Index

NEWSLETTER 10, August 1998 Levi Strauss: Marked by Paradoxes

Several powerful witnesses presented testimony about working conditions in factories- producing for Levi Strauss during the International Forum on Clean Clothes, seriously- calling into question the San Francisco-based company's commitment to the standards- outlined in their own corporate codeof conduct. Though Levi's, the largest brand-name- apparel manufacturer in the world, unveiled their "Global Sourcing & Operating- Guidelines" more than six years ago information brought forward at the May 2 session- regarding working practices in Asia and Africa suggest that this code (which includes- a commitment to the right to free association for workers, payment of the minimum- wage, voluntary overtime, and one day off in seven) has not been well-implemented.

The workers don't know

Emilia Y., president of the Assosiasi Buruh Garment (ABG)/Garment Workers- Association based in Jawa Barat, reported on conditions at two factories, one in Bogor- and another in Tangerang, producing for Levi's. Not only did she outline working- conditions at these facilities, but she also discussed reported on the- management/worker relations and several strikes.Her testimony charged violations of- the right of free association, violation of minimum wage requirements and forced- overtime. Her description of the auditing procedures used to monitor compliance with- Levi's code of workplace standards were insufficient . The workers, she said, don't- even know that Levi's has such a set of guidelines.

Esther de Haan's testimony about the working and living conditions for Chinese migrant- women workers in Mauritius was so powerful that this information was mentioned- specifically in the judgment report from the PPT. De Haan, of SOMO (the- Amsterdam-based Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations) reported on field- work done in 1997. The women, imported through brokers to work under contract for- two to three years, work seven days a week, and live in housing facilities provided by- the company. "Women live literally stacked on top of each other," de Haan said, "four- to eight per tiny room." She highlighted the similarity between this situation, in a factory- producing for Levi Strauss in 1997, and that of Chinese migrant workers employed to- produce for Levi's in a Saipan facility before the company had set up their guidelines.- The Saipan situation led to a $10 million lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Unfortunately, Levi Strauss was among the five companies that decided not to- participate in the sessions of the PPT, passing up on the opportunity to answer- questions from the jury and engage in a dialogue with those who are familiar with the- conditions in factories producing for this company that posted sales of nearly $7 billion- last year. "We contacted Levi's about attending or responding, there was contact,"- explained Gianni Tognoni, Secretary General of the PPT. Charging that the PPT was- "prejudiced" and participation in the hearings was a "lose-lose situation," the company- decided there was no need to send information, he said.

Back into China

Just prior to the International Forum, Levi's garnered a lot of media attention due to- their announcement to expand their investments and production in China. This was amajor reversal of their 1993 statement that they would not pursue direct investment and- subcontracting of production in China, due to the bad human rights situation in that- country. Instead, in April 1998 Levi's announced they'd changed their mind and China- now could become the key manufacturing nation for the company's Japanese and- South Korean markets. Eager to hear more information on the "improved" situation for- Chinese garment workers, the Clean Clothes Campaign invited Mr. Cia from the China- Labour Bulletin, to participate in the Levi's session. Given what we knew about working- conditions in China, how could Levi Strauss implement their highly-touted Global- Sourcing Guidelines?- "When I heard Levi's statement that working conditions had improved I was furious,"- Cia told the Tribunal. "Even today the Chinese government does not say things that- way! This is purely profit-driven--the human rights situation and working conditions- have not improved, on the contrary," he said. Cia discussed government failure to- enforce labor laws, censorship of the media, the continued detention of dissidents and- people's desperation to get work in the face of massive layoffs.

The three witnesses raised many serious questions about Levi Strauss policies- regarding the implementation and monitoring of their own code of conduct (though- Levi's guidelines are OK, they're not great--it's important to note that they don't make- reference to ILO standards, they don't stipulate a living wage or call for independent- monitoring and they do allow for a 60 hour workweek).

Jacques Bertrand, of the Canadian organization Development and Peace, summed it- up well in his introduction to the Levi's session, when he noted that Levi Strauss "is- marked by paradoxes"--a company headed by a man with a reputation for philanthropy- in his home country, but at the same time a company that's know as "the toughest nut- to crack" when it comes to having a constructive dialogue on working conditions.- Bertrand was involved in two case studies done on factories producing for Levi's in the- Philippines and in Honduras, and in campaigns utilizing that research.

The Levi Strauss case generated some attention in the media following the Forum. - Several weeks later we heard from Levi's, as a story was about to appear in a major- daily newspaper here in Holland. They challenged some of the information presented- by the witnesses and other items included in the case file presented to the PPT. At the- moment, this written response from Levi's is being circulated to all the researchers,- activists, workers associations and union groups that contributed to the preparation and- presentation of the case. Watch the newsletter for updates on how this case proceeds.