Up until July 1998 Indonesian workers were only allowed to join
SPSI, the official government union during former President Suharto's
dictatorship. This union has close links to the Indonesian military
and in most cases did little to help workers, operating more as
an instrument of government power than as a means by which workers
could assert their collective interests.
Since Suharto lost power in 1998 it has been legal to form independent
unions in Indonesia and several have been registered in Nike contract
factories. In addition a number of unions which were formerly
part of SPSI have broken away to form SPSI Reformasi. The clothing
and footwear union SPTSK was originally part of SPSI and then
SPSI Reformasi, and has since separated from SPSI Reformasi to
form its own federation. It is the largest union in most sport
shoe factories supplying Adidas and Nike in Indonesia. There is
considerable debate regarding whether SPTSK and other unions who
seperated from SPSI have genuinely reformed. The situation appears
to be complex, with some SPTSK union officials genuinely serving
workers' interests, and others operating much as they did during
the Suharto era. In a small number of factories producing for
Nike and Adidas there are independent unions in addition to SPTSK.
In fear for their lives
- the PT Nikomas Gemilang factory in Serang, West Java
PT Nikomas Gemilang employs more than 24,000 workers and produces
for both Nike and Adidas. It is owned by the Pou Chen corporation,
Nike's largest sport shoe supplier. Pou Chen also own several other
large sport shoe factories in China and Vietnam, including the giant
Yue Yuen shoe factory complex in Dongguan in China which employs
more than 40,000 workers.
As in many areas in Indonesia the arrangement of local political
structures in Serang is complex. The Indonesian military plays
a key role in all aspects of Indonesian life and local military
commanders exert significant authority. There are also official
local government representatives, equivalent to local mayors,
known as lurahs. Finally, there is an unofficial but influential
power structure involving local mafia gangs. Workers interviewed
for this report claimed that in Serang there is a close relationship
between the official and unofficial structures of power and lurahs
commonly hire local gangs to enforce their will. Thugs hired in
this manner are known as "preman".
Like many factories, PT Nikomas Gemilang has built a close relationship
with all three political structures in order to increase its power
over workers. According to workers at Nikomas who were interviewed
for this report, the factory has provided funds to local Lurahs
for various public works projects and has also asked these public
officials to recruit workers for the factory. This is a useful
form of income for the officials, as they commonly charge a fee
to workers before they will recommend them to the factory. There
is also a history of PT Nikomas employing Indonesian soldiers
to provide security in the factory. Finally, workers interviewed
for this report claimed the factory has employed preman to intimidate
and harass those involved in organising industrial action at Nikomas.
Julianto is a former employee of the Nikomas factory
who now works as a union organiser in Serang in West
Java. |
|
The Like
Cutting Bamboo report (released in September 2000) described
how those involved in organising a worker demonstration for better
pay on 17 and 18 December 1999 were subjected to intense intimidation
and harassment. One of the workers interviewed, Julianto (pictured),
reported being in fear for his life. Factory managers had taken
him into an office and in the presence of an Indonesian soldier
he was shouted at and told that if he did not stop organising
workers he would be attacked by hired thugs. Subsequently he was
repeatedly approached in the street by strangers and warned that
his life was in danger if he did not resign from the factory.
After receiving similar threats another Nikomas worker returned
home to find his house had been ransacked by a local gang. By
April 2000 this intimidation had forced all of the twenty workers
who had played a key role in organising the demonstration to resign.
Separate to the interview research conducted for this report,
the author met the current leader of the PT Nikomas Gemilang branch
of the SPTSK union in January 2002. He spoke in glowing terms
about wages and conditions at the factory and claimed there was
no repression of union rights at the factory.
