WRC decision a difficult one
Todd David Whitmore
The Common Good
Should Notre Dame join the Worker Rights Consortium (WRC)? Both the arguments for and against doing so make compelling points. There are two rubrics, however, that I have not found very helpful. Let me say why. The first is that of "leading versus following." One charge made is that while Notre Dame once was a leader, it now (because it has yet to join the WRC) is a follower. Joining the WRC, the argument goes, would re-assert Notre Dame's leadership.
This rubric is problematic both on empirical and ethical grounds. Empirically, there are already over 70 schools in the WRC. Even if it is the right thing to do, joining does not constitute leading, but good following.
From an ethical perspective, whether Notre Dame leads or follows is besides the point. I think that in those instances where Notre Dame has led, it has been good leadership. The University has gone beyond the Fair Labor Association in three areas. It has refused to have its product made in countries, like China, where the freedom of association is not legally recognized; it has formed a regional committee for Latin America that will make full use of NGO's — including religiously affiliated associations — in monitoring; in its hosting of the Collegiate Living Wage Association meeting, it has indicated an openness to the question of the living wage not shown yet in the FLA.
However, the merit of these actions rests not primarily with their leadership, but with whether they serve the well-being of workers. Also, the fact that joining the WRC constitutes following on Notre Dame's part should not be an argument against joining.
The other rubric is that of "bottom-up versus top-down." The charge has been made that Notre Dame, because of its association with the FLA is operating top-down (which is bad), while the WRC operates bottom-up (which is good). Translated, this means that the FLA associates with powerful, wealthy interests — most importantly, corporations — while the WRC is organized on behalf of those at the bottom — namely, the workers.
This rubric conveys much that is true. Corporate licensees are members of the FLA, but are not allowed to join the WRC. With some notable exceptions, corporations primarily function on behalf of their profit margin and shareholders. In other words, they function self-interestedly. Here, I am in line with neo-classical economics. Corporate claims to be intrinsically interested in the welfare of workers therefore ought to be viewed with healthy skepticism.
However, we have seen that while Notre Dame is a member of the FLA, the University is not beholden to the association's policies and has at several points gone beyond them. Moreover, there are aspects of the WRC that are unavoidably top-down. I say this not faulting the WRC, but in recognition of the fact that any time someone intervenes on behalf of another, there is some aspect of top-down activity — of the more powerful helping the less powerful.
Liberation theologians have run into this conundrum: The more one describes a person or group of persons as oppressed, the more external action is required to alter the situation because oppressed persons, by definition, have little or no agency. What happens, at least in interim, is that relatively better off persons and groups speak and act on behalf of the oppressed.
The WRC is made up mostly of North American institutions of higher education and their students. It wants Notre Dame to join because the University is financially and publicly powerful.
If "top-down versus bottom-up" is our only rubric, then the WRC is stands convicted because some top-down activity is unavoidable.
Catholic social teaching's principle of subsidiarity provides a better guideline. The basic insight of subsidiarity is that those persons and associations most proximate to a situation are the best able to respond because they are most likely to have a fine-grained sense of the problem. However, the role of larger and more remote institutions is not to abandon the proximate persons and associations, but rather to support them. (The Latin root of subsidiarity means "to support."). In extreme cases, more direct intervention may be necessary.
The questions for Notre Dame and the WRC, then, are what are the best modes of support and in what cases, if any, is direct intervention necessary. The argument in favor of the WRC is that its 71 schools can provide a broad base with which to support workers. This is an important consideration.
I have two concerns. First, the WRC's monitoring procedure is complaint-based, and thus offers no regular monitoring visits. The problem with being oppressed, however, is that one is often kept from speaking. Regular monitoring visits is a better form of support for workers who are often denied the voice necessary to lodge a complaint.
Second, the WRC's approach to monitoring information depends more on public exposure in instances of non-compliance, whereas Notre Dame stresses negotiated remediation of the problems more. The criticism of Notre Dame's approach is that one can bargain endlessly with little result and therefore no benefit to the workers. However, Notre Dame has shown that there are limits to its willingness to negotiate. It has, for instance, sent out letters to its more than 200 licensees that they are not to make Notre Dame products at the Teycon factory near Monterrey, Mexico, due to instances of noncompliance with the University's code of conduct and failure in remediation. Production in this factory is grounds for termination of licensee contracts.
The Teycon case evidences that Notre Dame will disclose when the situation requires. I am concerned that all too quickly disclosure will lead to plant closure or relocation — and therefore job loss for workers — where remediation would otherwise have been possible.
The decision concerning whether to join the WRC is not an easy one. Persons of good will and strong intellect can disagree. I look forward to learning from others in the Notre Dame community on this important matter.
Todd David Whitmore is an associate professor in the theology department.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Tuesday, March 6, 2001
