Index

NEWSLETTER 12, MAY 2000 IRENE/Clean Clothes Campaign Seminar: 'Workers' Education and Information on Codes of Conduct'

The 45 participants brought with them experiences in specific programmes, some more on education or awareness raising, some more on campaigning and monitoring. Most are active in the Clean Clothes Campaign Network. About one third came from trade unions, women workers' groups and networks, and worker education bodies. People came from: Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the USA. As the written introduction to the seminar said, "It is crucial at this stage in the codes and monitoring debates that the relatively small circle of well-informed, active organisations is expanded to include organisations that are knowledgeable on educational issues and practices. In the context of codes and monitoring discussions, 'training' and 'education' are emerging with such frequency and, in some cases lack of content, that they take on the appearance of buzzwords."

The key aims of the seminar were to have a better understanding and ideas on: methods, context, participants, location and contents of workers' education.

Session 1 contained concrete examples of workers' education on company codes of conduct from the Manchester based Women Working Worldwide (WWW) network. The project ran in six Asian and six Central American countries. Simy Guzman and Josefa Rivera from MEC in Nicaragua reported on the experience. Reports along with the Education Pack are available from WWW.

Session 2 divided the participants in six small groups, which each discussed content and context of workers' education. In plenary, the groups reported amongst others the following ideas: 1. The education should be linked to the workers' local situation so that workers take away something concrete. 2. The education should recognize that workers in the North and South have common problems and gains, overcoming the North-South division. 3. Codes are a tool, not an end in themselves. Codes should not let governments off the hook of implementing labour law. 4. Companies are becoming more involved in programs to educate workers on their codes of conduct, we should be aware of this.

In session 3 garment worker Suprihatin from trade union (SESBUGAR) in Indonesia and Girlie Guzman of the Asian regional organisation of the World Congress of Labour (WCL), talked about capacity-building.

In any educational exercise on codes, the right to organise needs to be dealt with thoroughly. If this right is not upheld, codes will not lead to a substantial improvement for workers, but may be misused and manipulated to prevent the formation and functioning of trade unions. Therefore in session 4, three women linked workers' education to the right to organise.

Josefa Rivera from MEC, a NGO from Nicaragua, explained that their legal Code of Ethics came from the workers themselves. The existence of the Code, plus the campaigning, the education/training programme, and the international solidarity, have all given the workers a sense of mutual solidarity. Workers are no longer afraid to speak out. MEC has been meeting with the unions to see how the code and union collective bargaining fit together.

In Indonesia, according to Suprihatin, codes are a tool to put pressure on companies and government. Over the past year, they have met four times with government to assert their right to organise. "Mostly we get promises about 'tomorrow' but tomorrow never comes. They do nothing to implement what they agree with us", she said. So, the union hopes that codes and international support can help to bring extra pressure. "We need international solidarity because our situation is so difficult."

Alice Kwan of the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee (HKCIC) said that where workers in China know about a code, it is because the company has taught them about it. This leads many workers to think that it is a set of rules that they must abide by, a punishment mechanism, Alice explained, rather than something that should protect them. For example, HKCIC has evidence that management's use the social accountability standard SA8000 to pressure workers to work harder. Under SA8000 workers should have maximum workweek of 48 hours, and no forced overtime, and this is what managers tell SA8000 they are implementing. But in reality the workers are pressured into doing in 8 hours the quota that they used to do in 12, and if they cannot then their wages are cut. In China workers can only join the official trade union, and representatives are picked by management. Workers are not allowed to organise for themselves. Most workers have no knowledge of what a trade union should do, or about Chinese labour laws or company codes of conduct. A number of transnational corporations have approached HKCIC for help in implementing their codes. However, "There will never be an effective code of conduct unless the workers can monitor and implement the code themselves. Before that can happen they need education in workers' rights", said Alice. HKCIC is a member of Labour Rights in China (LARIC) with three other organisations. LARIC's top priority is to enhance workers' organisation. Worker education is a tool to empower them to be organised. Their strategy for education work in China is to start with health and safety issues, as this is somewhat tolerated by the Chinese authorities

Session 5 looked at some methods for carrying out workers' education. It focussed on 'study circles', including a way of using the Internet to stimulate exchange and collaboration between study circles in different countries. Alana Dave (co-ordinator of the International Study Circle Project for the International Federation of Workers Educational Associations suggested that this method might be suitable for workers in a TNC or a production chain to discuss a code of conduct and workers' rights.

Session 6 looked at several code monitoring projects and whether or how they are integrating workers' education. Reports came from the United States, Sweden, China, the UK, France and Central America. Nikki Bas from Sweatshop Watch (USA) told about the Saipan agreement. Reports also came from the pilot projects of CCC Sweden and France.

Session 7 looked at the relevance of company codes of conduct for homeworkers, the most invisible and often one of the most oppressed sections of the workforce, and what kind of campaigns and education programmes might be appropriate to help them achieve their rights. Sharing information on international level is very important especially because increasing levels of homeworking is having an impact on factory-based work everywhere. Annie Beloney from the Fair Wear coalition explained their fight for home workers code, and UK groups gave their perspective.

The final session took place, again, in six small groups, when participants were invited, as well as from the UK based ETI, to consider the direction of their own organisation's work in the field of workers' education/training on company codes of conduct. There are numerous developments that will have an impact, many of which have been discussed at this seminar. Participants were asked to remember that participants in educational initiatives cannot be categorised under the monolithic heading of 'workers'. There are cultural and gender factors to consider, as well as issues of migrant and captive workers. In plenary, participants stressed the need for more education outreach to workers and felt that it must be built into codes and monitoring projects. Other points that were raised.

1. Key target groups: women, homeworkers, migrant workers, consumers etc..
2. mportant content issues: grievances/needs of workers and education must be linked to workers organising.
3. Educational methodology: education must be carried out according to the level of education of the workers, study circles are a useful educational method, word-of-mouth and door-to-door work are essential.
4. Resource/funding: participants noted that funding and resources remains a problem. Most workers can afford to contribute very little. International funding for worker education programmes is insecure.

Many participants felt strongly that worker education programmes must not be controlled by companies. NGOs should be wary of taking money for company-sponsored worker education programmes and be careful of the content of such programmes. One suggested that company financial contributions might only be acceptable through third parties. Another stressed the importance of not letting ourselves be pressured by companies, but taking our own time and following our own agenda.

There was a suggestion for a follow-up seminar, to come up with more concrete proposals about workers' education.

You can order the full report and a participant list from IRENE and it can also be found at the website from the Clean Clothes Campaign at: www.cleanclothes.org/edu.htm.

IRENE, Stationsstraat 39, 5038 EC Tilburg, the Netherlands, phone 31 13 535 1523, fax 31 13 535 0253, e-mail avluijken@irene-network.nl