Labor is Not a Commodity

Climate Change, Copenhagen, and Workers

2009-12-15T14:36:33-05:00

By Brett Eisenbrown, Intern, International Labor Rights Forum

Climate change has been a hot button issue for years now, and with the holding of talks in Copenhagen during the next two weeks, the issue is most likely going to get hotter. From December 7-18, delegates from 192 nations will come together, in Copenhagen, to help develop a global treaty on climate change. At the 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , delegates are hoping to address issues concerning the carbon reduction targets for industrialized nations, technology transfers to developing countries, the protection of forests, and what possible forms of adaption might need to take place due to the effects of climate change.

The possible instability caused by climate change could greatly affect the lives of workers and their families all around the world. While the research is still in its infancy, making accurate long-term predictions difficult, there is evidence that shows climate change will have a major effect on employment around the world. While the connection between the consequences of climate change and the agriculture sector is the most obvious it is important to realize that other sectors may also suffer due to climate change. Logistics for instance which includes the shipping of products around the world is something that ILRF has discussed in the past because of its negative environmental impart. There is sometimes a major conflict between doing things to protect the environment and in support of workers. As Conrad MacKerron laid out so eloquently in the “Human Cost of Greening the Supply Chain” where concerns about the working conditions under which things like solar panels and wind turbines were being produced.

In a report released by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the long-term effect of weather related changes caused by climate change has the potential to greatly impact employment. The impacts on employment, reported by UNEP, are likely to arise “from extreme weather events such as droughts, cyclones and/or floods. They will also arise from slower processes such as sea level rise.” Major weather events, caused by climate change, carry with them the potential to cause damage and disrupt transportation lines and industrial infrastructure impact not only workers ability to be present at work, but also lead to the closing down of industrial institutions that find themselves in the path of the major weather disasters. In addition, UNEP reports that climate change could cause health problems due to issues of increasing water and food related diseases and because of malnutrition caused by possible disruptions of food supplies.

ILRF is proud to see the incredible effort taken on by the Blue Green Alliance and other organizations that are working to build alliances between labor and the environment recognizing that in these times we can’t have separate approaches. ILRF’s Stop Firestone campaign has even grappled with labor and environmental issues together because of the interconnectedness that often occurs on plantations since workers harvest the field and have communities very close to the plantation. The Stop Firestone campaign has taught ILRF quite a bit about how important it is to talk about pesticides and child labor for instance since both have incredibly negative impact on workers and communities. The Fairness in Flowers campaign has also recognized the linkages between women workers and environmental destruction first as a worker that has to spray the chemicals but also as someone that doesn’t want to see the land destroyed in the name of corporate greed.

In a report released by the International Trade Union Confederation (http://www.ituc-csi.org/) (ITUC), the argument is clearly presented that the global trade union movement has a duty to help connect the concept of social justice with ways to reduce the impact of climate change. These two concepts are directly linked because the economic policies that have been driven exclusively by growth and profits have not only caused degradation to the lives of workers, but also to the environment. At the union level, the report by the ITUC hopes to push unions to better educate their members about the consequences of climate change and to use their political power to work with government leaders on a solution.

One of the interesting ideas that came out of the report include the use of collective bargaining agreements to improve environmental measures. The report states: “Education unions are beginning to engage in collective bargaining for measures to reduce the carbon footprint of their schools, colleges and universities.” In addition, the report focuses its attention on creating environmentally sustainable jobs in what is being called the “green economy.” If climate change is going to be combated, workers are critical.

The production and implementation of new green technologies, such as wind power, requires steel, advanced materials, chemicals, and an advance power grid; along with highly trained workers to implement and build these new green technologies. Currently there are millions of highly trained workers, that are working in many industries that are heavy carbon emitters, who have the skills and talents to be apart of this new green economy. What is needed are programs that provide a just transition towards a green economy that not only for high skilled workers, but also one that creates opportunities for workers of all levels.

Ultimately, the workers, and unions that represent them, must be engaged in the fight against climate change because of the potential it has to impact their livelihoods. It is also important, because a shift in the global economy, whether green or not, needs the voice of labor to ensure that the shift respects the rights of workers all around the world and creates equitable opportunities. Anita Normark, chair of the Council of Global Unions and general secretary of Building and Wood Workers International, put it best when she said: “The fight to reverse climate change must be fought in communities and in workplaces. Strong action by political leaders at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is essential to set the direction, but it is not sufficient to achieve climate change goals: to respond to this challenge, we must deepen solidarity and participation by creating sustainable jobs and bolstering democracy.”

