The following is reprinted with permission from Newsday, Inc. © Copyright 1997 Newsday, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No Sweat Label May Be Misleading
By Warren Strugatch. Warren Strugatch is a writer and trade consultant based in Valley Stream.
April 17, 1997WE DON'T hear much these days from the protectionist movement. Exports, after all, have helped fuel the currently strong economy even as manufacturing jobs have dwindled. Is it then ironic or fair that the United States is leading the drive to improve labor conditions in countries that produce the apparel and footwear once manufactured here?
One effect of globalization is that not only are products and capital border-free; so is labor. Clothing and footwear can be manufactured almost anywhere in the world. The question of what constitutes fair labor practices overseas is of increasing concern to shoppers - and, therefore, to manufacturers.
Earlier this week, the Clinton administration launched an initiative that unites manufacturers with labor and human rights groups. In true Clintonian style, it attempts to please everyone, but leaves plenty of threads hanging.
Ostensibly intended to end sweatshop labor, the initiative at its best sugarcoats an unpleasant economic reality - that living standards vary around the world. By imposing an American view of what's fair, these do-gooders may be pushing foreign entry-level workers out of the best work they've managed to find.
At its worst, the initiative may be a cynical attempt to manipulate U.S. public opinion while maintaining the status quo - the equivalent of deer hunters adopting Bambi as their mascot.
The odd bedfellows in this triangle include, on one side, labor and human rights groups long allied with the Clinton administration's liberal wing, along with corporate members like Reebok, Liz Claiborne and L.L. Bean. These companies manufacture apparel in countries with far lower standards of living than ours - and are thus vulnerable to severe public relations backlash whenever media reports tar them as employing sweatshop labor.
Remember Kathie Lee Gifford's frantic efforts to convince the public she wasn't responsible for the working conditions under which her clothing line was manufactured? Gifford is a charter member of the task force. And Nike not long ago took a public relations hit when news reports said a company factory in Vietnam punished workers by forcing them to run under the hot sun to the point of collapse. Nike also has signed up.
The involvement of Big Labor and human rights groups, of course, is not hard to understand. Unions, finding it increasingly difficult to recruit workers in the United States, now have White House endorsement to venture overseas. Labor is represented on the task force by the Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees and the International Labor Rights Education and Research Fund, among others. Human rights groups, which for years have tried to make labor conditions in China an issue in trade policy, are similarly delighted.
Rarely united on any issue, these participants have committed themselves to support the heart of the initiative, a Workplace Code of Conduct that prohibits forced labor and employment of children under 14, and requires manufacturers and their contractors to pay the minimum wage established by local law. The code also recognizes the employees' right to associate freely and bargain collectively. It also bans the kind of behavior and comments that in the United States are now outlawed as sexual harassment.
Goods so produced will be tagged "No Sweat," presumably sparing the manufacturers from liberal backlash. Yet questions abound as to whether the code is a meaningful standard. A hastily conceived plan will falsely assure shoppers that the global sweatshop problem is solved.
Critics from both sides question whether the initiative will work. Labor and human rights groups have accused the White House of kowtowing to manufacturers. They'd like more say in monitoring overseas factories and publicizing abuses. The absence of a global minimum wage also troubles many, and that issue is certain to arise again.
Here, though, the initiative rests on solid ground. It is precisely the comparatively low labor costs in countries in Central America or Southeast Asia that brought jobs to those regions in the first place. Yes, standards of living still differ around the world. Fair? No. But holding U.S. manufacturers responsible for that difference is a kind of extortion - and it's also bad economics.
Developing countries traditionally have been a source of low-paid labor on the global market, and the global economy has reinforced this relationship. Both sides benefit. Hard currency flows into developing countries, financing the construction of infrastructure and raising living standards. Poorer countries attract, and eventually develop, better paying jobs.
That process of industrializing could be jeopardized if the Clinton administration ignores economic wisdom in favor of expediency.
Nike in the News