This was in stark contrast to the confidential testimony of
the sixteen workers who participated in interviews and focus groups
in July 2001 and January 2002. They reported that workers at Nikomas
continue to be afraid that union involvement could put their lives
in danger. They highlighted a particular event that has significantly
increased that fear. On 21 March 2001 Mr. Rakhmat Suryadi, a union
official at the factory was attacked by a number of men with machetes
in front of the factory as he made his way to work. He suffered
wounds to his head and legs and required 18 stitches in the back
of his head. He was hospitalised for a week and was unable to
work for a month. His attackers said nothing to him and made no
attempt to rob him. The attack came a month after Mr. Suryadi
had been quoted in the Indonesian newspaper Kompas describing
labour abuses in Nike contract factories.
According to local unions and human rights organisations a number
of men have been arrested over the attack and have confessed to
it, claiming that a local lurah paid them to carry it out. It
is still unclear whether the local politician was in turn asked
by a third party to arrange the attack. Even if a factory was
involved, it may not necessarily have been PT Nikomas, as Mr Suryadi
had also been involved in supporting union activities in other
factories, including the nearby PT Spindo Mills factory.
Although it is uncertain who arranged the attack on Mr. Suryadi,
most of the workers interviewed for this report strongly suspect
that managers at the Nikomas factory were involved. Since the
attack many workers who had been participating in meetings to
discuss their rights as workers are no longer willing to do so.
Given workers' claims that Nikomas has a history of employing
thugs to threaten and intimidate them, it is hardly surprising
that the attack on Suryadi has dramatically increased their fear
that becoming active in union affairs could put their lives in
danger.
Nikomas workers also said that they were afraid to report problems
in the factory to the SPTSK union leaders because workers who
did so were branded as troublemakers by their supervisors. Supervisors
joke about and humiliate such workers and warn others to keep
away from them. There is also fear that reporting problems at
your factory line will result in you being moved to a more difficult
and dangerous section of the factory. Similar fears were reported
by workers interviewed for the Like Cutting Bamboo report
two years ago.
In May 2001 the US human rights organisation Global Exchange
released a report (written by the author of this report) which
called on Nike to alleviate the fears which the attack on Mr.
Suryadi had generated. It asked the company to send representatives
to meet with Nikomas workers and make a commitment to ensuring
that they are free to organise unions without fear of retribution
(Connor 2001, p. 73). The report also suggested that Nike establish
a confidential procedure for workers to notify independent organisations
if they receive any threats or discrimination for union activity.
These requests have so far been ignored. Apparently Nike is comfortable
with the status quo at PT Nikomas, where fear of violence prevents
workers from asserting their union rights.
Jailed for union activism
- the PT Panarub factory in Tangerang, West Java.
In 2001 the case of Ngadinah Binti Abu Mawardi brought international
attention to the difficulties facing Indonesian workers seeking
to assert their union rights. Ngadinah was the secretary of the
Footwear Workers' Association (PERBUPAS), the smaller of two unions
operating at PT Panarub, a factory in Tangerang in West Java which
produces for Adidas. A branch of the SPTSK union also operates at
the factory.
In September 2000 Ngadinah's union organised a strike that was
joined by most of the 8000 workers in the factory. The workers
were seeking to be paid for overtime at the legally mandated rate;
to be allowed to take the (unpaid) menstrual leave which they
are allowed under Indonesian law; and to receive higher allowances.
On 12 September the union and factory management reached an agreement
which included a commitment from the factory not to fire or otherwise
intimidate workers who were involved in the strike.
On Monday 23 April 2001 Ngadinah was arrested and placed in
Tangerang prison. She was charged under Article 160 (inciting
others to break the law) and Article 335 (unpleasant conduct toward
others) of the Indonesian criminal code.
Ngadinah's detention pending trial and the vagueness of the
charge against her raised concern amongst international human
rights groups. The use of Article 335 was of particular concern.
It is a poorly defined offence that dates back to the Dutch colonial
period and was often used by the Suharto government to suppress
labour protests and strikes. The case received extensive media
coverage both in Indonesia and overseas, and a number of international
organisations encouraged their members to write protest letters
in support of Ngadinah to Adidas, PT Panarub and the Indonesian
government.