The conference in Copenhagen is a major step toward a change in the way the globe operates. The international Labor Rights Forum (ILRF) fully supports a push by governments to lessen the consequences of climate change, but what is essential is understanding how any solution effects workers and not just government carbon reduction rates. This is why it is essential for the rights of workers and the way in which climate change impacts their lives has an important spot on the Copenhagen agenda. If workers are left off the agenda any positive steps following the conference may be fruitless.

Attorney Fee-Shifting and Labor Rights in China

2009-12-14T10:01:00-05:00

By Xingni Liang

There is new interest in attorney fee-shifting rules in China. Such rules, if crafted appropriately, could benefit the country’s workers, who have recently brought labor disputes to arbitration and court in record numbers, but face crippling legal costs in doing so. Fee-shifting regulations typically require that the losing party in a lawsuit pay the attorney fees of the winner or leave the decision of whether or not to make the loser pay to a judge’s discretion.

Under U.S. public interest law, which includes many aspects of labor and employment law, the defendant must pay the legal fees of the prevailing plaintiff, but the reverse is not true. This is because public interest litigation inherently benefits society as a whole and should not be discouraged. If a worker risks having to pay his boss’s legal fees, in addition to any other costs associated with a case, it could deter him from filing suit at all—a worse situation than if there was no fee-shifting at all. More broadly, it is judged fair that the full cost of non-compliance be borne by abusive employers, not their victims or, indirectly, the state and public (via tax-funded legal aid, etc.). The situation in China is ripe for such regulations. Workers earn little, for starters. According to Guangdong government statistics, in 2007, the average salary of migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta was 1,290 RMB or roughly $189 migrants make up the vast majority of the region’s factory employees. But in Shenzhen, one of the Delta’s biggest cities, attorneys typically charge RMB 500-5,000 in commission fees or $73 - $732 for labor dispute cases. Such costs mean that workers are reluctant to go to arbitration or court for relatively small amounts of money owed by their employers—and if they do initiate a lawsuit, they stand to lose much of their settlement to their advocates.

Many Chinese lawyers, in turn, are discouraged from representing employees because they stand to earn little money. Take, for example, law firm in Shenzhen described in a China Legal News article. The firm only represents employees in labor disputes, never employers. It therefore receives very little in the way of payment from its clients. Sometimes, the firm’s lawyers don’t charge any fee at all. The founder of the firm originally thought that if it built up a reputation in labor law, the firm would turn a profit through its sheer number of cases processed. However, although none of the partners earned much, the firm still lost RMB 600 thousand (about $88,000) in half a year. The same is true for many other lawyers in China; many have had to quit labor law.

The Chinese government has tried two means of encouraging migrant workers to bring labor disputes to arbitration and court:

Government-run legal aid centers in many cities and provinces (such as Beijing, Zhengzhou and Yuhang) provide free representation if a client can prove that he or she is a migrant worker, regardless of the client’s economic situation.
Some places have already begun to formulate attorney fee-shifting provisions.

The problem with solution 1 is that, first of all, there are complaints that legal aid departments are overly bureaucratic. Their procedures are complicated and the time they take to resolve a case is much too long. Secondly, employers can usually hire better attorneys than legal aid departments can offer to employees. Hence, there are instances when employees lose cases where justice is clearly on their side. These losses discourage further legal activism by workers. Many legal aid centers, moreover, only offer advice, not representation.

Shenzhen City is the clear forerunner in adopting attorney fee-shifting rules for labor disputes. Article 58 of the Regulations on the Growth and Development of Harmonious Labor Relations in the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone says, “In a labor dispute arbitration or court case, when the employee wins, his or her attorney fees can be paid for by his or her employer up to a maximum of 5,000 RMB. If his or her attorney fees exceed 5,000 RMB, the employee must cover the cost himself or herself.” This rule was publicized in October 8, 2008 and began to be implemented on November 1, 2008.

