Trust in promises is necessary
Letter to the Editor
First and foremost I would like to thank the University of Notre Dame for joining the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC).
Secondly, I would like to answer some concerns and miscommunications between the administration and student groups, particularly in regard to Professor Todd Whitmore's comments yesterday in his article, "WRC Decision A Difficult One."
I commend the University for its work on the sweatshop issue. It has done, as Whitmore mentioned Monday, some wonderful work. I also agree that the importance of such work is defined by its commitment to the Catholic social teachings of solidarity and `subsidiarity.'
However the question then becomes what this solidarity with workers actually means. In the Kukdong example it meant a number of things.
For one, it meant that the Mexican law had to support and encourage unions (as it should in China) but it also meant that these "governmental" unions had to support the workers' needs.
In Puebla, the home of the Kukdong factory, this was not the case. Their "union" was a government union and it was not supporting or helping workers which is why on Jan. 8, 25 workers were fired for organizing and on Jan. 9, 800 workers participated in a work stoppage.
As the above example shows this reality is a tedious one. Factory conditions and locations vary. These problems are constantly changing and exist at personal and local levels. The conditions in Mexico for apparel workers are different than the working conditions in Indonesia. Not better or worse, just different.
These differing realities make "regular monitoring" enormously difficult. Who is doing this "regular monitoring?" How is it being done? What purpose does it serve? Who is the beneficiary? The workers or the monitors?
When Price WaterhouseCooper, a multi-national auditing firm, does "regular monitoring" they are serving the interests of their customers and not, as the Fair Labor Association likes to claim, the workers in sweatshop conditions. This difficulty (i.e. how one defines "regular monitoring") is the reason why the WRC is concentrating on complaint based procedures at this juncture.
In regard to Whitmore's concern surrounding the pulling out of companies in production areas — I share your concern and fear. This fear gets to the hardest part of solidarity work. How and when do we best throw our weight and privilege around?
There were many universities and colleges at the WRC founding conference last April that had this exact fear. Administrators were afraid that "public exposure" would alienate corporations and thus result in defensive and very drastic measures like pulling out and leaving thousands without jobs.
The response last April was, "We have the same concerns. But we cannot let our fear stop us. We must move forward on this issue and we need your help and support to get this project off the ground. We will inevitably address these concerns as an unified organization when the time comes. We promise."
That promise was a profound and important promise to hear. And I believe the Kukdong incident and in particular how the WRC as an unified organization handled the incident was a perfect example and confirmation of this promise.
We, as a community, must identify and give voice to our fears as Whitmore did Monday afternoon. We must also think through them and sometimes move past them as the University did yesterday morning when they joined the WRC. Thank you.
In closing I suggest — maybe even highly recommend — that the University consider applying their commitment of solidarity to their interactions with the Notre Dame student body. In regard to sweatshop issues this would mean allowing an undergraduate student or two who are also active in the Progressive Student Alliance to sit with voting rights on the Notre Dame anti-sweatshop task force and advisory committee to the president.
Maureen Capillo
senior
LeMans Hall
March 6, 2001
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, March 7, 2001
