in the garments and
sportswear industry. In their conclusions, the jury answered
the questions posed to them by the Clean Clothes Campaign,
especially concerning the legal aspects of the campaign. This
has brought new perspectives for the campaigns, providing
them with new tools to work towards improving working
conditions in the garment and sportswear industry.
In a hot and crowded auditorium at the ICFTU, 200 people attended the
sessions on May 2nd and 3rd. Workers, trade unionists, NGO
representatives, researchers and campaigners testified on working
conditions in the garment and sportswear sector, each from their specific
expertise.
Rafiqul Islam Sujan from Bangladesh used to work in the YoungOne
factory in the Dhaka Export Processing Zone, producing Nike garments.
He told the jury and the audience about the violations of the labour
regulations. Also his working conditions were not in agreement with Nike's
code of conduct. When the workers tried to approach the management
with demands for improvement, they were met with harsh repression.
Sujan: "On July 10th two workers, Jashim and Shubo, were handed over
to the police and false cases were made up against 41 other workers. The
situation heated up. We demanded that the two workers were released,
that the cases against the 41 workers were dropped and that our 11
demands were met. Instead of listening to our grievances the
management illegally removed us from their premises with aid of the
police, on July 11th. The next day I went to work, but the factory was
closed. We were locked out".
The workers did not give up at that point. The following day they went to
the office of the prime minister with a petition. Sujan: "We were attacked
by the police and beaten up. More than 300 workers were hurt. With the
collaboration of the management, the police arrested a total number of 13
workers, including me. I spent one month and 17 days in jail until I was
 