However, since the Harmonious Labor Relations law only applies to the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone, places like Longgang and Bao’an, which are located just outside the Zone but administratively still belong to Shenzhen City, are not included. These two districts are home to most of Shenzhen’s manufacturing and, therefore, most of its labor disputes. They are more in need of attorney fee-shifting rules than the more upscale housing and retail area that the Zone proper has slowly become.

At present, there are no specific, nationwide laws in China mandating or allowing for attorney fee-shifting in labor disputes, but there are precedents in other areas of law (under China’s civil law system, precedents do not carry legal weight, but they can serve as models for further innovation). For example, when the 20th Century Company accused the Beijing Art and Culture Company of pirating movies Commando and Die Hard 1&2, a court awarded 4,662.41 RMB in attorney fees to the losing party (defendant). In another case, a court ordered Nanjing Tianyin Power Equipment Factory (the defendant) to pay 9,106 RMB in attorney fees to the Nanjing Automatic Power factory.

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has experimented with attorney fee-shifting. The SPC Explanation of Some Questions Concerning Use of the P.R. of China Contract Law, which was publicized in 1999, says that a debtor gives up the creditor’s right to the third person. If a recession harms his creditor and creditor bring up the case to the court, the attorney fee and tour spend of the creditor should be paid by the debtor. This can be used in the situation that when a employer owns the debt of his employee and want his own debtor to return the debt directly to the employee, if the employer’s debtor didn’t repay the debt, the employee can bring the case to the law and make both the employer and his debtor afford the attorney fee. In 2001, the Vice Chief Justice of the SPC, Cao Jianming, said, in regards to a copyright dispute, that in some circumstances, all or part of [the winning party’s] attorney fees can be added into compensation.”

In October 20, 1999, the SPC Five-Year Reform Compendium noted, “From 2000, according to the discussion of committees of the SPC, ‘typical cases’ publicized can be referred to in similar cases brought up in inferior courts.” The SPC then publicized two ‘typical cases’ of attorney fee-shifting as follows: On March 31, 2003, the Shanghai Jingan district court ruled that United Airlines (the defendant / loser) should pay 16,595.10 RMB in attorney fees and 11,802.50 RMB in attorney travel fees. And on April 17, 2003, Taifu Food Co., Ltd. was accused of unfair competition by Taishan Enterprise Co., Ltd.; when Taifu lost, it was forced to pay 20,000 RMB in attorney fees to Taishan.

I hope the above progress in other areas of attorney fee-shifting can lead similar progress in disputes.

In 2007, National People’s Congress (NPC) representative Hou Yibin suggested the creation of attorney fee-shifting provisions at the 10th meeting of NPC Standing Committee. Hou proposed that attorney fees should be paid by the losing party (it can be either the plaintiff or defendant) and claimed that such laws could reduce unnecessary lawsuits, raise awareness of rights and prove informative to the government. But approval of his idea is still pending.

Fee-shifting has great implications both inside and outside just labor/employment laws. Much of the literature in this area is about civil rights litigation, and particularly class-action litigation. In cases where plaintiffs have no money and one is not seeking high (or any) monetary damages but rather injunctive relief of some sort (i.e. having government stop discriminating), fee-shifting is an extremely important mechanism for lawyers to get compensated -- and thus take these cases.

Working for Scrooge: Worst Companies of 2009 for the Right to Associate

2009-12-10T16:52:46-05:00

Tim Newman, Campaigns Director, International Labor Rights Forum

Today is International Human Rights Day! People around the world are celebrating and taking action today to protect the rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Among other protections for workers, the UDHR states that “everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests” (Article 23, Section 4).

However, despite the labor rights protections in the UDHR, UN and ILO declarations and national labor laws, workers continue to see their rights trampled on a daily basis. In fact, in its most recently released survey of violations of trade union rights, the International Trade Union Confederation reports at least 76 unionists were killed globally as a result of their organizing efforts in 2008. Additionally, as the global economic crisis spreads, many labor advocates fear that companies are using the crisis as a pretext for cracking down on unionized workers and instituting employment schemes that reduce the number of workers guaranteed union protections.

Many times it is multinational corporations -- many of which are based here in the US -- that are violating workers' right to organize globally. That is why ILRF released a new report today called "Working for Scrooge: Worst Companies of 2009 for the Right to Associate." The report lists four companies and you can tell them to start protecting worker rights by sending an e-mail here!

