APSN Banner

Two more unions reject agreement

Source
New York Times - November 6, 1998

Steven Greenhouse – The A.F.L.-C.I.O. and a large union of department store workers announced Thursday that they were rejecting an agreement that a group of apparel manufacturers and human rights groups had reached to curtail sweatshops.

These two labor groups joined the nation's largest apparel union, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, which announced on Wednesday that it would no longer participate in an effort intended to reassure consumers that the clothing they buy was not made in sweatshops.

The agreement reached by Liz Claiborne, L. L. Bean, Reebok, Nike and other companies establishes numerous rules for their factories, including a minimum age for workers, a maximum 60-hour workweek, and a requirement that companies pay the minimum or prevailing industry wage in the countries where factories are situated. The agreement also calls for independent monitors to inspect the factories.

But the unions rejected the agreement on numerous grounds, asserting that the monitoring would not be frequent enough and that the accord did not require apparel companies to pay workers enough to meet a family's basic needs. The unions also criticized the accord for giving companies carte blanche to manufacture in countries, like China and Indonesia, which repress trade unions.

John Sweeney, the A.F.L-C.I.O.'s president, issued a statement with Lenore Miller, president emeritus of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, saying that "despite the seriousness of these deliberations" the labor movement "has concluded that signing on to an agreement with the participating companies is not possible at this time."

After two years of debate, the agreement was reached by members of the White House Apparel Industry Partnership, a group of 18 apparel companies, labor unions and human rights groups.

Roberta Karp, general counsel at Liz Claiborne and co-chairwoman of the presidential task force, said the effort would move forward despite the unions' rejection. She said that the task force would seek to enlist other companies and that members would observe the workplace standards and monitoring rules required by the agreement.

"This effort will still be successful," she said. "The unions were part of the deliberations. Their imprimatur is on the code and the monitoring principles. It really is an enormous step forward. While it doesn't satisfy on all scores an entire union agenda, it does satisfy what we set out to do, which is to improve working conditions around the world."

The apparel workers union has taken a tougher stance toward the agreement than has the department store union, which suggested it might someday sign on if it is pleased with how the pact is carried out. "Labor's job is to push the envelope a little further," said Ms. Miller of the department store workers. "Of all such agreements I've seen this is the best of them. In my view, the door is not closed to labor's participation."

While the National Consumers League and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights helped negotiate the agreement, another task force member, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, rejected the agreement yesterday because it does not contain a requirement to pay a living wage. But Michael H. Posner, executive director of the lawyers committee, said the agreement was an important first step to hold companies accountable.

Country