[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.There are a number of private monitoringgroups, including PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and Ernst andYoung.In addition, many American academic institutions have estab-lished codes of conduct,7 although they depend for the most part onthe monitoring to be carried out by the FLA or WRC.8 It is of inter-est therefore to compare the main features of the FLA and WRC.Comparison of the FLA and WRCAs noted above, the FLA was established in 1998 as an outgrowth ofthe Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP) sponsored by the Clinton6The list of institutions affiliated with the WRC can be found at www.workersrights.org/as.asp.7See, for example, the University of Michigan code of conduct in University of MichiganAdvisory Committee on Labor Standards and Human Rights (2000, pp.7 8).8It is noteworthy that the University of Chicago decided against joining eitherorganization.According to the University of Chicago Magazine (2000), they optedto rely on Barnes & Noble, which operates the University bookstore locations, torequire that all merchandise sold complies with FLA standards. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 628628 D.K.Brown, A.V.Deardorff & R.M.SternAdministration.Its focus is on improving working conditions in theglobal apparel industry.9 In considering the relative merits and mem-bership in the FLA and WRC, the University of Michigan AdvisoryCommittee on Labor Standards and Human Rights (2000,pp.30 33) noted for example the following positive features of theFLA: (1) the FLA membership includes most of the largest apparelproducers, is well funded, may be cost effective in avoiding the pro-liferation of codes of conduct and monitoring, and may provideeconomies of scale in coordinating its membership and carrying outmonitoring; (2) the FLA focuses on the apparel industry as a whole,and its charter gives universities the option to pursue more flexiblestrategies if so desired.Some of the concerns expressed about the FLAwere that it might be dominated by corporate interests that wouldfavor a weak code of conduct on such issues as health and safety,women s rights, compensation, and hours and overtime, and that itwould be reluctant to provide public disclosure of factory locations.With regard to the WRC, the Michigan Advisory CommitteeReport (2000, pp.29 31) cited the following attractive features:10(1) emphasis on disclosure, transparency, and public information onconditions in apparel factories; (2) emphasis on the investigation ofcomplaints as a means of focusing attention on factories where prob-lems are reported rather than relying on monitoring per se;(3) commitment to involve workers and their representatives in thedevelopment and implementation of WRC policies; (4) insistence onincluding a living-wage standard in the WRC code of conduct tofocus the attention of universities and licensees on wage issues;(5) concentration on university-licensed apparel rather than on theentire apparel industry as a means of enhancing the leverage of uni-versities; and (6) independence from the FLA and other groups as ameans of providing a check on the quality and reliability of othermonitoring efforts.Some concerns expressed about the WRC were:(1) its adversarial approach towards licensees, with the consequencethat licensees may view the WRC with suspicion, make them hesitant in9The code of conduct of the FLA can be found at www.fairlabor.org.10The code of conduct of the WRC can be found at www.workersrights.org. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 629Effects of Multinational Production on Wages and Working Conditions 629self-reporting their activities, undermine the credibility and legitimacyof the WRC investigation of reported complaints, and disrupt university-business relationships with licensee partners; (2) the WRC objective ofeducating workers and encouraging them to act on their own rightsmay compromise the impartial and independent investigation ofworker complaints; (3) there may be an over-reliance on complaintinvestigation insofar as it presumes that workers are aware of theirrights and willing to take risks in filing complaints; and (4) that theindependence and credibility of the WRC may be compromisedbecause of the presence on its Governing Board of UNITE or otherU.S.unions with a documented history of trade protectionism anddiscouragement of apparel job creation in developing countries.11From the perspective of many American colleges and universities,it should be evident from the foregoing discussion that there are someimportant differences between the FLA and WRC in terms of theirobjectives and mode of operation.Two issues that stand out aredeserving of further comment: (1) the living wage; and (2) conditionsof work, including the right of association and collective bargaining.The Living WageAs noted in www.fairlabor.org, the FLA code relating to wages andbenefits is:Wages and Benefits.Employers recognize that wages are essential to meet-ing employees basic needs.Employers shall pay employees, as a floor, at11In this regard, it is of interest to note the statement in the University of ChicagoMagazine (2000):It is the WRC s apparent intention to move beyond a monitoring func-tion to an advocacy role supporting particular social, political, andenvironmental positions that troubles the University administrationand faculty.