Our report this year highlights Dole (with violations in Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador and the Philippines), Kohl's (with violations in Nicaragua and Turkey), Kraft (with violations in Argentina, China, Honduras and the United Kingdom) and Nestlé (with violations in Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia and Tunisia).

While workers face significant barriers globally to realizing their rights to organize trade unions, workers around the world are successfully fighting back against abuse. For example, Russell was named on last year's "Working For Scrooge" list for shutting down a unionized factory in Honduras, but after Honduran workers organized an international campaign with the support of labor advocates in the US, the union was successful in pressuring Russell to meet its demands leading to a major victory for workers and the global anti-sweatshop movement.

You can read the report online here and send an e-mail to these companies here. We're also encouraging everyone to Tweet for human rights today to spread the word about the report and let the companies know that they need to protect workers' rights! Find out how to participate here. Or just post this on your Twitter page: "4 scrooges announced for violating #humanrights. Email @nestlecsv, @dolefoods, @kohls_official, @kraftfoods at http://tinyurl.com/ybzwosg

Report Exposes Poor Working Conditions at Government Contractors; New York State to Reign in Sweatshop Suppliers

2009-12-10T04:01:00-05:00

Liana Foxvog, National Organizer, SweatFree Communities

“Made in USA” requirements provide little insurance against poor working conditions and low wages, according to a new report by SweatFree Communities released today, International Human Rights Day. It contends that the federal government should do more to ensure that the apparel it buys is made by labor-rights-compliant contractors.

Some states and cities have already taken action. Earlier today Governor David Paterson announced that New York is joining the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium, a new organization that assists members in ridding sweatshops from supply chains and providing incentive for ethical business practices. Initial members are Ashland, Ore., Austin, Tex., Maine, Milwaukee, Wisc., New York, Pennsylvania, Portland, Ore., and San Francisco, which together procure over $50 million in apparel and textiles annually.

Governor Paterson said: “I believe that the Sweatfree Purchasing Consortium will serve as a crucial tool in creating and maintaining standards of workplace fairness and safety in our global economy.”

Bjorn Claeson, Executive Director of SweatFree Communities, said: “Labor rights violations are human rights violations. Today, International Human Rights Day, we call on all government agencies, including the federal government, to join with New York and the other pioneering members of the Consortium in ensuring labor rights for workers who manufacture goods purchased with our tax dollars.”

The new report, Toxic Uniforms: Behind the ‘Made in USA’ Label, exposes poor working conditions at nine government contractor factories including poverty level wages, pressure on the job, poor benefits, health and safety problems, and discrimination. Nine of the factories are sole suppliers to Propper International and one (recently shuttered) was a sole supplier to Eagle Industries, held by parent company Alliant Techsystems (ATK). Propper International is the largest manufacturer of soldiers’ uniforms for the U.S. Army. Eagle supplies the federal government and New York State. While outsourcing of jobs is prevalent in the cut-and-sew industry, as Department of Defense contractors, Eagle and Propper are required to produce in the U.S. or its territories under the Berry Amendment. However, as the new report shows, workers in Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, who manufacture goods purchased with our tax dollars, are far from immune from abusive working conditions.

Elisa Rios, who worked at Eagle’s New Bedford, Mass., factory for two years said: “Harassment, fear, desperation, sadness, unhappiness, tears – this is what we experienced daily in the factory.”

Maritza Vázquez, a sewing machine operator at Propper’s Lajas plant, said: “I understand that the type of labor we produce is very important because it’s a job done for the U.S. military. I think we need to be more appreciated, offered better pay and better benefits. Management should have more respect.”

In Puerto Rico workers at each of Propper’s eight plants are organizing for union representation by the labor union Workers United. While ATK closed the New Bedford Eagle factory despite protests from the workers and politicians, a committee of sewing machine operators and their supporters persuaded a new government contractor, New Bedford Tactical Gear, to open in August. This week workers voted unanimously in support of the contract negotiated between New Bedford Tactical Gear and Workers United. The union contract provides for pay increases to $10.60 in three years, a pension, an affordable health insurance plan, and more. The company currently employs fifteen former Eagle workers and is seeking additional government contracts in order to expand and hire more of the laid-off workforce.

