Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 13:52:35 +0200 (CEST)

TODAY MEETING OF LEVI'S WORKERS'COUNCILS IN DEURNE, GITS AND WERVIK IN BELGIUM

(information from the Flemish Clean Clothes Campaign based on a common statement of the Belgian trade unions)

Levi's spent in the US more than 236.240.000 USD to pay the dismissed workers of 13 plants. More than 7000 people are concerned. Without any doubt Levi's will offer a similar package for the closure of the 4 plants in Belgium and France. The Belgian trade unions refuse to discuss these social measures because financial means should be used to keep the working places not to get rid of workers.

Levi's is a profitable company both in Belgium and Europe and will remain so even with a drop back of the sales the following years. Moreover, 1996 was good year for the sales figures. The sales of jeans encreased with 8.2 billion compared to 1993. The pessimism of the management as to the perspectives for 2003, are not based on solid grounds. And there is still enough time to take other measures than just closing down.

The trade unions consider Levi's is a private company of which the management takes its decisions autonomously to keep open or close the plants. It's not the trade union, nor the members of the workers'council that make proposals but the owner of the company. So in the end, it is the management who's responsible for the decisions and not the trade unions, nor the workers. Up till now the management forgot to include in its criteria one element, namely: the workers. To the trade unions this means the social image of Levi's has completely vanished.

On Tuesday 29th September 1998 a paper with restructuring plans was presented to the workers'councils of Levi Strauss in Belgium. This way the members were informed of Levi's intention to close down 4 plants (Gits, Wervik, Deurne in Belgium; La Bassée in France). The members of the workers'council protested against this proposal and said the management had not made enough efforts to look for feasible alternatives. Closing down is the easiest way for Levi's and. Encreasing profit and rejecting social responsibility is behind it. There is no financial, economical, commercial need to close production units in Belgium. Levi's asks the workers' council to come up with alternatives but immediately rejects some of the proposals without paying enough attention to them. The trade unions conclude that they do not take this seriously. And they want to point out that in the first place it's the responsibility of Levi's management itself to examen alternatives.

Remarks:

• The market evolution is discussed extensively. The trade unions doubt the credibility of the given information.
• The trade unions want to get an overview of the evolution of production capacity in Europe and the rest of the world (including China) and they want an overview of the investments and the goals of these investments
• Concerning the own production capacity the trade unions want more details about the working hours in the European Levi's plants and the consequences of a reduction of the working hours
• Delivery terms, flexibility, efficiency and quality are the criteria used by Levi' to explain the high production cost. This is short sighted. Apart from profit a company also has a social responsibility.
• The trade unions want to know the exact composition of the cost price of a finished product in all European plants.

Proposals of the trade unions to the Levi's management:

• Making use of temporary unemployment to respond to changes in the demand rather than using suppliers
• a shift from the production of denim towards non-denim
• spreading the production capacity over all European plants
• an active policy by Levi's concerning the import from outside Europe and the production of counterfeit products
• a reduction of other costs (exclusive offices, expensive training sessions etc.)
• other restructuring measures (reduction of working hours, part time work, ?)