© The New York Times Company All Rights Reserved.
A Modest Start on Sweatshops
Bob Herbert
April 16 1997, WednesdayA newly proposed code of conduct for domestic and overseas sweatshops makes useful pledges to improve the appalling working conditions of apparel workers around the world. But the code is so littered with loopholes its impact will probably be limited unless public and press attention remains fixed on the problems of sweatshop workers.
The Presidential task force that developed the code included industry giants like Nike, Reebok, L. L. Bean and Liz Claiborne, as well as representatives of labor and human rights groups. It got industry pledges to provide abuse-free factories, hire children at least 15 years old, limit the workweek to 60 hours and protect the right of workers to organize without fear of retaliation by their employers. The code also calls for companies to hire independent monitors that would work with local human rights groups. This provision is vital, since in oppressive societies workers would only voice discontent to groups that have gained their trust.
Identifying and publicizing abuses is essential to improving conditions. The coverage of inhumane conditions at Central American factories turning out clothes for Wal-Mart under the name of Kathie Lee Gifford led to creation of the task force. Two years ago, the industry would have brushed off any proposal to monitor its third-world factories.
The weakness of the code is its lack of precise commitments. The accord suggests but does not require local independent monitoring of working conditions or public disclosure of infractions. The 60-hour limit on the workweek can be waived for what are called "extraordinary" circumstances.
Even if a follow-up commission strengthens the wording, the code cannot work unless American consumers penalize non-participants. Some companies will not sign the code. Warnaco, which makes Hathaway shirts, withdrew from the task force because the company fears that public disclosure of monitors' reports will reveal trade secrets to competitors. If consumers flock to lower-priced clothes produced by companies that ignore the code, the effort will fail.
The task force correctly rejected the idea of imposing a "living" wage, calling instead for companies to pay only the locally prevailing minimum wage. An externally determined wage would almost surely victimize the world's worst-paid workers. Manufacturers would close shop in countries like Haiti and Vietnam where workers produce too little to cover the higher wage employers would be required to pay, and reopen production somewhere else where factories are more productive. The more humane course is to rely on competition to drive up productivity and wages, as has happened in South Korea and other Asian economies.
At best, a voluntary accord that includes industry can only accomplish so much. The task force may help reduce the political heat on Mr. Clinton, labor unions and industry to deal with the working conditions in faraway factories. Whether third-world workers will ever see a benefit depends on sharpening the code and intensifying disclosure of companies that violate its provisions.
Nike in the News