A copy of Toxic Uniforms: Behind the ‘Made in USA’ Label, is available at www.sweatfree.org/tu.

Norfolk, VA Fair Trade Festival Spreads Awareness about Sweatfree Campaigns

2009-12-08T20:39:50-05:00

By Maggie Smith, Intern, International Labor Rights Forum

Norfolk, VA was the stage of a two day Fair Trade Festival this past weekend, December 5th and 6th. Continuing an eight year tradition, the festival was presented by Festevents and International Humanities Center. The Festival showcased dozens of local fair trade vendors ranging from pottery and jewelry to chocolate and wine.

The International Labor Rights Forum was among those tabling at the festival but instead of selling things we were giving away knowledge about fair and just trade. Many festival goers were surprised to see that the table that Trina Tocco, ILRF’s Deputy Director, and I were sitting behind was full of free pamphlets and posters detailing the ILRF’s “Sweatfree World” campaign as well as the “Stop Child and Forced Labor” campaign. As Trina and I explained to on-lookers and those who stopped by to grab a poster, the information and opportunities for action that we had to offer helped to hit home the ideas and concepts behind Fair Trade as well as remind shoppers that Fair Trade is more than just a label; it has global implications. People were often shocked to hear what we had to say about the cocoa and cotton industries. Among the most popular give-aways were the 2009 Shop with a Conscience Consumer Guide, the 2009 Chocolate Company Scorecard, and the cocoa campaign poster from the ILRF’s Child Labor Poster Series.

Besides heightening awareness about sweatshops and child labor in general, Trina and I were gaining supporters for the Norfolk sweatfree campaign. The Friday preceding the festival, December 4th, Trina and I met with the Sacred Heart Catholic Church globalization community, a local Norfolk region faith based group interested in learning more about the social justice issues that sweatshops raise and more importantly, what concrete actions they could take as individuals and a community to both raise awareness and effect change. We expected to be addressing a group that knew little about the global problems that lead to the use of Sweatshop labor but instead what we found was a well informed group of highly active individuals. Members of the globalization community were active in immigrants’ rights issues, affordable housing projects, as well as global outreach, specifically to sister communities in Haiti. Groups such as the Virginia Organizing Project and the more local Tidewater Sowers of Justice were represented as well. It was obvious this group was interested in how to run an effective campaign and how to effect real change in Norfolk and the surrounding area.

Trina explained to the group the basic supply chain model, explaining how one item of clothing will actually touch, on average, 23 hands before you buy it from your local retail store. She also explained how governments on all levels, local to national, have contracts with suppliers of everything from police uniforms to computers, that are used to supply services to the public. It is at this level that real change can be made, the goal being to pass a policy stipulating that the city/county/state will no longer buy products from companies that use sweatshop labor. Back at the festival we encouraged shoppers to sign postcards, supporting a local sweatfree campaign, which would be mailed to the Mayor of Norfolk. They stated, “I don’t want my tax dollars to support sweatshops,” and “I urge you to join the new State and Local Government Sweatfree Consortium.” When explaining the postcards to interested individuals, many people were very surprised to hear that governments buy from companies using sweatshop labor and enthusiastically signed the cards, sometimes asking if they could get involved in the local effort.

The end result of the ILRF’s involvement in the festival was an increased understanding of what Fair Trade really means and implies and how it is linked not only to the rights of small farmers but to labor rights more generally. This festival has taken place for eight years in a row now and hopefully our presence this year will encourage, what seems to be an interested population, to take action and help the Virginia Sweatfree movement to continue to grow and spread.

If you’d like to have ILRF visit your place of worship, school, or community group, send an email to trina.tocco@ilrf.org to make arrangements.

To read more about the festival, check out these local newspapers’ websites:

Nestlé going Fair Trade for Kit Kat bars in UK and Ireland

2009-12-07T12:53:23-05:00

Tim Newman, Campaigns Director, International Labor Rights Forum

Today Nestlé announced that it would achieve Fair Trade certification for its Kit Kat bar in the United Kingdom and Ireland in January 2010. Many of you have joined us for many years in calling on Nestlé to purchase Fair Trade certified cocoa. This might be a small step in the right direction, but unfortunately, it doesn't mean much for consumers in the US and the vast majority of the cocoa Nestlé buys could potentially be tainted by forced labor, child labor and/or trafficked labor. Also, it's interesting to note that Kit Kat bars in the US are manufactured by Hershey, a company that hasn't agreed to any of the certification programs in the cocoa industry. (Find out more about how Hershey is lagging behind here).

