Worker's rights need recognition
Aaron Kreider
Think, Question, Resist
In the Kuk Dong factory in southern Mexico, workers are struggling for recognition of an independent union. Since Kuk Dong produces apparel for Nike and many universities, their struggle strikes at the heart of the sweatshop issue and the upcoming Notre Dame decision on whether we should join the Worker Rights Consortium.
The workers' discontent grew from their poor working conditions, including forced over-time, rotten cafeteria food, low wages and verbal and physical abuse. Due to these conditions, workers decided that they needed to replace their union. Their union was affiliated with the PRI, a conservative party that had ruled Mexico for the past 60 years and it was failing to act. Government and company unions are often the only one that exists at collegiate apparel factories. These unions are imposed from above. They are undemocratic and they care little for their workers' rights. If workers are to achieve justice, they need not only the right to organize, but also the ability to create a democratic union without intimidation.
As often happens in labor struggles, the company fired the principal organizers at Kuk Dong to set an example. This caused the workers to rebel and go on strike. The company got the police to crackdown on the strikers and two workers were hospitalized due to police violence. Next, thinking it had defeated the workers' campaign, the company invited the workers back to the factory. However, when workers tried to return they were told they had to pledge allegiance to the government union. Some workers agreed, but several hundred workers refused. Of the workers that refused, some were forced to resign, some have found new jobs and others are still waiting for justice.
This labor unrest might come as a surprise to anyone who had read the March 2000 monitoring report by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. It stated that the Kuk Dong management "has established relations with employees that were both flexible and transparent" and "workers felt that they could air their grievances in a fair and effective way." However, if workers get beat-up for striking by representatives of the state, are they going to tell the truth to a representative from an outside multinational accounting company who drops by for a couple days? This shows that monitoring should be done purely by local non-governmental organizations with a year-around presence that workers can trust.
The most immediate and strongest reactions to the situation at Kuk Dong, have come from United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS) and the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC). Students at dozens of campuses have distributed leaflets, rallied and successfully urged their president to write Nike a letter expressing their concern. The WRC responded by sending a six-person delegation to investigate and interview workers. It quickly released an initial monitoring report finding that there are "strong grounds for concern that Kuk Dong may stand in violation of provisions of [university] codes of conduct governing child labor, physical and verbal abuse, payment of minimum or living wages and free association."
What distinguishes the struggle at Kuk Dong from hundreds of sweatshop struggles in previous years, is the public attention that this issue has received. This story was initially able to get out to students, who then mobilized in support of the Kuk Dong workers. Student activism provided this issue with wider media coverage, including an article in the New York Times. Now that it is under the public eye, Nike shows no sign of cutting and running — and the workers have a fair chance at getting back their jobs and forming an independent union.
By observing these events, it becomes clear that the only reason the workers stand a chance is because this issue has been transparent since their struggle began. This is the first time the WRC has monitored a factory and the advantages of its public disclosure of monitoring results are now evident.
The anti-sweatshop movement requires public disclosure of working conditions and monitoring reports. If we did not have public disclosure, then sweatshops would be relegated to the internal responsibility of private organizations (like the Fair Labor Association or Notre Dame), instead of being the public responsibility of all consumers and workers. It is the latter group who has fought sweatshops for over a hundred years and to shut them out of the struggle now would be a terrible mistake. It is only by having Notre Dame join the WRC that we can guarantee this disclosure.
While Kuk Dong does not produce any apparel for Notre Dame, there is no reason to believe that our factories are any better. Kuk Dong is important because the anti-sweatshop movement is not about making sure that just one school (or corporation) can claim their apparel is "sweat-free." Instead, the movement's goal is to improve the conditions of all workers, starting with the collegiate apparel industry. As one school, Notre Dame has power over factories producing our goods, however by joining the Worker Rights Consortium that power can be multiplied many times. We should join with the 71 schools that belong to the WRC. We can assist worker struggles at Kuk Dong's around the world by breaking the veil of secrecy that permits sweatshops to exist, through implementing disclosure.
Aaron Kreider is a third year sociology graduate student. His column appears every other Monday.
The views expressed in this column are those of the authors and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, February 19, 2001
