They also argue that the development of the Code and monitoring principles will have a pro-competitive effect, as companies promoting compliance with the Code will provide useful information to consumers concerned about the conditions under which clothing and footwear are produced. Nike has evolved its mindset and field service activities from a compliance audit model to a factory partner coaching model focused on continuous sustainability improvement. We look forward to continuing our partnership with FLA to develop industry-wide tools to build sustainable supply chains in the footwear and apparel industry. In your application, you argue that production conditions in sweatshops, i.e. situations where workers work long hours for low wages in unsafe or unhealthy working conditions have increased in the garment and footwear industries in recent years, both in the United States and abroad. In response to the publicity about these working conditions, President Clinton convened a meeting of American clothing and footwear manufacturers, as well as trade unions, representatives of consumer, human rights and religious organizations, in August 1996, calling on them to develop standards for working conditions that would eliminate operating conditions and to allow consumers to adhere to those standards. to convey the fact of such conformity. The code is the result of six months of negotiations among members of the Apparel Industry Partnership — a working group of companies and human rights organizations selected by Clinton and supported by Gene Sperling, chairman of the president`s National Economic Council. The members of the society were the same ten who had only signed the code. The human rights groups involved are highly regarded and include the New York-based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial for Human Rights and the Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility.
From the Nike, Inc. website: Our greatest responsibility as a global company is to play a role in bringing about positive and systemic change for employees within our supply chain and in the industry. We search end-to-end, from the first phase of our product creation process to the impact of our decisions on the lives of the factory workers who bring our product to life. AIP assures that the proposed code and monitoring principles will not have a negative impact on U.S. consumers. They note that the code`s impulse was not typical of a cartel or other restrictive agreements, that is, the desire of rivals to increase profits by restricting competition, but rather on “public policy concerns strongly expressed by the president and repeated by human rights, labor, consumers, and religious communities.” The Code and Principles of Oversight were developed at meetings attended by government officials, where they were well aware that they would be submitted to the government for antitrust review prior to implementation. They highlighted the voluntary nature of a company`s decision to comply with the Code. In addition, you argue that restrictions on employee harassment and abuse, discrimination, forced labour, child labour, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, and interference with workers` freedom of association and collective bargaining are unlikely to increase costs and increase productivity.
While acknowledging that compliance with the minimum wage and the code`s maximum hourly provisions could increase manufacturing costs, you state that “it is extremely unlikely that widespread application of the Code in the workplace will have a significant impact on the prices or production of clothing and footwear sold in the United States.” In support of this assertion, you note that “labor typically accounts for less than 3% of the U.S. retail price for clothing made in domestic sweatshops and only 0.5% for clothing sewn abroad.” In these circumstances, you suggest that there is no reason to assume a link between higher wages and higher costs. It is recognized that these negotiations will be particularly controversial with regard to factories in China. The labour and human rights groups involved in the partnership initially called on companies to withdraw from China because the Chinese government`s restrictions on freedom of association and collective bargaining are so extreme. Clothing manufacturers refused, and eventually both sides agreed that companies should take steps – which have not yet been worked out – to promote freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in their Chinese factories. According to Jay Mazur, a member of the working group and president of the Needle trades, industry and textile union: “China has a particular type of problem. China must be dealt with as soon as this case is launched. Based on the information and assurances you provide, the Department of Justice does not currently intend to initiate antitrust enforcement action against the implementation of the Workplace Code of Conduct and the IAFF Monitoring Principles. In the circumstances you assert, it is far from clear that compliance with the Code will have a negative impact on the prices paid by consumers of clothing or footwear in the United States. In addition, to the extent that a company`s ability to promote compliance with the Code provides useful information on purchases to a significant number of consumers, it is possible that the development of the Code and the principles of oversight could have a net pro-competitive effect. After the White House meeting, representatives from industry, labor, consumers, human rights, and religious organizations formed an informal group called The Apparel Industry Partnership.
Before developing workplace standards to reduce sweatshop conditions, AIP requested a statement of review of activities from the Ministry of Justice regarding its proposed efforts to develop such standards and ways to determine whether a company has actually conducted its manufacturing operations in accordance with these standards. On 31 October 1996, the Ministry of Justice announced that it would not call into question the AIP`s efforts to develop a workplace code of conduct and compliance procedures, provided that the participants in the AIP took various measures to avoid the exchange of competitive information between competitors. At the time, it was assumed that the AIP would request a statement of the department`s antitrust intentions before implementing a code of conduct for the workplace and the monitoring principles developed by the groups. The current Business Review Request fulfills the AIP promise. One of aipa`s main goals is to focus on fair wages and benefits. Participating manufacturers also promise to pay their employees either the country`s legal minimum wage or the industry`s current rate for that employee`s position, whichever is higher. Workers must also receive overtime pay equal to their normal hourly wage or the overtime premium rate set in that country, whichever is higher. In countries where employers are required by law to offer additional benefits such as health insurance and paid leave, employees must receive these benefits. In 1996, President Bill Clinton led a discussion between apparel industry leaders, union leaders, human rights groups, and consumer advocates on issues related to working conditions in the global apparel industry. The results of these discussions led to the establishment of the Apparel Industry Partnership Agreement (AIPA). The agreement stipulates that members of the partnership adhere to a code of conduct that promotes fair labour practices and corporate responsibility. Nikewatch Overseas Community Aid CampaignGPO BOX 1000Sydney 1043AUSTRALIATel: 61 2 9264 1392Fax: 61 2 9264 1476 The supply chain of Turkey`s clothing and textile suppliers is vast and complex.
Higher levels are often difficult to follow, making it difficult to engage workers and support workers` rights beyond Tier 1 (downstream) suppliers. The Clinton Code is, at best, a stepping stone to a code that provides real protection for workers. Such a code would include the protection of workers` right to independent organisation and collective bargaining, as well as a guarantee of wage rates that would enable them to earn sufficiently during a normal working week to meet at least their basic needs. This would include oversight by an independent body trusted by all parties and adequate representation of workers. The usefulness of the Code as a springboard for more effective protection becomes evident when members of the Apparel Industry Partnership decide how to monitor the Code and clarify how the right to organize is interpreted and applied in a country like China. A growing number of increasingly well-organized and cooperative human rights groups and workers around the world will continue to put pressure on the police officers involved, hoping that the code will be much more than a PR stunt for Nike, Reebok and Clinton. .
Recent Comments