You can check out the response to Nestlé's announcement from ILRF, Global Exchange, Green America and Oasis USA here or by reading more!

GLOBAL EXCHANGE | GREEN AMERICA | INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FORUM | OASIS USA

For Immediate Release
December 7, 2009

Contact: Tim Newman, tim.newman[at]ilrf.org, 202-347-4100 x113 or 617-823-9464
Todd Larsen, toddlarsen[at]GreenAmericaToday.org, 202-872-5310
Adrienne Fitch-Frankel, Adrienne[at]globalexchange.org, 415-255-7296
Paul Hong-Lange, paul[at]oasisusa.org, 626-584-0800

Organizations Question Nestlé’s Commitment to Fair Trade Cocoa

Nestlé SA announced today that it would begin to source Fair Trade Certified cocoa for its Kit Kat bars in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

Since stories about the use of child, forced and trafficked labor and the widespread poverty among farmers in West Africa’s cocoa industry surfaced in 2001, organizations in the United States and around the world have been campaigning to convince major chocolate companies, especially Nestlé, to commit to sourcing Fair Trade Certified cocoa. A lawsuit filed in 2005 in US courts against Nestlé on behalf of Malian children who were trafficked to Cote d’Ivoire to harvest cocoa is still ongoing.

While Nestlé’s announcement may be a very small step toward supporting a more sustainable and labor-friendly system of cocoa sourcing, the company’s history and practices around the world raise questions about its commitment to Fair Trade. Additionally, Nestlé has not announced any plans to use Fair Trade Certified cocoa in its products in the United States.

Nestlé is one of the most boycotted companies in the world. Trade unions have criticized the company for a range of labor rights abuses including in Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, the Philippines and Tunisia. Nestlé has also been a target of campaigners concerned about its impact on access to water and baby food marketing, among many other issues.

Nestlé’s minimal investment in Fair Trade Certified coffee also provides reason to be skeptical about its commitment. Nestlé’s Fair Trade line is only a marginal part of its coffee products and it has not increased its purchasing of Fair Trade coffee despite its promises to do so. In October 2009, Nestlé launched a new program related to their global cocoa sourcing called “The Cocoa Plan” which does not include investing in Fair Trade cocoa, suggesting that the company does not intend to shift toward more equitable trading relationships through the Fair Trade system and it is unclear if Nestlé plans to expand Fair Trade cocoa beyond the UK.

Bama Athreya, Executive Director of the International Labor Rights Forum, said, “Nestlé cannot claim to be sourcing responsible cocoa by using a small amount of Fair Trade Certified cocoa when the majority of its cocoa could be produced by forced labor and child labor. As the largest food company in the world, Nestlé must make a stronger commitment to protecting worker rights in its cocoa supply chain as well as in its production facilities and in the sourcing of other agricultural products.”

Todd Larsen, Corporate Responsibility Programs Director at Green America, said, “We urge Nestlé to go beyond this token commitment to Fair Trade and to take steps to end all sourcing from child labor and pay a living wage to its workers worldwide. Consumers the world over are increasingly concerned that their chocolate purchases are supporting slavery and misery, and are increasingly purchasing Fair Trade chocolate as a result. They will be looking to Nestlé to do far more to support farmers worldwide.”

Adrienne Fitch-Frankel, Fair Trade Campaign Director at Global Exchange, said, “While we thank Nestlé on behalf of the thousands of cocoa farming families who will begin to thrive by receiving the Fair Trade price for their cocoa, we also ask, ‘How can Nestlé leave so many thousands of children languishing in child slavery and abusive labor conditions, and keep so many farming families mired in poverty while growing cocoa for the rest of Nestlé’s products?’ Nestlé’s profits depend on the hard work of cocoa farmers, and justice will only be done when those farmers can live in dignity.”

