H -°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°I can't help but admire the Student Labor Action Coalition's efforts to support and publicize the plight of former Adidas workers in Hermosa, El Salvador. Sure, they are undeniably annoying, but I have never seen such effectiveness or dedication in raising awareness about an issue on this campus. Their experience serves as an excellent manual for student activism (as well as for driving poor Chancellor Wiley insane).
However, I am not so sure that their hoped-for ends justify their rebellious means. Tragically, boycotting Adidas will endanger the employment of hosts of workers with whom SLAC never consulted. Just as the hammer of their logo emulates the old Soviet insignia, their political imposition on third-world workers in the name of "solidarity" echoes the USSR's quasi-imperialistic system under the smokescreen of "worldwide proletarian revolution."
Don't get me wrong, supporting workers' rights and unionization worldwide has never been more important. The increasing liberalization of global capital — via the World Trade Organization, bilateral trade agreements and the like — combined with a huge worldwide labor surplus accompanying the historically recent entry of China, India and other formerly socialist and autarkic economies into world markets has made workers everywhere increasingly vulnerable.
As restrictions on foreign investment break down, global financiers can rapidly redirect their funding to the area or firm with the lowest cost of production. Many fear a resultant race-to-the-bottom in labor standards in order to cut expenditures and attract investment.
So, SLAC's heart, and in some ways its mind, are in the right place. However, I argue that their recommended remedy, a boycott, does not take proper account of the perspectives of those most affected by it and is also an inferior method by which to meet their goals.
"But wait", you say, "get your facts straight: SLAC has been engaging in a dialogue with the workers fired from the El Salvadoran Adidas plant and they are all for the boycott." True, and that is commendable, but those workers, unfortunately, have already lost their jobs.
The wide range of Adidas goods that UW orders come from plants all over the world, not only El Salvador. It is the workers still employed by Adidas who will bear the brunt of a contract cancellation, and to threaten their livelihoods without providing them an instrument for input is unacceptable in my mind.
"So, what would you do then?" There are a number of measures, both at micro and macro levels that can be effective. For one, I applauded the idea of sending inspectors to Latin American plants. Applying pressure to corporations to adhere to their codes of conduct is the only way to give these measures teeth. Inspectors can enact reforms within plants without the upheaval in employment connected to boycotts.
The best solutions, though, take place at the governmental level. A 1999 trade agreement between the United States and Cambodia has been a particular success. The two governments agreed that Cambodia's textile industry would receive increased access to the U.S. market on a yearly basis if, according to inspections by the International Labour Organization, it showed marked, systemic improvements in labor standards at its factories.
Since the program's inception, Cambodia's trade and export-sector employment have both grown and it currently enjoys the status of an "ethical niche" producer for global corporations.
Better yet, Cambodia has decided to continue the inspections on its own even though it now has full access to the US market. The program was ideal because it was freely negotiated between both affected parties and — via trade benefits — created, rather than eliminated, Cambodian jobs.
Unfortunately and inexplicably, the Bush administration has refrained from duplicating this immensely successful program elsewhere. And while I understand that SLAC may feel powerless to influence action at the federal level and prefer to focus action on measures with tangible effect, I don't doubt that a push by them for social clauses in U.S. free trade agreements would be influential, especially if done in conjunction with other campuses.
I hope that SLAC continues to push for retribution for the despicably treated workers in El Salvador. I think that the rapport the organization has established with workers many thousands of miles away is truly remarkable. It is a testament to what can be accomplished when a student group avails itself of the channels of communication and knowledge of the modern age. This group, as much as any on campus, combines theory with in-your-face practice.
But, just as the socialism it appeals to, SLAC's actions and application in the real world may diverge from or even contradict its ideals. I understand that a cancellation of UW's contract would be a blow to Adidas and have considerable, unquantifiable symbolic value. But it would also be a blow to Adidas workers living in the global South, and I'm not sure that I can stand for even one worker losing his or her employment without a mechanism in place for that individual's input.
We've got to find a way to make globalization benefit workers, not just capitalists, and in doing so we need to consider of the ramifications of our endeavors.
Action is important, and it is the strength of SLAC, but it must be accompanied by a thorough evaluation of empirical outcomes and moral imperatives. On the issue of the cancellation of UW's contract with Adidas, I find that John Lennon and I are in agreement: "When you're talkin' ‘bout destruction [of jobs without sufficient worker input] you can count me out."
John Sprangers ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in political science and international studies.
IP hash: 94925203
“Their experience serves as an excellent manual for student activism” — they’ve alienated the vast majority of UW students, who happen to be moderate-liberal, with their positions. It’s not that most students are “pro sweatshop” but SLAC has form alliances with so many groups, they’re no apple of the UW student eye.
IP hash: 15e6f73c
Yeah, shame on SLAC for their coalition building. I mean, who do they think they are, some sort of labor action coalition? - Germain Q. Stemme
IP hash: cc0e18b5
Yup, there it is… I’m surprised SLAC has made it this long without being called communist. Ooh we have a hammer, just like the communist logo (and many other unions and student labor groups). No mention about the book, or hand— Marx wrote books… with his hand!!! Personally, I’ve been in SLAC for four years and my politics are closer to those of Ron Paul than Stalin or Lenin.
