Sacramento Bee

April 21, 1997,

NO SWEAT?

News about the ways multinational companies exploit Third World workers to

make cheaper and more competitive products causes increasing discomfort for

American consumers -- but has not, thus far, made much impact on what we buy or

how the companies operate. Despite the spotlight focused on a few high-profile

examples -- Kathy Lee Gifford's Wal-Mart clothing line and Nike's Southeast

Asian factories, for example -- the sweatshops of the Third World constantly

toil through seven-day weeks to supply cheap consumer goods for richer nations.

Now a top-level consortium of U.S. clothing manufacturers, labor unions and

human rights monitors has agreed on an accord to set standards for treatment and

work conditions that could do much to end the worst abuses. The code of conduct

is designed to allow manufacturers who comply to reassure consumers that their

goods weren't produced in grossly exploitive factories. The code could give a

distinct commercial advantage to those who comply, and initial participants

include major firms such as Nike, Reebok, Liz Claiborne, L.L. Bean, Nicole

Miller, Patagonia, karen King, Phillips-Van Husen and Tweeds.

The accord calls for a maximum 60-hour work week with at least one day off,

bans child labor under the age of 15 and calls for payment of at least the

prevailing local wage or national minimum wage. Workplaces are to be safe and

healthy and free from harassment such as the forced march one Nike factory

supervisor used to discipline workers in Vietnam.

Critics point out that the minimum wage paid in places such as Indonesia and

Haiti is too low to support a family. They also have serious doubts about how

independent the monitors will prove to be, about whether companies will make

cosmetic changes but avoid fundamental change. Even some manufacturers have

worries. Nordstrom expressed concern about joining the accord, citing

uncertainty about enforcement.

Labor unions and human rights organizations wanted independent monitors drawn

from local watchdog groups in each country. Manufacturers prevailed in demanding

that auditors paid for by the companies be employed to ensure compliance.

How well that compliance will work remains to be seen, and there is a

movement among some human rights organizations to demand far stricter standards

lest the companies hide behind these initial agreements in order to stall

further progress. Despite those objections, however, this decision to adopt a

code with the potential for penalties and rewards is still, in the words of one

participant, a "breakthrough agreement" that holds great promise for the future.

Manufacturers who comply may be allowed to display "No Sweat" labels assuring

consumers the goods weren't made in sweatshops. By establishing guidelines

manufacturers can live with and providing that powerful economic incentive for

compliance, this accord holds promise for widespread adoption.