Paul Hong-Lange, Director of Oasis USA, said, “This step by Nestlé guarantees that no slave labor or exploitation will be used in the production of one line of chocolate in one region of the world. This is a good start but it still leaves the conscientious American wondering if Nestlé chocolate on the shelf in their grocery store is tainted with slave labor. We urge Nestlé to do better by more farmers and more consumers.”

Over 60 organizations and chocolate companies have endorsed a “Commitment to Ethical Cocoa Sourcing” that sets a higher standard for sustainable and responsible cocoa sourcing than Nestlé. The commitment can be found online: http://www.laborrights.org/stop-child-labor/cocoa-campaign/resources/10656.

###
Global Exchange is a membership-based international human rights organization dedicated to promoting social, economic and environmental justice around the world. www.GlobalExchange.org

Green America is a non-profit organization whose mission is to harness economic power—the strength of consumers, investors, businesses, and the marketplace—to create a socially just and environmentally sustainable society. www.GreenAmericaToday.org

The International Labor Rights Forum is an advocacy organization dedicated to achieving just and humane treatment for workers worldwide. www.LaborRights.org

Oasis USA is a non-profit organization committed to developing communities where everyone is included, making a contribution, and reaching their God-given potential. Oasis USA is the West Coast Office for Stop the Traffik Campaign in the USA. www.OasisUSA.org.

LL Bean Responds with Grace

2009-11-25T12:31:45-05:00

Bama Athreya, Executive Director, ILRF

Just in time for Thanksgiving, the outdoor clothing brand LL Bean has made a significant commitment to work with ILRF to end forced child labor in cotton. Last week, we released our Sweatshop Hall of Shame, and to our surprise, were compelled to name LL Bean as one of the companies that had been non-responsive to our efforts over the past year to help us end the terrible abuse of children in cotton production in Central Asia.

This is a company that, in the past, had always been quick to respond when we identified sweatshop abuses in their supplier factories in Asia, and had worked with us to correct some of those abuses. So our surprise turned to relief when, within 24 hours of being identified in the "Sweatshop Hall of Shame," a senior official in the company, in charge of the company's labor rights monitoring program, called to ask what the company could do to work with ILRF and ensure that they were not profiting from forced child labor.

Here is the company's public statement, issued today: "Since this issue was brought to our attention by the International Labor Rights Forum, we have begun contacting suppliers to convey to them that we do not intend to use Uzbekistan cotton. We have also agreed to join a coalition of organizations working with ILRF to develop next steps toward the elimination of Uzbekistan cotton in the supply chain. This is a complex issue that we believe is best addressed on a collaborative basis. We are pleased to work with ILRF, and others, to find solutions. "

To be sure, the cotton supply chain is complex and we don't anticipate that the company will be able to clean up its supply chain overnight. But given this new commitment, the company is moving in the right direction. We look forward to working with the staff of LL Bean and hope to be able to report good news on this company to our supporters soon.

Honduran Workers Win Major Victory with the help of Students and Activists like You!

2009-11-20T13:59:21-05:00

By Jeremy Silva and Eva Seidelman, International Labor Rights Forum

Over the weekend was a time for of celebration and relief for many Honduran workers and their families: 1,200 workers who were fired from Russell's Jerzees de Honduras (a sports apparel company owned by Fruit of Loom which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway) when the factory closed in October 2008, will now gain their jobs back. A new settlement between Russell/Fruit of the Loom and the General Workers Confederation of Honduras/Sintrajerzeesh will, when implemented, open up a new unionized factory in Honduras with greatly improved labor standards. Mike Powers, of Cornell, called the decision a “landmark.” Scott Nova, executive director of the Workers’ Rights Consortium told the New York Times that the victory was unprecedented in “the transformative impact it can have in one of the hardest regions of the world to win respect for workers’ rights.” Nova went on to tell the AP that the decision represented a “toehold that people have been trying to get for a decade.”

Some background: Last January, Russell decided to close its Jerzees de Honduras factory after negotiations between the SintraJersheez union and Russell broke down given Russell's refusal to bargain in good faith. Thousands of workers lost their jobs after the closing and union leaders received death threats after Russell blamed the factory closure on the union. But Sintrajerzeesh union leaders didn't give up--they spread the word about Russell's tactics to U.S. consumers and won! This victory came after a long U.S. campaign, organized by United Students Against Sweatshops. Honduran union leaders and previous Jerzees de Honduras workers toured the U.S. all year, speaking up about Russell's anti-union tactics. 89 colleges and universities cut their apparel contracts with Russell out of protest. According to the New York Times, some of these contracts were worth over $1 million dollars in sales.

