|
Lawrence M. Doherty
Executive Director
Worldwide Responsible Apparel Production
200 North Glebe Road
Suite 1016
Arlington, VA 22203
Tel: 703-243-0970
Fax: 703-243-8247
March 7, 2003
Dear Mr. Doherty,
We are contacting you with regard to the ongoing labor dispute
at the Gina Form Bra Company, a WRAP-certified facility in Thailand,
and other issues of concern in relation to the WRAP system.
Serious labor rights violations have been reported at the Gina
Form facility for more than one and a half years. More than one
year ago the union at this garment factory, the Gina Relation
Labour Union, filed a complaint with the Thai National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) with regard to these various charges, resulting
in a ruling in the union's favor in Sept. 2002. The Clean Clothes
Campaign (CCC) was informed that the union contacted WRAP in late
December 2002 regarding the ongoing problems at the facility and
management's refusal to implement the NHRC ruling and has yet
to receive a response (other than confirmation of receipt). The
union was told that a response would be forthcoming after January
2nd. It is clear from your lack of action to date that in fact,
the WRAP program has no serious intention of responding to labor
rights violations which not only constitute a violation of the
stated WRAP principles, but also a violation of Thai labor law.
As representatives of organizations dedicated to promoting labor
rights worldwide, we believe your inaction calls into question
WRAP's committment to the standards it purports to uphold. Moreover
it is evident that WRAP's system to process and follow up on complaints
of violations of its standards at WRAP-certified factilities is
inadequate. We believe that a complaint mechanism, accessible
to workers, unions, and NGOs, is a crucial part to any system
that attempts to monitor or verify compliance with a code of workplace
labor standards. Without the capacity to facilitate such access
for workers, neither the WRAP system itself, nor its participating
retail companies, should be claiming that their supplier facilities
are free of labor rights violations.
We would also like to take this opportunity to raise other concerns
regarding the WRAP Principles, monitoring system, and the organizational
structure of the system.
With regard to the WRAP Principles, we find notable shortcomings
in the standards outlined. The Principles do not make reference
to International Labour Organization conventions. Vague language
or clearly lower standards have been used in the WRAP Principles,
resulting in a weak code that is open to a variety of interpretations.
Standards that fall short in our view include WRAP's principles
on freedom of association, child labor and wages. The right to
associate, the basis for full enjoyment of all other rights, is
imperfectly protected under the WRAP definitions, which do not
conform with ILO jurisprudence on this subject.
Regarding child labor the minimum age is listed as 14 years in
the WRAP Principles, not the ILO's minimum age of 15 (with exception
for countries that meet its developing country criteria). Wages
are set at the local minimum, not a living wage.
In relation to discrimination, the WRAP standard does not specify
common forms of discrimination such as gender, race, sexual orientation,
disability, national origin, age, and marital status. Without
elaborating on the scope of this provision, the WRAP standard
does little to address the well-documented types of discrimination
garment workers experience.
With regard to hours, only "one day off in seven" is
mentioned, not the ILO's standard of a maximum work week of 48
hours, plus 12 hours overtime. Given the pervasive (forced) overtime
problem in the garment and sports shoe industries, we find this
a serious omission. Also troubling is that workers' one day off
is made contingent upon meeting "urgent business needs."
Such an exception is clearly unacceptable. In our view, the provisions
in the WRAP Principles relating to transshipment and drug interdiction
are inappropriate and have no place in a labor code of conduct.
We also have fundamental concerns about the structure of the
WRAP system. At all levels, the system lacks the organizational
representation of trade unions and relevant NGOs. Without worker
access to the WRAP system, through the presence of those bodies
that represent their concerns or advocate for the respect of labor
rights, the system is without credibility. We question the lack
of a multi-stakeholder supervisory board (WRAP's "Independent
Certification Board" includes industry representatives and
individuals, but again, it lacks the organizational representation
of trade unions and labor NGOs).
The WRAP system places total responsibility for compliance with
labor standards with suppliers. Such a system does little to address
the structural inequalities that create many of the problems most
common in garment factories. Without placing the policies and
practices of sourcing companies (those brand name companies and
retailers that contract with suppliers to produce their goods)
within the scope of your system, the links between pricing and
low wages and forced overtime and delivery times for example,
will not be addressed. A system that does not recognize the role
of sourcing companies in shaping working conditions at all levels
of their supply chains is one that is fundamentally flawed.
In addition to the Gina Form case, we have received reports of
serious violations of internationally-recognized labor rights
at other WRAP-certified facilities. We question therefore the
quality of the"independent monitoring" service which
WRAP provides. There has been a lack of transparency regarding
WRAP's monitoring methods (ex. are workers interviewed? how are
such interviews conducted?). As far as we can determine from the
limited information available, WRAP monitoring is far from independent.
The company that is to be monitored selects and hires its own
monitoring organization, establishing a business relationship
that makes questionable the veracity of the monitor's findings.
The monitoring organizations participating in the WRAP system
are largely commercial audit firms. The failure of commercial
auditors to provide quality audits has been extensively documented.
We have raised a number of significant concerns that point to
far-reaching changes that we believe WRAP must undertake. In the
absence of significant steps by WRAP to effectuate these changes,
we will continue our investigations and publicly campaign on WRAP,
informing our partners, member-organizations and consumers that
companies and brands relying on WRAP certification are in fact
making no progress in ensuring that internationally recognized
labor standards are respected.
If in fact you intend to make the reforms necessary to evolve
into a credible monitoring program, the first step should be an
effective response in the Gina Form case. We call upon you to
immediately notify the Gina Form Relations Union of the status
of your investigation or any plans for action in this matter.
We look forward to hearing about your follow up in relation to
the Gina Form case and the issues we have outlined here regarding
the WRAP Principles, monitoring system, and structure.
Sincerely,
Ineke Zeldenrust, Coordinator
Clean Clothes Campaign International Secretariat
On behalf of:
International Labor Rights Fund- Bama Athreya, Deputy Director
Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE),
Ginny Coughlin, International Affairs Director
Campaign for Labor Rights- Severina Rivera, Executive Director
Global Exchange- Jason Mark, Corporate Accountability Programs
|