May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
released on bail. My co-workers were also released on bail. The
management reopened the factory, but 97 of us were dismissed, including
me, and later more than 100 workers were dismissed without notice".
Though it was clear from Sujans' statement that the YoungOne factory
was violating the Bangladeshi labour legislation concerning wages,
working hours and holidays, the protesting workers were told at the Prime
Ministers office that they were endangering the attractiveness to foreign
investors.
Hostages
This would have been an interesting point to raise with the Nike
representative, but unfortunately the company refused to appear. They
did send a written statement, including various reports on working
conditions in factories producing Nike apparel and sport shoes. Needless
to say these reports are all very favourable to Nike's policy on working
conditions. Concerning the YoungOne case, Nike's director of labour
practices Dusty Kidd says: "An incident did occur last summer, when a
number of recently hired employees gathered a large number of workers
under a false pretence into the main dining hall, and under threat of
violence would not allow any of these detained workers - mostly women
numbering in the thousands - to leave. YoungOne management asked for
police assistance. The workers were allowed to resume their work. Those
responsible for locking other workers into the factory were escorted
peacefully from the factory. Some of those responsible were detained by
authorities. During a subsequent confrontation between police and a
crowd at the police station, some violence and injury did result to those in
the crowd, including a few YoungOne employees, and to police".
The obvious questions of why a few workers would take hostage
thousands of their co-workers, who apparently had no grievances towards
the company, and how a few unarmed workers manage to keep
thousands of their co-workers hostage, are not addressed.
Dusty Kidd goes on to explain how good working conditions are at
YoungOne, compared with other garment factories in Bangladesh, then
admits that "an international auditing firm working at Nike's behest found
the factory had not met all requirements under the compensation
schemes", meaning the factory was paying less than minimum wage.
Oppression is standard
The International Forum on Clean Clothes focused on 7 companies:
Adidas, C&A, H&M, Levi Strauss, Nike, Otto Versand and Walt Disney. Of
these, H&M was the only one that actually showed up. Ingrid Schulstrom:
"We decided to participate as we take these issues seriously, as a
company and personally".
Ros B. Guzman works as a researcher for IBON on the Philippines. She
conducted a study for the Swedish television on producers for H&M. This
was not an easy task. Guzman: "We found 4 producers in the Export
Processing Zone, where access is difficult and no workers' organisation
allowed. Workers are scared to talk. We concluded that oppression is
standard". She did manage to speak with workers and to trace an H&M
sweater down the entire subcontracting chain. Guzman: "Fifty to seventy
percent of the production takes place outside the factory. We went to all
the subcontractors that were named by the workers. They do knitting.
May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
There are 5 to 10 machines in a garage. The workers earn piece rate and
live at the workplace. To earn a living wage they must work 19 hours a
day. The subcontractor receives 40% of what H&M pays to the factory.
The subcontractor passes on part of the work to the community. Through
a sub-leader, the embroidery is split to 50 houses. Women work at their
home and often their children are also working". According to Guzman,
H&M is responsible, since they can dictate prices. The garment leaves the
Philippines for $5 and is sold for $20.
H&M launched a code of conduct at the end of 1997 and is now working
on implementing it. H&M asked for understanding that this takes time.
"We have 1,600 main suppliers and their subcontractors to check".
Trade unionist Amirul Haque Amin from Bangladesh testified on how H&M
still is far from implementing their code. According to him, a supplier in
Dhaka, Bangladesh:
does not allow trade unions,
gives no employment contracts or service books
does not pay the minimum wage to all workers
imposes overtime of up to 80 hours a week
does not pay the correct overtime rate
does not give holiday as described by law
Ingrid Schullstrom stated that H&M checked this particular supplier in
Bangladesh and when she spoke to workers there, they did not complain.
However, H&M is taking the accusations seriously and will continue to
investigate the cases. H&M acknowledges that they might have been slow
in learning about these issues and taking steps in their regard, but
assured the jury and the audience that now these issues are taken up,
they will be taken seriously. H&M is speaking with the Swedish Clean
Clothes Campaign and says it is open to the idea of independent
monitoring. The last word is for Kristina Bjorling, co-ordinator of the
Swedish CCC: "H&M still has a big job to do. But we think they have
reacted quickly and constructively. If they continue to do that, the
workers will benefit".
Independence is necesary
In their conclusions, the jury members of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal
stressed the importance of independent monitoring of any code of
conduct. "Self-imposed codes by companies should be transformed as
quickly as possible into agreements with unions, consumer organisations
or other popular bodies. An 'independent' formula should be put in place
to make it possible to follow more closely, if not exercise control over, the
ways companies treat their workers".
The jury members go on to look at the possibilities for improving working
conditions from a more legal point of view. They see different possible
angles for such an approach: "We must work toward national and
international juridical standards that encompass the principles of these
codes, including not only the rights of workers but also the rights of
consumers and practices such as social labelling". To use consumer rights
as a possible strategy to force companies to improve working conditions is
a new perspective, that according to the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal
could prove successful. In their conclusions they mention that the right to
information as a fundamental consumer right is recognised as such by
May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
much European and non-European state legislation. This would imply that
consumers have the right to adequate information on the characteristics
of the product. More importantly, according to the jury members "it is
now accepted that this notion includes not only the intrinsic (e.g. price,
material composition, etc.) but also the extrinsic (e.g. impact on the
environment, on health and on solidarity concerns) characteristics of the
product". And: "the detailed information on the conditions of production
must be considered among these 'essential characteristics' which are able
to determine the consent of the consumer".
This could have far reaching consequences for the strategies that are
available for campaigns like the Clean Clothes Campaign to further their
aim of improving working conditions world-wide. Some suggestions given
by the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal are:
to put pressure on legislators so that information on the conditions
of production becomes mandatory;
consumers, as individuals or associations, could initiate a legal action
against a firm which has adopted a code of conduct, expressed also
by a social label, but which is not ready to be fully accountable with
respect to the conditions of production, on the basis of which its
publicity is found to be misleading.
consumers' associations can use legal actions aiming at affirming the
legally binding character of social standards in the area of
consumption.
A few days before the International Forum on Clean Clothes started,
some consumer groups and others filed a lawsuit against Nike at San
Francisco Superior Court. The groups claim that Nike misrepresents
working conditions in Asian factories, and is thus in violation of California's
fair business laws. In June 1998 a former Chinese inmate filed a lawsuit
against Adidas. When he was in a prison camp in China he was forced to
stitch Adidas footballs. The outcome of such lawsuits could have
tremendous impact on how companies can be pressured with regards to
working conditions. Labour activists have been claiming for years that
multinational companies have a moral responsibility for working conditions
in their entire subcontracting chain. Codes of conduct are the companies'
response to such claims. It makes them look good in the public eye.
Labour activists are claiming that this is not good enough; they want real
change instead of cosmetic change. Jurisprudence on legal responsibility
of companies could give a boost to such demands.
 
