By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Nov 17 1998 (IPS)

Labour unions and activists say that the White House accord between U.S. apparel and footwear companies and human-rights groups to monitor working conditions in foreign plants will not eliminate sweatshops.

Two unions have refused to endorse the Nov 3 agreement which, among other provisions, creates an independent ‘Fair Labour Association’ (FLA) to accredit monitors firms to inspect and report on conditions in plants owned or contracted by the companies.

The National Labour Committee (NLC), an activist group which almost singlehandedly propelled the apparel companies’ use of sweatshops onto the national public agenda three years ago, also denounced the accord, which has been signed by several major U.S. human rights groups.

“It’s completely unacceptable,” NLC director Charles Kernaghan told a news conference Tuesday. “I think it’s dead in the water.”

He drew attention to new reports of abuses in Central American plants which produced clothing for Nike and Liz Claiborne, both signers of the White House agreement, as well as other big US brands.

The 33-page accord, announced here Nov 3, was the product of two years of White House-sponsored negotiations by a core group of human rights groups – the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Human Rights, and the International Labour Rights Fund; the National Consumers League; and five business representatives, including Nike, Reebok, and Liz Claiborne.

Labour unions, a number of other companies, and the church- backed Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) also were involved in the talks. While several of the companies have since pledged to participate in the plan, the labour unions – including the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees (UNITE) – and the ICCR said they cannot endorse it at this time.

The task force, known formally as the White House Apparel Industry Partnership, agreed last year on a basic code of conduct for U.S. apparel firms and their overseas contractors. This included such provisions as a maximum work week of 60 hours and a minimum working age of 15 unless local laws allowed 14-year-olds to work.

Under the Nov 3 accord, the FLA’s ruling body would consist of an equal number of company delegates and representatives of labour, consumer, human rights, church and other public-interest groups. It also provided for a system of both internal and external monitoring of overseas plants by FLA-approved independent auditors to monitor compliance with the code.

The accord required that 30 percent of the plants used by each participating company would be subject to external monitoring in the first two years. Thereafter, auditors would inspect between five and 15 percent of such factories each year. Third parties, including local human rights groups and labour activists, would also be able to bring possible code violations to the FLA and its monitors at any time.

The agreement required companies to pay the legal minimum wage or the prevailing industry wage where the factories were located, whichever was higher.

The labour unions and ICCR assailed the agreement on several grounds. Most important, they said the apparel companies and their overseas contractors should be required to pay a “living wage” which satisfied workers’ basic needs. They also expressed reservations about the independence and rigour of the monitoring regime.

“This agreement would set up a monitoring norm where only ten percent of a company supplier factories would be independently monitored each year,” said Ruth Rosenbaum, an ICCR official. “In addition, we are concerned that large auditing firms will become the Association’s ‘independent monitors,’ marginalising participation by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) who know the local context and are more likely to have the trust of the workers.”

Kernaghan echoed these remarks: “We don’t think it’s gone nearly far enough; it doesn’t deal with the issue of a living wage, which we find completely unacceptable,” he said.

The Rights groups which signed the accord agreed it contained some weaknesses but also insisted that it was widely misunderstood. “No one sees it as something than can work on its own,” said RFK Centre director James Silk, who stressed that it was one more tool by which the NLC and the unions could hold companies accountable.

Kernaghan, whose grassroots network is considering launching a consumer’s boycott of at least one major company accused of worker abuse, said that all companies should be required to release the names and addresses of all their supplying plants so that the public and local rights groups can focus attention on them.

He also charged Tuesday that, despite a 1997 Clinton-imposed ban on new U.S. investment in Burma to protest human rights and labour abuses, apparel companies were importing more goods from there than ever before – more than 110 million dollars’ worth for 1998.

“Evidently, this is the kind of climate the companies prefer,” he said, noting that Burmese garment workers were paid only eight dollars a month.

He said workers in El Salvador and Honduras at plants used by Nike and Liz Claiborne continued to suffer serious abuses, including forced overtime, pregnancy tests, and poor health and sanitary conditions and were being paid a basic wage of only 60 US cents an hour – roughly half of subsistence.

“The women in El Salvador earn just 84 cents for every 194- dollar Liz Claiborne jacket they sew,” he said. “Could Liz Claiborne and its contractor in El Salvador afford to pay a living wage? Very easily.”

For its part, Nike said it was investigating the reports of abuse at the Formosa factory in El Salvador and considers Kernaghan charges “important, but misdirected. …A better target for criticism would be the hundreds of companies who have yet to become party to the Apparel Industry Partnership and the requirements it imposes on global apparel manufacturing,” the company said.

Excerpt: