(summary)

Nike in Thailand - Conditions at the Par Monthinee garment factory in Korat (Interview report).

Piya Pangsapa and Karuna Durian*

The Par Monthinee garment factory employs more than 300 women and is located in Nakorn Rachasima (Korat). Par Monthinee is a subsidiary of the Par Garment Company which also owns a factory in Rangsit (near Bangkok) and the Par Consortium factory in Ubon Ratchatani (also in North-Eastern Thailand). Nike is one of several companies which order clothes from Par Monthinee. Often Par Monthinee subcontracts all or part of these orders to the Par Consortium factory. This was the case with the most recent Nike order which was completed in August/September 1999.

This brief report is based on an in-depth interview of a current employee of the Par Monthinee factory, conducted by Karuna Durian on Sunday November 14, 1999. The worker has asked that her identity be kept confidential for fear that she might lose her job or be punished in some other way for revealing conditions at the factory. The interview was conducted by phone.

Obviously the anonymous evidence of one witness needs to be treated with some caution. Nonetheless the appalling conditions described underline the urgent need for companies like Nike to ensure that the human rights standards included in Nike's code of conduct are properly monitored. The worker's fear of being fired for honestly describing conditions at the factory demonstrates the need for this monitoring to include anonymous interview research conducted away from the factory by organisations which workers have some reason to trust.

In the interview the worker described how the factory is putting increasing pressure on workers to work unreasonably long hours in an unsafe, unsanitary and hazardous workplace.

Health and Safety Concerns

The fire alarm system in the factory has not been tested and no fire drill has been conducted at the factory. There are no batteries in the smoke detector.

The work area has poor roofing causing large pieces from the ceiling to peel off and fall onto worker's heads. The cafeteria area also has poor roofing causing water to leak in when it rains.

The factory has poor ventilation systems and as a result the factory is very hot and there is a lot of dust. The factory provides no drinking water or water purifier for the workers.

There are not enough toilet facilities for the employees. There are about five toilets for 300-400 women.

Workers are often forced to sign a document, issued by the factory, before taking a leave of absence or sick leave with that document stating that 'she will take X number of days off without pay'. Even though workers are aware of what they are signing, they sign anyway otherwise they risk being fired.

The factory has not been providing mandatory health benefits to its workers even though it has been automatically deducting social security fees for the hospitals from the workers' salaries. Each worker is entitled to medical services by simply presenting his/her social security card but when a worker from Par Monthinee seeks medical treatment, hospitals would refuse to offer treatment claiming that the factory has not yet paid its dues. The worker is then forced to pay for any medical services rendered at the hospital and seek for reimbursement from the factory.

Unreasonable Pressure on Workers

A piece work system has come to replace the former system of overtime. It has made the workload heavier and more stressful since fewer employees are now expected to carry the same workload. This kind of subcontracting system forces workers to work without taking bathroom breaks, snack breaks, breaks to drink water and so on which in turn leads to many health problems for the workers such as bladder and kidney problems and urinary tract infection. Overall physical exhaustion from this system of production has also caused some workers to actually cough up or vomit blood while they work and some suffer from repetitive strain injuries.

Withdrawal of Benefits

All benefits to which workers are entitled other than the basic salary have been rescinded. For example, workers receive no year-end bonuses or benefits of any other kind (such as diligence pay).

The factory refuses to pay for the cost of the two sets of uniforms and two pairs of shoes to be provided for each worker. Workers must purchase these themselves.

Forced Overtime

The factory is located in a forest in an isolated (and hence potentially dangerous) area and does not provide adequate transportation for its workers. A smaller pick up van has come to replace the large bus that was once used to transport workers. The number of cars has declined as well. Furthermore, the factory orders these pick up vans not to come and pick up the workers until they finish a certain amount of work for the day. These vehicles, for instance, would be ordered to come at a certain time, like at midnight, giving workers who do not want to work until then no other choice. Due to the isolated location of the factory, transportation is necessary in order to leave the premises. Anyone not willing to work until midnight is called into the office and threatened or fired. The factory provides no dormitory facilities and the women working in the factory are generally people from the local area in Korat.

*Karuna Durian is a former employee of the Par Garment factory in Rangsit and chairwoman of the Par Garment Workers' Union. Piya Pangsapa is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Sociology at the State University of New York in Binghamton.

(summary)

Appendix 2

Nike in Cambodia - Report on the Natural Garment Factory

The Cambodian Labor Organisation prepared this report in September 1999 as part of a package of information delivered to the Cambodian Ministry of Labor and the US Embassy in regard to the US-Cambodia garment quota and negotiations on a textile monitoring agreement.

Report: Natural Garment Factory, Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Management Violations of Right to Freedom of Association and Rights of Shop Stewards to Freely Represent Workers.

