 "Photo: Matt Castro")
Sweatshops and child labor regulatory agencies were the focus of a lecture yesterday evening by Gay W. Seidman, professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin, who has studied the anti-apartheid movement and human rights issues for several decades.
Her study of transnational labor monitor schemes is supported by her fieldwork in India, Guatemala and South Africa. A growing concern, she said, is that as more products are made internationally, it is becoming more difficult to enforce labor laws.
“American consumers no longer can be sure goods can be produced under reasonable conditions,” Seidman said. “U.S. policymakers worry about how Americans might intervene.”
One way in which Americans started to combat sweatshops was in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s when college students began boycotts, she said. They had discovered university licensed apparel had been produced in sweatshops that abused child labor.
Seidman said that she began to wonder about the makeup of an effective monitoring system. She focused her studies on three different systems: the Sullivan Principles, Rugmark and Coverco.
The Sullivan Principles came at time when anti-apartheid activists demanded multinational organizations to leave South Africa, according to Seidman’s presentation. Leo Sullivan had just been promoted to CEO of the General Motors Corporation. In his first shareholder meeting, a resolution was drafted to withdraw from operations in South Africa.
Sullivan opted instead to institute a corporate code of conduct. The code encouraged integration in the workplace and instructed companies on how to become healthy corporate citizens among their populations, Seidman said.
By the mid-1980’s, Sullivan himself had lost faith in his system, Seidman said. One of the problems was that it had failed to address the concerns of anti-apartheid activists. Furthermore, companies were graded more on how large of a donation they made to a local school rather than their workplace conditions.
The Rugmark system was a model that began in India and was adopted by the GAP clothing company. At the time, children as young as six years old were trained to work in hazardous conditions. The Indian government actually encouraged the hiring of children, Seidman said.
When news was made public about a group of child slaves that were intercepted in India, an international scandal was set off, she said. America and Germany were set to ban imports from India when the Rugmark became a standard. Subcontractors and companies who agreed to the Rugmark code of working conditions had a symbol sewn onto the backs of rugs that were produced without the use of child labor.
The standard is flawed though, she said.
“Non-governmental organizations rarely have the capacity for large scale monitoring, especially for small workshops,” Seidman said. “The proliferation of codes may also confuse customers.”
In Guatemala, a company known as Coverco monitors working conditions for many companies.
“This group has a long history of monitoring, is well intentioned, very visible and can threaten companies with instant student boycotts,” she said.
The problem with Coverco, however, is that it may only monitor companies that allow it. Also, when companies feel Coverco’s analysis is too strict, they may opt for a different monitoring company, Seidman said.
She noted there are similarities among all three examples. Each monitoring situation was prompted by human rights concerns. The choice of a single consumer at a store to avoid companies with unhealthy working conditions is not nearly as effective as a boycott organized by an institution like a church or university. Monitoring schemes also lack feedback mechanisms for workers to complain about situations.
4 comments