Thursday, 6/5/97 Board of Directors consider ‘no sweatshop’
policy UCLA Store hopes endorsement of code of conduct will
pressure manufacturers into adopting fairer labor standards
By Frances Lee Daily Bruin Staff Walking through the UCLA Store,
the prominent displays of Nike and Guess? merchandise might prick
at the social consciences of many students. These days, any retail
outlet that sells these products is subject to accusations of
supporting sweatshop labor. Mindful of that – and trying to adhere
to their long-standing tradition of maintaining a social and
ethical responsibility – the students’ association (ASUCLA) is
considering adopting a "no sweatshop" policy for the student store.
Levin Sy, an undergraduate member of the ASUCLA Board of Directors,
presented a draft of the proposed policy to the Services Committee
Wednesday. A final draft will be presented to the board at their
July meeting. Sy used the Apparel Industry Partnership’s (AIP)
Workplace Code of Conduct as a model for drafting the policy. "At
this juncture, when national (retail manufacturers) are getting
together to compose a Workplace Code of Conduct," Sy said, the
students’ association should support it as well. "As a major
retailer, we as ASUCLA take it upon ourselves to make a socially
responsible decision and utilize our economic leverage with
companies (we deal with)," Sy added. The issue was brought before
the board in light of the findings of President Clinton’s task
force on poor labor practices, including sweatshop labor. In recent
months, allegations of poor working conditions propagated by such
retail giants as Nike and Guess?, have been making headlines and
causing concern for workers’ rights. Sy also pointed to companies
such as The Body Shop – which is well-known for being at the
forefront of consumer advocacy, – and the introduction of "socially
responsible" mutual funds, as further support for having such a
policy. "This (could be) a powerful statement that would hopefully
set a standard for other colleges to follow and to demonstrate our
collective economic power (to retail manufacturers)," Sy said. Hugo
Maldonado, the chair of the Services Committee, agreed. "This is a
policy whose time has come," he noted. "ASUCLA needs to be at the
forefront of any campaign that deals with corporate accountability
in the retail industry." The policy was supported by the Services
Committee, but concern was raised over how the association would go
about enforcing the policy. "I agree with the Code of Conduct
concept and we should adopt it," said Administrative Representative
Anita Cotter. "But we should also adopt a process of monitoring
it." After some discussion, it was agreed that rather than having a
separate set of standards, the association should look to the AIP
and the Department of Labor to maintain and enforce the
anti-sweatshop policy. The association’s role would be to hold the
manufacturing industry accountable to adhering to the code. Carol
Anne Smart, director of retail operations for the UCLA Store,
stated her support for the board’s proposed policy. But, she noted,
the association "does not have the manpower to police the
situation, and (we) can’t afford to get caught up in that fray.
"Fortunately," Smart added, "most of our goods are made
domestically and we have very little risk" of violating the Code.
If adopted, the board would pay close attention to the AIP’s
monitoring of labor violations. Currently, the AIP’s Code states
that "companies will voluntarily adopt and require" their
contractors to prohibit actions such as child labor, worker abuse
or harassment and discrimination. The code also requires the
contractors to pay minimum wage and place a cap on the amount of
overtime hours, and create a safe and healthy work environment.
According to the AIP’S agreement, independent external monitors
will also conduct reviews of individual company policies and
practices to verify that they are in compliance with all
regulations of the code. Sy feels that the students’ association
can take part in "forcing" companies to remain accountable to the
code as well. "As an $80 million organization, we can pressure
manufacturers to hold to that policy and Code of Conduct," he said.
Board members agreed that having a policy of this type would
reinforce the association’s mission of being socially and ethically
responsible. "We need to take advantage of the opportunity to send
the message to unethical businesses that this kind of exploitation
is not going to be tolerated," Maldonado said.