The factory, which is located at Steung Mean Chey District, Khand Mean Chey in Phnom Penh and employs approximately 700 workers, has been established in Cambodia since April 1998. According to workers, the ownership is divided among three groups - Hong Kong Chinese (name of owner: Kou Ching), American (name unknown) and Khmer. (The Khmer owner is Colonel Vong Khim Han, a special region commander in the Cambodian army who reportedly is not assigned to any specific region at this time.) According to workers, during the previous labour disputes, police and/or military have been brought to the factory at the behest of the Colonel to intimidate workers.

An independent enterprise-level union, the Democratic Union of Tien Yien (DUTY, Tien Yien is the former name of the factory), was organised in the factory on 24 June 1999 and is affiliated to the National Independent Federation of Textile Unions in Cambodia (NIF-TUC). The union has over 300 dues-paying members, but union actions and complaints have been regularly supported by 400 to 500 of the workers. The total number of workers in the factory is slightly over 700 persons and the vast majority are young women.

The case of Natural Garment clearly demonstrates several critical issues in the garment sector in Cambodia. First, it shows the complete inability of the Cambodian Ministry of Social Action, Labour, Vocational Training and Youth Rehabilitation (MOL) to enforce the labour law. Second, and more worrisome for monitoring projects focusing seeking to enhance the capacity of the MOL, it appears that some officials among the Cambodian labour inspectors are exploiting a loophole in the Cambodian labour code to encourage shop stewards to actively work against unions. The AFL-CIO's GSP complaint against Cambodia decisively uncovered a pattern of collusion between the MOL officials and employers in rigging shop steward elections in 1997 and 1998. The case of Natural Garment shows now that tainted shop stewards, drawn from the ranks of supervisory staff, are actively siding with management against the union and have received encouragement to do so by some MOL officials.

The strong anti-union attitude of this employer is not unusual in the Cambodian garment sector. Even where independent unions rise up that have the support of a significant percentage of the workforce, the employers refuse to accept that union as a legitimate bargaining partner and work actively to undermine and destroy the union. Finally, the case of Natural Garment demonstrates once again that the US footwear and apparel giant, Nike, is failing to take any pro-active steps to monitor or enforce compliance with its much-touted code of conduct, which provides that workers have the right to freely associate.

Between April and July 1999, Cambodia Natural Garment was producing garments for Nike (garment tag RN 17242, see attached copies of tags collected at the factory). According to the workers, soon after work on Nike orders began, the management of Cambodia Natural said that workers were not allowed to take a day off or they would face a fine. Such practice is in clear violation of the Cambodian labour law that states in Articles 146 and 147 that a worker is allowed one day off in seven and Article 25 which declares null and void any internal regulation or agreement which purports to grant rights lower than those granted under the Labour Code.

When 18 workers violated this policy, the employer fined each of them 6,000 Cambodian riel in addition to not paying them for the day of work they missed. Led by Duty Union President, Miss Ken Chheng Lang, the 18 workers filed a complaint on this issue with the MOL during the second week of April.

Nothing happened on this complaint until May 12, when MOL labour inspector Chan Yan Sotha came to the factory to mediate the dispute. During the meeting between the factory administration, the MOL and the union, the administration representative (Fou Lian Chu, an ethnic Chinese) agreed to end the practice. However, before minutes of the meeting and agreement were finished, the Chinese interpreter to the manager left the room. Fou Lian Chu then also left the room, and did not return to sign the agreement. The agreement was signed by the union representatives and by the MOL official, and left to be signed by the factory administration. The factory administration never signed the agreement, and several days later, the practice of cutting 6,000 riel continued as before.

On May 20, the union sent a petition, signed or thumb-printed by 420 workers, to the MSALVY to protest against the factory owners' continuing illegal practice of cutting pay for refusing to work all seven days of the week. The Duty Union President, Ken Chheng Lang, again led the workers in filing this petition. Unfortunately, this petition was met with an unenthusiastic response by MSALVY officials. Finally, Labour Inspector Keo Savuth came to the factory and told the workers that they did not need to send any more complaints to MSALVY because he said that the factory owner already knew what to do. The fact that the employer was wholly unwilling to follow the law or sign the agreement negotiated between his representatives, the union and MSALVY officials seemed not to matter - the issue was the MSALVY simply wanted the union to stop sending complaints.

This situation continued until June 22, when the factory owner required all workers to work overtime without pay, another clear violation of the Cambodian Labour Code at Articles 102, 103, 104, 105 and 139. Throughout this period, the factory was producing Nike apparel. The union disagreed and the union President said that, according to the Labour Code, if they work more than 8 hours a day, they should be paid overtime wages. Furthermore, she added that the Labour Code clearly stipulates that overtime must be voluntary. As a result, fifty (50) workers refused to accept overtime work. The factory owner then fined each of these fifty workers a total of 3,000 riel each for refusing overtime. On the month, June 22 was pay-day, but no salaries were paid.