Our end goal has never been a “boycott” of adidas. We are using the threat of cutting their contract as a means to force compliance with the UW Code of Conduct, a legal document which adidas and many other licensees routinely make a mockery of. Without demonstrating the consequences of lying to administrators and the public and refusing to play by the rules, we will continue to see the same egregious labor practices that happened in Hermosa.
What are the practices that have been seen in UW licensee factories? Serving rotten food to workers, death threats, uterine cancer-causing machines, pollution, locked doors that prevent workers from escaping during fires, embezzling and stealing from workers, forced overtime without pay, denial of bathroom breaks, firing female workers for getting pregnant… need I go on? But perhaps wanting those things to end is the yardstick for “communism” these days.
IP hash: 422703d9
I appreciate the depth of thought in this editorial and I, like the author, respect the efforts of SLAC; however as I understand it they are not calling for an adidas boycott at all. They are calling for the university to use it’s leverage to demand adidas uphold certain human rights standards - material components of their business contract. Even if the university began the contract termination process, adidas would have ample time to comply without affecting the business relationship and such a real threat would hopefully be the motivation they need to do so. It is also important to note that even should UW actually have to follow through with the full termination of its business relationships with adidas, this does not necessarily mean job loss for workers currently producing for adidas because adidas does not own its own factories and in many cases produces at the same facilities as multiple other brands; fluctuations in orders to a given factory, as well as fluctuations in workforce occur frequently anyway (this is one of the things we need to change) and adidas produces a lot more than UW goods each of the given factories to which it sources.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author that boycotts can have serious repercussions and should only be undertaken at the request of workers and with the support of other workers who would potentially be affected but a boycott is very different from what it seems SLAC is demanding.
I think the author’s reference to the Cambodian Bilateral Agreement makes an interesting point and these bilateral models tied to labor and other standards are definitely something we need to work with but I would caution that this project was not as successful as it might appear. To call Cambodia an “ethical niche” is a misrepresentation of the lived reality of the majority of garment workers there. While there have definitely been some positive advances, labor conditions in Cambodia are still extremely poor. In terms of the industry, it is true that the Cambodian garment industry has grown a lot and is faring better than expected post MFA but currently much of this is arguably due to the China safeguards. It is yet to be seen if the garment industry will stay after these safeguards are lifted in 2008. So, it seems the Cambodia model has potential in theory but there would have to be better benchmarks to ensure that real change occurs on the grassroots level.
IP hash: c58fcffc
cutting a contract essentially equals a boycott, does it not? a boycott by the university, that is. and that is exactly what SLAC has been calling for.
IP hash: c58fcffc
I don’t know if its a faux pas or not to comment on one’s own column, but I thought it would be more interesting if I could answer to critics.
1:01: I acknowledge this by calling them “annoying” in paragraph one, but you can’t deny that the University has taken both notice and action because of their efforts.
4:09: I commend their “coalition building” in the paragraph fourth from bottom.
9:25: While I certainly connect the two because of the blatant symbolic allusion, I do not actually say SLAC=Communism, I only feel that some of their methods, as well as the tendency for ideology to prevail over practical considerations, is similar.
And as for both you and the following contributor, I’d refer you to yesterday’s Herald. The emphasis is mine.
“Protesting students delivered a collage with pictures of 70 students opposed to the Adidas contract posing near a 6-foot photo of Chancellor Wiley, along with a written statement requesting the IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION of the contract.”
Hardly sounds like a nuanced, gradual approach. And say what you will about the boycott terminology, but that’s precisely what an immediate contract cancellation would be-a boycott in the aggregate.
11:17: You are right, the companies Adidas contracts with undoubtedly are highly diversified-that is the norm for the textile/apparel industry. Yet my reasoning is no different than SLACs, at least in this regard: A cancellation would have a considerable effect, otherwise it wouldn’t be asked for.
As for Cambodia-you are right, it is no labor standard silver bullet, but I stick by my story as its being a current “best practice.” Also, when I say ethical niche I am writing of its reputation vis-a-vis corporations, not necessarily the reality on the ground. But the empirical evidence is virtually unanimous-the UCTA made significant improvement in adherence to labor standards in that country.
IP hash: 323e62c7
John, I still don’t see why the “communist” bit was central to your argument. Aside from the hammer, SLAC takes the same approach as many other groups across the ideological spectrum.
By the way, the approach I think is fairly nuanced and gradual, considering the embezzlement began 9 years ago, and the Labor Licensing Policy Committee has been talking about Hermosa for several years. adidas has been involved in talks for some time now, and has only shown a desire to use smokescreens instead of doing what the University has asked. Had the factory closed, then the next day SLAC called for the termination of the contract, then you would be correct. But given the long timeline, the clear evidence of material breach of contract, and the refusal of adidas to rectify the situation, it is in fact rather gradual.
To clarify other misconceptions, this is NOT a boycott. Boycotts involve mobilization of consumers to intentionally not buy products. This hurts workers, since they depend on consumption for their jobs. Cutting the contract targets solely the corporate structure of adidas. Their sales may dip as a result, but hardly. The contract is more about prestige and name association, and for their contract to be cut would be devastating to the PR image of the brand.
IP hash: 8bc8aa6b
Josh, off your RE to 1:01 — not really. They’ve lost a number of battles. Their lackey Woods lost. Kumar has dropped in popularity/significance on campus. Adidas is still our contract and Wiley essentially toys with them. SLAC is constated alienating support here, while at a school like Michigan the group is much more popular. All in all, bad work SLAC.