On 23 May 2001 Ngadinah was released from prison, but the charges
against her were not dropped. Lawyers from the Social Information
and Legal Guidance Foundation (SISBIKUM), a non-government organisation
with a close relationship with Ngadinah's union, ran her defence.
The Executive Secretary of that organisation, Arist Merdeka Sirait,
noted that PT Panarub had fired board members of Ngadinah's union
in the past. He expressed the belief that the factory had colluded
with the police to arrange Ngadinah's arrest in order to suppress
the independent union at the factory. The Jakarta Post agreed,
reporting on 25 May that Ngadinah was arrested "due to a complaint
filed by PT Panarub executive Slamet Supriyadi...Supriyadi had
told the police that Ngadinah was the mastermind of the four-day
massive strikes conducted by 8,000 workers at the company's compound
in Tangerang from Sept. 8 to Sept. 11 last year. He claimed the
strikes that were provoked by Ngadinah had caused Rp 500 million
in losses to the company." Ngadinah herself, in a statement made
on her release from prison, alleged that in Indonesia "employers
and government officials are colluding to suppress legitimate
union activities". Adidas Salomon has made no response to claims
that its supplier colluded with police to arrange Ngadinah's arrest.
During her trial Ngadinah argued that the strike was a outbreak
of frustration at years of low wages and forced overtime. At one
point she told the judge: "In the factory, each lane of forty-seven
workers has a target of 620 shoes per day...720 if we work overtime.
The very minimum target for a day is usually 700. If we don't
reach our target the management gets very angry with us. Angry
to the point that sometimes they throw shoes at the workers. This
is why the workers struck, not because I told them to." [2]
As the trial progressed SISBIKUM raised concerns that it was
not being conducted fairly. Ngadinah's lawyer reported that there
had been excessive and repetitive quesitioning of defence witnesses
by the judge, non-admission of defence expert witnesses, and admission
of eight prosecution witnesses but only two defence witnesses.
Eventually Ngadinah's lawyer stopped representing her in protest
at the manner in which the trial was being conducted and she represented
herself. On 30 August Ngadinah was found not guilty on both charges
filed against her.
Ngadinah participated in a focus group discussion with other
workers from PT Panarub in January 2002. She expressed a strong
belief that the support she received from international human
rights organisations was the only reason she was found not guilty.
Had it not been for that support she believes she would now be
in jail.
Before Ngadinah was arrested it was common for members of her
union to be singled out by their supervisors for more harsh treatment.
They would also be given menial tasks such as cleaning the factory
floor. Since her trial this kind of discrimination has ceased.
Ngadinah and other Panarub workers believe this is a result of
the international community's new interest in conditions in the
factory rather than a change of heart by factory management. The
factory does still discriminate between the two unions at the
factory to the extent that it has provided SPTSK but not Perbupas
with an office in the factory.
On her return to the factory once her case was dismissed, Ngadinah
was moved to the human resources department in the factory. She
lacks the educational background required for this position and
has repeatedly asked that she be allowed to return to the production
line. The factory has always refused these requests and insisted
that she is needed where she is. Ngadinah strongly believes she
has been put in this section in order to separate her from other
workers and prevent her from encouraging them to become involved
in union activity. According to Ngadinah the leader of the Perbupas
union at Panarub works in one of the warehouses - another section
where he has little contact with other workers. He has also repeatedly
requested a transfer to a production line job, but these requests
have repeatedly been refused.
Panarub's use of contract workers makes it very difficult for
those workers to become active union members. Workers who participated
in the focus group in January 2002 estimated that up to 40% of
the 8,000 workers at Panarub are on six month contracts. In August
2000 when the contracts of 600 workers came to an end the great
majority were rehired, but all thirty workers who had joined Perbupas
were told they were no longer needed. Since then Perbupas organisers
have not tried to recruit contract workers for fear that they
could put their jobs in danger.
Some steps forward, but active unionists still have reason to
fear unfair dismissal
- those factories which workers asked not be identified.