The next day, June 23, the workers learned about this fine when they showed up to work and looked at their time punch cards. Even more worrisome was union President Ken Chheng Lang could not find her time card. When she inquired to management, she was told her card had been taken by the administration department of the factory, but she could not get a clear indication whether she had been fired yet. Twelve (12) of the fifty workers affected refused to work, and decided to go file a complaint with MSALVY official Keo Boren, Director of the Labour Affairs Department. They also indicated that if it turned out that Lang had been fired, none of the 49 would be willing to work. Keo Boren did meet with the workers and promised to go to the factory that afternoon to discuss the matter with the union and the employer. However, when he arrived at 2:30 PM that day, the owner refused to meet with him. Administrative staff did meet with Keo Boren, but all they would say was that Lang was 'not fired'. They also made an appointment for Keo Boren to meet with the owner on June 24 at 9:00 am at the factory.

On June 24, Keo Boren arrived at the factory but the owner did not appear. The workers stated that he waited until about 11:30am for the owner to appear and finally left without meeting the owner. Union President Ken Chheng Lang arrived at the factory, but there was no time card for her. Nevertheless, she worked that day, and again on June 25. On June 26, she again arrived at work and there was still no time card for her.

On June 26, it was indicated that finally workers would be paid their monthly salaries. However, instead of receiving full pay as required under law, the workers were paid only 25% of their normal salary. Usually, the workers receive their pay at their workstation, but when they came to Ken Chheng Lang, she was told she needed to go to the administration office to receive her pay.

When she arrived at the office, administration staff person Fou Lian Chou told Ken Chheng Lang that she was fired because she is always the one who makes demands, files complaints with the MSALVY and she never consults with the shop stewards. The Union President responded that she has no choice to file the complaints directly because she talked many times with the shop stewards and they never file complaints. According to Article 297 of the Cambodian Labour Code, workers can make complaints or demands directly to the employer. Fou Lian Chou then brought her to accounting and ordered the accountant to pay Ken Chheng Lang 100% of her salary. Ken Chheng Lang refused, and stated she would only accept 25% of her salary like all the other workers.

At this point, the factory management employed direct intimidation tactics by assigning a security guard to prevent her from leaving the office until she accepted 100% of her pay and signed a document that stated she would not return to work. She refused again, and a standoff continued for over an hour at the office. Finally, management relented and let her leave the office when it understood that other workers would support her demand.

On June 27, she consulted with the Cambodian Labour Organisation (CLO) and asked them to help her case. A CLO labour lawyer began the first of four attempts to go to the factory and meet with the owner or manager to mediate the dispute. The CLO was unsuccessful because factory management refused to meet with them. She also went to MSALVY and talked to Keo Boren, who told her that she would be able to return to work. Again she consulted with CLO to see if their labour lawyer could assist her.

Finally, Ken Chheng Lang was reinstated when the Ministry of Commerce (not MSALVY) threatened the factory. An MSALVY letter was allegedly sent to MOC, including complaints that, among other things, Natural Garment has no internal work rules and no infirmary (as required by law), but the investigators could not locate a copy. Her reinstatement occurred on July 4. Since then, she has been shifted away from the sewing section to the folding section.

On July 9, the remaining 75% of the monthly salary (due to workers on the normal payday, June 22) was paid. In clear violation of the Cambodian Labour Code Article 116, the employer was using a 45-day pay cycle. The union decided to complain about this to the MSALVY and to the Natural Garment management. A complaint was filed but when MSALVY labour inspector Thach Sem came to the factory for discussions, he only met with the shop stewards on the issue. During the discussions with Thach Sem, and despite the complaint from the union that they didn't accept a 45 day pay period, the stewards signed a written document with Thach Sem and the employer agreeing to a 45 day pay period. This violates Article 307 of the Labour Code.

The union is now having problems with the four shop stewards who, under the Cambodian Labour Code, have a great deal of power to negotiate on employee grievances and demands. The current set of stewards assumed their position before the union was organised in the factory. Workers say that all of the shop stewards are group chiefs and none of them are members of the union.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the employer is now actively encouraging the shop stewards to campaign among the workers to get them from joining the union. Ms. Meas Srath, one of the most militant anti-union shop stewards, was reported to have threatened union members returning from a training by the ILO that they would have problems. She also rents a house to workers from the factory, and is reported to have told those workers that if any of them join the union they will have to move out of the house. Another steward is reported to have said that she 'will destroy' any worker in her work group who becomes a union member.

It now appears that the shop stewards may be receiving encouragement from certain MSALVY officials in this union-busting endeavour. In August, the shop stewards had a meeting with MSALVY labour inspector Keo Savuth. Union members subsequently reported that Meas Srath told the union members that they could do anything because Keo Savuth had told the shop stewards that 'don't be afraid of the union, the union is outside the factory. They can be fired at any time.' Factory workers at Hong Hwa factory also told Natural Garment workers that Keo Savuth said the same thing to Hong Hwa shop stewards.

