University's sweatshop labor policy 'FLA'wed

Last week, Penn students held a sit-in in their president's office to urge their administration to sign onto the Workers' Rights Consortium, a non-profit organization that would verify that apparel bearing the Penn logo is not produced under sweatshop conditions. Penn, like Princeton, is currently a member of a different monitoring organization, the Fair Labor Association, dubbed "Flaw" by anti-sweatshop activists because of its potential to legitimize abusive labor practices.

The initial goal of the FLA was to foster collaboration among manufacturers, unions and human rights groups, but most of the involved non-government organizations withdrew when they realized that the FLA was fundamentally flawed.

Tomorrow, the U-Council will discuss Princeton's involvement with the FLA. Ideally this forum would foster an open debate of the issue. But unfortunately, the forum's speakers will present a biased view in favor of the FLA. This will undermine Vice President for Public Affairs Robert Durkee '69's commitment to explore supplements to the FLA, which he made when Students for Progressive Education and Action (SPEAC) presented him with over 800 student petitions declaring the FLA to be insufficient. The forum will include presentations by Durkee — one of the FLA's strongest supporters — and Michael Posner, executive director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, one of the few NGOs that did not pull out of the FLA.

The FLA is fundamentally flawed in several ways. It certifies companies after initially inspecting 30 percent of their factories. After that, the FLA will inspect only five percent of company factories before re-certifying them. Companies will be able to predict monitors' visits and 'clean-up' factories to conceal poor working conditions ahead of time. Termination of a company's certification involves a lengthy period of review and is dependent on the acquiescence of industry representatives to the FLA. Furthermore, the FLA can censor any information collected by monitors before releasing it to the public and will not notify the public when a company is initially found to be in violation of the FLA standards. Under this system, the University will likely continue to lend its name to companies that profit from labor abuses.

For these reasons, SPEAC urges the student body to demand again that the University sign on to the WRC, a truly independent monitoring organization that inspects factories with a system of specifically targeted investigations. The WRC will increase transparency in the monitoring process by collaborating closely with workers and indigenous worker organizations and by publicly disclosing investigation reports. The WRC's system for verifying worker complaints operates independently of industry representatives. The WRC also performs proactive investigations in regions where workers are severely restricted from exercising their rights. This approach provides a powerful incentive for licensees to make systematic changes in how they produce their apparel.

Most importantly, signing on to the WRC does not preclude the University from working with the FLA — Princeton can participate in both organizations. Also, by joining the WRC now, Princeton will be able to participate in the organization's founding conference in April.

In response to student pressure over the past year, the administration has taken positive actions toward ensuring that University clothing is not made under sweatshop conditions. We ask that it continue to take a leading role in this effort by joining the WRC. We urge you to come to the public forum tomorrow at 4:30 p.m. in Bowl 6 in Robertson Hall and ask the administration to participate in the creation of a truly effective and realistic enforcement system. Laura Kaplan is from Ridgefield, Conn. She is the outreach coordinator for Students for Progressive Education and Action. She can be reached at lmkaplan@princeton.edu.