Batay Ouvriye on the International Forum
BATAY OUVRIYE, a workers' organisation from Haiti, sent two of its
members to participate in the Clean Clothes Campaign International
Forum held in Brussels between April 30th to May 5th of 1998. Here are
some of their thoughts about the event.
We went to this Forum to take part in the sessions of the Permanent
Peoples' Tribunal to denounce the working conditions in the Haitian
factories where garments are produced for one of the biggest
multinationals of the world, the Walt Disney Corporation. And we went
also to share our thoughts regarding our experience in building an
May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
autonomous workers' movement in our country and to discuss the need
to construct a strong international solidarity movement. Before we went
to this international forum, we were concious about the limitations of this
body. And what we experienced during its course and particularly in the
Permanent Peoples' Tribunal confirms our opinions.
Springboard and Limitations
The Tribunal as a place to expose the mechanisms of exploitation used by
the big multinational corporations to get their products made where ever
it can be done the cheapest and to denounce all that in front of the world
was of great importance.
At the same time the Forum enabled different organizations and people to
learn about each other, to share strategies or to learn diverse forms of
struggles that are being attempted. Workers and unionist from Indonesia,
Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Bulgaria who did know about our struggle in
Haiti against Disney became aware of that and agreed to keep in touch to
establish a working relationship that will contribute in building a dynamic
international solidarity movement. To us, this a step toward coordinating
and unifying our forces together while maintaining our autonomy.
Codes of Conduct
The Forum was a place of struggle or confrontation between different
orientations. That was particularly the case on the Code of Conduct
question. The debates permitted workers and their organizations to
understand that they should no way give a simple stamp of approval even
to people that are supporting their struggle. Codes of conducts play and
can play a in the interest of the bourgeoisie and the necessity for workers
is to not tie themselves to them by endorsing them. The humanistic
approach regarding these aspects prevents us from fully engaging the
fight against the social class that benefits from them. We think that we
should not engage in a struggle where the final goal is to improve certain
working conditions, without putting into question the overall system.
Thus, we cannot get ourselves into a situation where what we are doing
is improving capitalism or improving exploitation. We felt that we
contributed in putting forward the conceptual problems that underpin
these questions.
With regard to the Tribunal, the verdict was an important step. It
responded to two important concerns: the right of the consumers to be
rightfully informed about the products they are buying and the use of
code of conduct by the multinationals.
The Forum had its limits though. For one thing, for a tribunal to be
effective it should be able to call upon the justice authority to execute the
rendered verdict. That was not the case for the session of this Tribunal.
But in the spirit of Unity-Struggle-Unity and certainly through Struggle-
Unity and Struggle, we will contribute to overcome those limits. As for the
workers, they should develop an international worker's organization to
fight against this global system through their own organizational work or
practices in their respective countries. Furthermore, the participants at
this Tribunal should seek through their organizations to file lawsuits
against the multinationals to make sure that they get the sentences they
merit for causing so much miseries to working people everywhere. The
lawsuit against Nike filed in the US is a good example for all of us in that
May 1998, International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for campaigns
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/julyforumimpression.htm[2/13/2009 1:38:13 PM]
sense.
 


https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&amp;context=globaldocs

International Forum on Clean Clothes Brings New Perspectives for Campaigns

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons (Cornell Univ.)

DigitalCommons@ILR