As discussed above, workers interviewed from other sport shoe factories
in preparation for this report asked that the name of their factory
be kept confidential. Each of these factories produces for Nike
rather than Adidas.
In some of these factories there have been important improvements
in terms of respect for workers' right to freedom of association.
The Like Cutting Bamboo report detailed a variety of
measures used by factory owners to make life difficult for independent
union leaders and to dissuade workers from joining independent
unions. A number of these practices have ceased. Those Nike sport
shoe factories which have independent unions now give those unions
an office at the factory and meet with the independent union leadership
on a regular basis. They allow representatives of those unions
more freedom to discuss union issues with workers during work
breaks. Union organisers are usually allowed to hand out information
about the union to other workers during breaks, although the factories
censor what is distributed and refuse to allow any material that
is critical of working conditions. In these factories independent
union leaders are no longer threatened that they will never receive
promotion, and one or two have been promoted. The practice of
constantly moving independent union leaders from one section of
the factory to another in order to unsettle them has also ceased,
and no union leaders in these factories have received any threats
of violence in the last two years.
Some workers believed that these improvements have come as a
result of their union's hard work in building support among workers.
Others believed they have come as a result of international media
coverage of suppression of union rights at their factory. During
one of the focus group discussions held in January 2002 an independent
union organiser who was in regular contact with workers at other
Nike contract factories said (through an interpreter):
We hope, we really hope you start to put more attention
to other factories because now we get better conditions, better
facilities. As a worker I think we should have solidarity with
other Nike factories. So please put more attention to others,
rather than just coming to [factory name]. I know that all the
better conditions we get are from people like you... We just want
to make it clear. If you report there are better conditions...
maybe the international community will think, "Its O.K. then",
while the fact is from maybe fourteen factories producing for
Nike here in Indonesia... there are two with improvements... and
the others suffer still.
Unfortunately even in these factories workers remain afraid
that joining an independent union will put their jobs in danger.
The practice of finding pretexts for firing independent union
members or putting them on "scorsing" (forced indefinite leave)
was what gave the Like Cutting Bamboo report its name.
One of the workers interviewed for that report described the impact
on the independent union of having its members fired in this manner
as "like cutting bamboo wood". Workers interviewed for this report
gave me recent examples of this practice and reported that many
workers interested in joining an independent union had decided
not to for fear of losing their jobs.
One of the workers interviewed in July 2001 had been on forced
indefinite leave for four months. He and 63 workers had been told
early in March 2001 that because of a slowdown in orders their
work was not currently needed. Although only a small minority
of workers at the factory are members of the independent union,
45 of the 63 workers laid off at that time were independent union
members, including four members of the union's board. At the end
of March 2001 those workers were laid off and all but two accepted
redundancy pay. The worker interviewed in July 2001 was one of
the two who protested the dismissal and hence remained on indefinite
leave with reduced pay while the case was resolved. He believed
the factory was attempting to reduce the influence of the independent
union by disproportionately dismissing its members. The worker
took his case to the Central Committee on Labor Dispute Settlements
(P4P) at the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower but the case was
decided in favour of the factory.
Unfortunately Indonesia's public service and judiciary cannot
be relied upon to adjudicate such cases in an unbiased manner.
Under Suharto's dictatorship judges and public servants frequently
colluded with factory owners to suppress union rights, motivated
by a desire to maintain an investment climate which would encourage
international companies to maintain production in Indonesia. Although
the country has begun a process of democratic reform, commitment
to the rule of law remains weak. Amnesty International's 2001
Annual Report noted that in Indonesia "the independence of the
judiciary continued to be undermined by corruption and by government
interference". [3]
During the time the worker was protesting his dismissal due
to a "downturn", the factory employed more than thirty new workers
but refused to allow this worker return to work. In January 2002,
union organisers from his factory reported that this worker had
eventually given up and accepted his redundancy because the "road
was too long" and he couldn't fight the decision any longer.