The shop stewards were also involved in the firing of union treasurer Chab Kunthea on July 6. On the day, one of the workers in the group section made a mistake on sewing trousers for Nike. The management decided to fire that worker out of hand, but the union President, Ken Chheng Lang, protested and asked management to reconsider. The worker was reinstated after discussions, but the supervisor then sought to find a problem with Chab Kunthea's work. Kunthea was working on a garment when the supervisor/group chief came over and asked her to sew something else. Since there was a pair of trousers she was working on, Kunthea reportedly said let me finish this piece and then I will do that. The group chief got angry, went to the office, and got Kunthea suspended without a time card. The union has tried to reverse this decision, seeking reinstatement, but management is now saying that she must admit her mistake and sign a letter. Despite complaints to MSALVY, they remain unengaged. (summary)

Appendix 3

Nike in Thailand - Conditions in the Lian Thai factory

Esther De Haan of the Clean Clothes Campaign in the Netherlands met with three workers from the Lian Thai factory on 24 November 1999. Here are her notes on the meeting.

Meeting with Lian Thai workers, 24 November 1999

I interviewed 3 workers - all members of the trade union.

There are about 800 workers in the factory, 400 are members of the trade union (the trade union is an independent trade union which is loosely organised with about 16 other trade unions). They produce for Nike, Reebok, Adidas, Next, Fila, and Structure. (They used to produce for Puma, but no longer do so). They have a lot of different orders from different companies but most orders are from Nike.

Wages

The workers get paid the minimum wage of 162 Baht ($US4.25*) per day. Overtime is paid at 1.5 times the basic wage. The workers say they need about 200 Baht ($US5.25*) for one person, just for basics. They add that when possible there should be an additional amount of money for savings, say about 500 Baht ($US13*) per month. They say that about half of the workers, mostly women, have families. These are hard times as a lot of the husbands have been laid off.

Overtime

There is a lot of overtime, more and more orders are coming in. They have to work very hard, sometimes through the lunch hour and sometimes the whole night. Normal working hours are from 8.00 until 17.00, 6 days per week. The normal working week is 48 hours. Overtime is normally from 17.30 until 23.00 and sometimes even later, depending on the orders. If they have to work through the whole night, they have to work half a day the next day. Most workers work also on Saturday and Sunday. This situation has been the same for the last 2 years. This week the workers I am talking to have been working for 66 hours but this is not so much compared with the last 2 months when they have been working a lot more. And most of the union activists work less then the other workers. The first 2 months they have been working on large orders from Nike, Reebok, Next and Structure. Overtime can be refused but refusal is met with a lot of criticism from the supervisors and the head of the department. And if you refuse overtime a few times it means you will not get any overtime at all anymore. With the wages that the workers are earning this means a disaster so they make sure this does not happen to them.

Trade union

In the beginning, when setting up the trade union, they encountered a lot of difficulties, members were for example moved to other sections. Now it works better.

Monitoring

Control Personnel from Nike and Reebok come in the factory every day, to control the quality. Nike's Code of Conduct is the only Code of Conduct that is hanging in the factory. According to the workers the others, like Reebok, are not interested at all in the working conditions. They feel a Code of Conduct like Nike's is in principle a good idea, only, the owner of the factory ignores it. Most workers do not know anything about a Code of Conduct, not even that they exist. The concept of a Code of Conduct is very unclear to most workers. They don't understand what it means and what kind of rights it gives.

Nike's representative has made it clear that they do not agree on subcontracting the production and that they will cancel orders if it occurs. Still, subcontracting is done now and again. Nike's representative asks workers about their problems in the factory, telling them that answers will be dealt with anonymously. The workers I am talking to believe that the workers tell the truth about the conditions to Nike's representative. Still, Nike does not propose to change anything in accordance with the complaints that are made to them.

They would like to propose that Nike not only interview the workers but also really have an action plan to change the conditions. For example: the electric wiring should be made safer as the factory is near the river and flooding happens regularly. They would like to have more say in when to work overtime. They would like also for the trade union to be able to participate in training opportunities.

Temporary workers

There are about 200 temporary workers in the factory. After 4 months they are dismissed and mostly rehired. The labour law does not stipulate that you can't rehire the same person again. They are paid per hour. They work only 8 hours per day and no overtime, they get paid 21 Baht ($US0.55*) per hour. They are not entitled to any benefits, do not have any security of employment. The workers I am talking to would like to have this question raised with Nike.

Tending workers

There are about 50 tending workers, so not full skilled, workers in the factory; they are paid only about 120 Baht ($US3.15*) per day for a period of 40 days. When they do not perform satisfactory, they are dismissed.