& As & outlined by the faculty in the 1967 KalvenCommittee Report on the University s Role in Political and Social Action: A university & is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, pur-poses of teaching and research.It is not a club, it is not a trade association,it is not a lobby. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 630630 D.K.Brown, A.V.Deardorff & R.M.Sternleast the minimum wage required by local law or the prevailing industrywage, whichever is higher, and shall provide legally mandated benefits.As noted in www.workersrights.org, the WRC code relating towages and benefits is:1.Wages and Benefits: Licensees recognize that wages are essential tomeeting employees basic needs.Licensees shall pay employees, as a floor,wages and benefits which comply with all applicable laws and regulations,and which provide for essential needs and establish a dignified living wagefor workers and their families.[A living wage is a take home or net wage, earned during a country s legal maximum work week, but not morethan 48 hours.A living wage provides the basic needs (housing, energy,nutrition, clothing, health care, education, potable water, childcare, trans-portation and savings) of an average family unit of employees in thegarment manufacturing employment sector of the country.]It is evident that the WRC concept of what constitutes a livingwage is much more explicit than the FLA basic-needs criterion of thepayment of the minimum wage or prevailing industry wage,whichever is higher.As noted by Elliott and Freeman (2001, p.50),the WRC is apparently willing to postpone the implementation of itsliving-wage standard pending the completion of further research.This is essentially similar to the position of the FLA, which called fora wage study that was carried out by the U.S.Department of Labor(2000) and a request for follow-up on this study with possible annualupdates [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.There are a number of private monitoringgroups, including PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) and Ernst andYoung.In addition, many American academic institutions have estab-lished codes of conduct,7 although they depend for the most part onthe monitoring to be carried out by the FLA or WRC.8 It is of inter-est therefore to compare the main features of the FLA and WRC.Comparison of the FLA and WRCAs noted above, the FLA was established in 1998 as an outgrowth ofthe Apparel Industry Partnership (AIP) sponsored by the Clinton6The list of institutions affiliated with the WRC can be found at www.workersrights.org/as.asp.7See, for example, the University of Michigan code of conduct in University of MichiganAdvisory Committee on Labor Standards and Human Rights (2000, pp.7 8).8It is noteworthy that the University of Chicago decided against joining eitherorganization.According to the University of Chicago Magazine (2000), they optedto rely on Barnes & Noble, which operates the University bookstore locations, torequire that all merchandise sold complies with FLA standards. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 628628 D.K.Brown, A.V.Deardorff & R.M.SternAdministration.Its focus is on improving working conditions in theglobal apparel industry.9 In considering the relative merits and mem-bership in the FLA and WRC, the University of Michigan AdvisoryCommittee on Labor Standards and Human Rights (2000,pp.30 33) noted for example the following positive features of theFLA: (1) the FLA membership includes most of the largest apparelproducers, is well funded, may be cost effective in avoiding the pro-liferation of codes of conduct and monitoring, and may provideeconomies of scale in coordinating its membership and carrying outmonitoring; (2) the FLA focuses on the apparel industry as a whole,and its charter gives universities the option to pursue more flexiblestrategies if so desired.Some of the concerns expressed about the FLAwere that it might be dominated by corporate interests that wouldfavor a weak code of conduct on such issues as health and safety,women s rights, compensation, and hours and overtime, and that itwould be reluctant to provide public disclosure of factory locations.With regard to the WRC, the Michigan Advisory CommitteeReport (2000, pp.29 31) cited the following attractive features:10(1) emphasis on disclosure, transparency, and