Another worker interviewed in July 2001 from the same factory
was also on forced indefinite leave, in this case as a result
of an incident that occurred in April 2001. According to that
worker she and a friend were concerned that a new line chief who
had been appointed in their section of the factory had a reputation
for being harsh and aggressive toward workers. They decided to
make a formal complaint about this appointment.
Before they did so a rumour developed that they were planning
to encourage workers to hold a production slowdown to protest
the appointment. The worker denied this was ever her intention.
She was interviewed by a factory manager who accused her of encouraging
workers to work so badly that 80% of their product on a particular
day was rejected. According to the worker, this allegation was
false. She claimed that of the 300 pieces of the product they
made that day only 13 were rejected. The worker believed she and
the other workers involved in the incident were targeted because
they had a reputation for standing up for workers' rights. She
and her union also took her case to the Central Committee on Labor
Dispute Settlements at the Indonesian Ministry of Manpower. The
committee also ruled against the worker.
With that worker's permission the author wrote to Nike a number
of times between July and November 2001 requesting that the company
facilitate an independent investigation of her case, to ensure
that she had not been unfairly dismissed. Nike avoided the request
for an independent investigation and instead indicated that Nike
staff would investigate. The company has ignored a number of further
requests from the author for information about this internal investigation.
Arguably, if Nike was genuinely committed to ensuring that workers
are not being discriminated against for asserting their rights
then the company would have been willing to arrange an independent
investigation by a credible monitoring organisation. By January
2002 this worker had found it impossible to continue her protest
against her dismissal and had accepted redundancy pay. Again members
of her union explained that "the road was too long".
In another factory, workers felt that the process for deciding
who gets laid off during a downturn gives the factory a lot of
scope to get rid of active trade unionists. On such occasions
individual line supervisors choose which workers in their line
lose their jobs. This gives supervisors considerable freedom to
remove independent union members or workers who have a history
of complaining about poor conditions. Each supervisor's checklist
of workers also shows which workers are in the independent union,
and that increases workers' anxiety. Workers I interviewed had
asked their supervisors why their union membership was included
on such lists but had not received a satisfactory answer. One
joked that if that information was there so that supervisors knew
which workers should receive bonuses and wage rises she would
be very grateful, but that somehow she doubted it. Recently that
factory laid off 600 workers and in that particular case the factory
did not dismiss a disproportionate number of independent union
members. Workers nonetheless believe that the factory should negotiate
with union leaders in order to work out a fairer means of determining
which workers lose their jobs.
In most of the factories investigated there have recently been
significant drops in orders for shoes. Workers in these factories
have been told that this is because the economic downturn in the
US following the September 11 terrorist attack in the US has dramatically
reduced demand. In addition to the factory that dismissed 600
workers in December 2001 another Nike contract factory plans to
fire 400 workers in March 2002. The two factories investigated
in which orders have not reduced are PT Nikomas Gemilang and PT
Panarub. It is particularly concerning that orders from Nike are
being cut in factories in which independent unions have become
established, whereas orders have remained stable in PT Nikomas
Gemilang, a factory which has drastically repressed independent
union activity. Human rights groups have frequently called on
Nike to regularly make public its level of orders to each factory
so that any discrimination against factories with unions can be
tracked. The company continues to refuse to do so.
Press reports suggest that factors other than the economic downturn
in the US may also be playing a role in the reduction of orders
to sport shoe factories in Indonesia. On 11 February 2002 Business
Week published an article citing Anton Supit, chairman of the
Indonesian Footwear Association, saying that political instability
and rising costs associated with inflation in Indonesia were leading
"Nike, Reebok, Adidas, and others" to move orders to China and
Vietnam. In January 2002 the author met with representatives from
two factories producing sport shoes for Nike in Vietnam. Those
factories were experiencing big increases in orders. Unlike Indonesia,
in Vietnam the only union allowed by law is the official union
of the Communist government.
Next: Case Study: Leily's
story