ILRF hosted a Congressional briefing for Norma Mejia Castellano and dozens of Members of Congress signed a letter to Russell. ILRF also helped push Berkshire Hathaway (owner of Russell/Fruit of the Loom and chaired by Warren Buffet) shareholders to pass a resolution in support of workers.

This is a historic victory given this is the first time that a company has committed to reopen a facility after closing it in the attempts at busting the union. The perseverance of workers, students, and others is truly admirable and shows that in the end justice will prevail.

Colbert takes on child labor

2009-11-19T11:14:48-05:00

Tim Newman, Campaigns Director, International Labor Rights Forum

Last week, I wrote about how big businesses in the US are lobbying against bans on the importation of products made using forced and child labor and linked to a clip from the Rachel Maddow Show. Sadly, this is not the first time companies like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland have lobbied against similar legislation. Well, for those of you who consider yourselves members of "Colbert Nation," check out Stephen Colbert's take on this issue on The Colbert Report on November 17th. About 4:15 into the show, you'll also hear references to many of the corporations ILRF has active campaigns focused on like Firestone and ADM. Keep checking this blog and sign up for ILRF's e-mail list for more updates as this story develops!

Check out the clip from the Colbert Report here!

ILRF announces Sweatshop Hall of Shame 2010

2009-11-17T09:51:00-05:00

By Juontel White, Intern, International Labor Rights Forum

The Sweatshop Hall of Shame features apparel companies that have consistently flouted worker’s rights. This year’s hall of shame highlights companies whose labor practices have failed to comply with international fair labor standards.

The 2010 inductees are: Abercrombie & Fitch, Gymboree, Hanes, Ikea, Kohl’s, LL Bean, Pier 1, Propper International, and Walmart.

Most, if not all, of the companies mentioned source from factories which pay workers poverty wages and use illegal tactics that suppress workers’ right to organize. Some of the brands (namely Gymboree, Hanes, and LL Bean) source cotton from Uzbekistan, which forces children to pick cotton instead of going to school.

ILRF along with other labor rights organizations have contacted several inductees requesting them to ensure that their supplier’s adhere to fair labor practices, such as ensuring workers safe working conditions, treatment with respect and dignity, and sufficient wages to support the basic needs of their families. Companies such as Walmart and Kohl’s have ignored requests to resolve factory issues and all inductees have failed to take any meaningful action. At the Menderes Tekstil Factory in Denizili, Turkey, which produces bed linen for Walmart, Kohl’s, and Ikea, it was reported that workers associated with the union were illegally dismissed. In addition, unsafe working conditions led to the death of four workers.

The factory’s worker’s union TESKIF, requested ILRF to communicate with these U.S. brands but each company denied the problems. Some conducted private investigations but refused to release the findings.

For instance, IKEA commissioned an audit into labor conditions at Menderes and concluded there were no major problems. But trade unions and anti-sweatshop groups like the Clean Clothes Campaign were denied access to the results of the audit, raising serious concerns about the biased conclusions that often arise from a company’s self-commissioned audit.

Walmart and Kohl’s have each made little to no effort at improving labor conditions at the factory—instead they’ve promising to implement measures that would fail to make effective changes. Walmart signed a letter along with several of Menderes’ European brands that essentially voices support for the factory’s management and suggests no concern for intervening.

You can send a message directly to these companies expressing your outrage that they have allowed the workers in Turkey to be denied access to their basic rights according to international labor standards. TAKE ACTION NOW!

The Hall of Shame was created as a counterpart to the Shop with a Conscience Guide–a list of “sweatfree” options for socially-conscious shoppers who would like to purchase clothing made under ethical conditions. Launched three years ago by ILRF and SweatFree Communities, the guide is a valuable resource for consumers to identify the fairest companies of them all.

Consumers have the power to stop the gross labor violations rampant within the apparel and textile industries by demanding companies end a production system that exploits workers in order to satiate corporate greed. In addition, companies must fully comply with their own corporate social responsibility commitments and take bigger strides towards establishing safe and ethical working conditions for their laborers.