public information onconditions in apparel factories; (2) emphasis on the investigation ofcomplaints as a means of focusing attention on factories where prob-lems are reported rather than relying on monitoring per se;(3) commitment to involve workers and their representatives in thedevelopment and implementation of WRC policies; (4) insistence onincluding a living-wage standard in the WRC code of conduct tofocus the attention of universities and licensees on wage issues;(5) concentration on university-licensed apparel rather than on theentire apparel industry as a means of enhancing the leverage of uni-versities; and (6) independence from the FLA and other groups as ameans of providing a check on the quality and reliability of othermonitoring efforts.Some concerns expressed about the WRC were:(1) its adversarial approach towards licensees, with the consequencethat licensees may view the WRC with suspicion, make them hesitant in9The code of conduct of the FLA can be found at www.fairlabor.org.10The code of conduct of the WRC can be found at www.workersrights.org. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 629Effects of Multinational Production on Wages and Working Conditions 629self-reporting their activities, undermine the credibility and legitimacyof the WRC investigation of reported complaints, and disrupt university-business relationships with licensee partners; (2) the WRC objective ofeducating workers and encouraging them to act on their own rightsmay compromise the impartial and independent investigation ofworker complaints; (3) there may be an over-reliance on complaintinvestigation insofar as it presumes that workers are aware of theirrights and willing to take risks in filing complaints; and (4) that theindependence and credibility of the WRC may be compromisedbecause of the presence on its Governing Board of UNITE or otherU.S.unions with a documented history of trade protectionism anddiscouragement of apparel job creation in developing countries.11From the perspective of many American colleges and universities,it should be evident from the foregoing discussion that there are someimportant differences between the FLA and WRC in terms of theirobjectives and mode of operation.Two issues that stand out aredeserving of further comment: (1) the living wage; and (2) conditionsof work, including the right of association and collective bargaining.The Living WageAs noted in www.fairlabor.org, the FLA code relating to wages andbenefits is:Wages and Benefits.Employers recognize that wages are essential to meet-ing employees basic needs.Employers shall pay employees, as a floor, at11In this regard, it is of interest to note the statement in the University of ChicagoMagazine (2000):It is the WRC s apparent intention to move beyond a monitoring func-tion to an advocacy role supporting particular social, political, andenvironmental positions that troubles the University administrationand faculty.& As & outlined by the faculty in the 1967 KalvenCommittee Report on the University s Role in Political and Social Action: A university & is a community but only for the limited, albeit great, pur-poses of teaching and research.It is not a club, it is not a trade association,it is not a lobby. b723_Chapter-17.qxd 7/15/2009 10:02 AM Page 630630 D.K.Brown, A.V.Deardorff & R.M.Sternleast the minimum wage required by local law or the prevailing industrywage, whichever is higher, and shall provide legally mandated benefits.As noted in www.workersrights.org, the WRC code relating towages and benefits is:1.Wages and Benefits: Licensees recognize that wages are essential tomeeting employees basic needs.Licensees shall pay employees, as a floor,wages and benefits which comply with all applicable laws and regulations,and which provide for essential needs and establish a dignified living wagefor workers and their families.[A living wage is a take home or net wage, earned during a country s legal maximum work week, but not morethan 48 hours.A living wage provides the basic needs (housing, energy,nutrition, clothing, health care, education, potable water, childcare, trans-portation and savings) of an average family unit of employees in thegarment manufacturing employment sector of the country.]It is evident that the WRC concept of what constitutes a livingwage is much more explicit than the FLA basic-needs criterion of thepayment of the minimum wage or prevailing industry wage,whichever is higher.As noted by Elliott and Freeman (2001, p.50),the WRC is apparently willing to postpone the implementation of itsliving-wage standard pending the completion of further research.This is essentially similar to the position of the FLA, which called fora wage study that was carried out by the U.S.Department of Labor(2000) and a request for follow-up on this study with possible annualupdates [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]