Apparel Partnership:
SWEATSHOP AGREEMENT

Posted November 8, 1998

• Part 1: Analysis
  • Analysis of Apparel Industry Partnership "Preliminary Agreement" by Trim Bissell, national coordinator of Campaign for Labor Rights
• Part 2: Documents
  • Commentary from UNITE on AIP "Preliminary Agreement"
  • Statement from UNITE * Statement from Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility
  • Joint statement by Lenore Miller (Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union), Jay Mazur (UNITE) and John J. Sweeney (AFL-CIO)
  • Memorandum from the AIP sub-group which produced the "Preliminary Agreement"
• Part 3: News stories
  • New York Times
  • Associated Press
  • (Portland) Oregonian

NOTE: The complete agreement is available on request from Campaign for Labor Rights, in three long emails. You can find the agreement on the web site for the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights www.lchr.org and, soon if not already, on the Campaign for Labor Rights web site www.summersault.com/~agj/clr.

PART 1:
ANALYSIS by Trim Bissell,
national coordinator of Campaign for Labor Rights

"The intransigence of the industry representatives on the Partnership on every important issue makes sense when we consider that the AIP was formed to protect corporate reputations and to prevent a backlash against free trade, not to protect worker rights."

"We should continue to do what we have done all along: Keep up the heat on those companies which are the focus of our campaigns."

"If we view sweatshops through the lens of class struggle, then it is ourselves as grassroots activists and unionists we should rely on - ourselves and our worker allies in every corner of the world."

On November 4, after more than two years of negotiations, a subset of the Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP - the White House task force on garment sweatshop issues) released the text of its "Preliminary Agreement." What is as notable as the document's shortcomings is the fact that both of the unions and one of the human rights groups in the Partnership have refused to sign it. UNITE (the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees) furthermore stated that it "cannot continue to participate in the Apparel Industry Partnership on the basis of the agreement recently reached by some company and NGO members of the Partnership."

A Divided AIP

The Apparel Industry Partnership was brought together by the Clinton administration during the tenure of Labor Secretary Robert Reich. The AIP included representatives of the apparel industry, unions and human rights groups. The group was assembled in October 1996, with a mandate to produce a set of guidelines within six months. Deep divisions immediately developed around many issues, most notably: monitoring and wages.

Under pressure from President Clinton, the AIP released a "Workplace Code of Conduct" and "Principles of Monitoring" in April 1997. Criticism of those accords especially focused on two areas: * Many questioned whether the system envisioned in the "Principles of Monitoring" would afford sufficient independence to those charged with the responsibility of determining if participating companies were complying with the "Workplace Code of Conduct". * The "Workplace Code of Conduct" set the legal minimum wage as the pay standard, rather than a living wage, even where - as is most often the case - the legal minimum is not sufficient to meet workers' basic needs.

After release of those initial documents, the AIP went back to the bargaining table, promising to return with a final agreement in another six months. Amid persistent rumors of irreconcilable differences and imminent collapse, negotiations dragged on for another 18 and a half months. What finally emerged was produced by only a subset of the AIP, which had been meeting apart from the rest of the Partnership. Both unions in the Partnership (the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and UNITE) and one of the human rights groups (the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility) have refused to sign the "Preliminary Agreement" produced by that subset.

We ought to consider the context in which the AIP came into existence and the probable goals of those responsible for its formation.

Following a high-profile human rights campaign focused on sweatshop practices of The Gap in 1995, public attention early in 1996 turned to Kathie Lee Gifford, who was reduced to tears on network television over accusations that she profited from sweatshops and child labor. Shortly thereafter, persuaded that the clothing line bearing her name was in fact produced under abusive conditions, Gifford named basketball star Michael Jordan as another celebrity who ought to take responsibility for the (Nike) products he endorses. An outraged public awoke to the discovery that a huge share of the consumer items it purchases are made in sweatshops, sometimes with child labor. A broad-based social movement was becoming organized in opposition to sweatshop abuses. Nike and several other brands - indeed, the apparel industry as a whole - was getting a prolonged drubbing in the media.

The uproar was causing serious problems on several fronts: * Gifford's career as a celebrity endorser was about to come crashing down around her ears. Her reputation was in desperate need of rehabilitation. * Shoes and clothing are only the secondary products of the fashion industry. What these companies primarily sell is image. For Nike to have its image associated with sweatshops in Asia was more than an embarrassment; the revelations threatened sales. Other companies, too, were facing consumer campaigns or the possibility of them. * The apparel industry as a whole grew edgy at the thought that Congress might be driven to legislate a correction. Even with its lobbyists in high gear, the industry could not be confident of controlling the legislation that might come out of public hearings filled with horror stories of sweatshop abuse in factories producing for familiar brands. * The Clinton administration feared a threat to the centerpiece of this presidency: advancing the free trade agenda. The public was no longer persuaded by bland assurances that increased human rights somehow automatically follow from increased trade. NAFTA had passed only by a squeak. Would other trade deals founder in the face of further sweatshop exposes?

In a word, what all of these players shared was a need for emergency damage control. They wanted major image repair at a minimum of cost. And they wanted to remain in the driver's seat for any changes that had to be made.

However, the industry had lost so much credibility that total control of the reform process was no longer a possibility if companies wished to improve their standing in the public's eyes. Codes of conduct and internal monitors already had proved a sham. The industry was forced to deal with some of its critics.

This, then, is the background for a "partnership" from which the apparel industry hoped to gain much while offering little. The intransigence of the industry representatives on the Partnership on every important issue makes sense when we consider that the AIP was formed to protect corporate reputations and to prevent a backlash against free trade, not to protect worker rights.

The labor unions and human rights groups which entered into this Partnership had quite another goal, hoping that the AIP might afford an opening for improving the lot of apparel industry workers. Those human rights representatives who have decided to sign the accord certainly must believe that the final accord, with all of its limitations, will result in such improvements. Hopefully, they are right.

It is conceivable that the participating companies will consider themselves committed to raising the standards of their labor practices, even if only modestly, and that consumer pressure will force other companies to participate. It is even conceivable that the standards might be inched up further if and when additional companies participate.

It seems more likely that participating companies - and the industry as a whole - will get a public relations boost not warranted by substantial changes in behavior. Throughout the negotiating process, Nike has trumpeted its involvement in the AIP as evidence of its moral leadership, all the while stonewalling on several key issues of its labor practices.

It is inevitable that some forces will seek to lay the sweatshop issue officially to rest now that an agreement has been reached (even if with only some of the parties). Experience tells us that, if the public can be lulled back to sleep on this issue, we will see a rapid return to business as usual.

Amid all the hoopla over reaching an agreement, there is a danger that the crucial issue of paying a living wage might be lost.

We should continue to do what we have done all along: Keep up the heat on those companies which are the focus of our campaigns. Where there is a discrepancy between promises (corporate codes of conduct, company announcements of new labor initiatives, the AIP accords, etc.) and practice, we should point out the difference. We should insist on a living wage as the standard for pay.

If we believe that change will come from dialoguing with agreeable persons well-placed in corporations, then we might put our faith in the AIP and its accords. If we view sweatshops through the lens of class struggle, then it is ourselves as grassroots activists and unionists we should rely on - ourselves and our worker allies in every corner of the world.

[See Documents in Part 2 and News stories in Part 3.]

Labor Alerts: a service of Campaign for Labor Rights To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to CLR@igc.apc.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.

---