Trade agreements must be conditioned to include a substantive standard for worker rights. There is widespread agreement as to what international labor rights should constitute a labor clause, which largely includes ILO Conventions ratified by or satisfied by the domestic laws of most countries in the world. This approach requires the direct cooperation of governments and is dependent upon the departure of a “free trade mind-set” to an ideology that prioritizes issues of concern to working people. The latter will be a huge challenge, especially when a main benefit of free trade is cheap foreign labor to massage the bottom line. A disclosure clause that requires corporations to disclose all the players in their supply chain before trade commences will help labor activists and unions actually identify the many production facilities that they did not know even existed, given the complex web of suppliers (caused by decentralized global chains of production extending into the informal sector) corporations are relying on and hiding from the public because of atrocious labor standards. The latter would be a great step towards identifying key links in the supply chain and help unions exploit the weakest links to gain momentum in the campaign.
Implementing a global worker education initiative in all developing countries that produce for Western markets should be conducted in parallel to the formation of a corporate code of conduct. By possessing complete knowledge of their legal rights and entitlements, workers can be in a position to advocate for themselves. If not, they will be overly dependent on outside monitors to initiate improvements in the workplace, which may or may not happen. Also, unless a vigorous enforcement of corporate codes of conduct is implemented, a process I will define in the following section, the workers risk being victims of biased monitors who are often employees of the corporation turning a blind eye to miserable working conditions.
A third initiative I advocate is the development of corporate codes of conduct, a set of labor standards to which producers are expected to adhere, and mechanisms for monitoring its use. There are two problems that stem from this idea that I believe under my strategy will not interfere with this initiative. The first is the idea that corporate codes of conduct impose a private regulatory system on companies operating in the global economy, enforced by consumer choice. With several monitoring agencies, companies will be held publicly accountable for their labor conditions and will be compared to their marketplace competitors, forcing them to improve conditions to protect their bottom line. Also, while the corporate codes of conduct are one method of holding corporations accountable for basic labor standards and forcing more transparency, the workers voices will not be ignored and the fight to organize them will continue, because in my opinion, unions are the organizations that will truly empower them and give them a voice in the global workplace. The second is that corporate codes of conduct are vague and unspecific on purpose, thus they are impossible to enforce and quantify compliance. Also, without effective implementation and monitoring, codes of conduct are virtually meaningless (Nike accountable to its own paid auditors who were encouraged to skew results and exploit one or two “improvements”). Many labor activists have little confidence in these codes of conduct, largely because enforcement is voluntary and generally internally monitored. Information on cases of violations is kept within the company. Thus, corporate codes must be accompanied by vigorous consumer campaigns and truly independent monitoring.
Our union’s campaign will first assess the legitimacy of corporate codes of conduct within the context of increasing income inequality, exorbitant salaries and benefits for senior management, declining real wages, of the commodification of human labor. It will then force the firms abroad to participate in two-tiered social monitoring program. The first tier is in which a regular auditor (from an NGO or auditing agency) grades the firm on its compliance with its codes of conduct and the level of previous improvements it was suppose to make. The second tier that the firm’s compliance with is code of conduct is held accountable to is a major organization that could be either the ILO, an alliance of NGOs or the international confederations of trade unions. In my opinion, the World Bank would not qualify because of its diluted stance on human rights due to its control by the world’s largest corporations. These organizations would make sure that the auditors themselves are not biased and are held up to the highest level of integrity. The chosen organization would randomly inspect the factories to make sure the auditors findings are correct and will report the findings to the public. This public accountability will in turn become a catalyst for creating a universal list of sanctions for violators of codes of conduct while at the same time pressuring the auditors improve their auditing methods and make their standards more demanding.
The fourth initiative I propose is advocating that corporations be forced to monetize labor practices. Money is the classic metric of value. It may be difficult to monetize such things as occupational safety risks (companies that have been in business for a long period of time like Pou Chen, one of the biggest suppliers to Western apparel and footwear industries should be made to monetize their historical accident rate) or sometimes even healthcare, but the most important part of an employer's treatment of labor is already monetized -the employee's wage. By simply disclosing the average hourly labor costs of products gives consumers a highly probative summary statistic of how well labor is treated. If the consumer maintains that the information is reliable, and it is simple, so they can easily interpret it, this labor cost information will allow them to make an informed judgment about whether they are willing to pay more for a fairer wage. Thus, companies such as GAP, Nike, and Timberland, that disproportionately manufacture in developing countries should be encouraged to disclose point-of-purchase information about the average hourly labor costs of manufacturing particular goods. A consumer who is all set to purchase a shiny new pair of Reeboks may be willing to buy another brand upon learning that the employees had only been paid 40 cents per hour with no health care. Consumers can decide whether cheaper cost is worth the exploitation of human life and will naturally begin to compare his/her wages (although not relative to the consumers standard of living) to that of the laborer. I believe the impact will be great.
This is a challenge for the consumer who falls under social pressure to purchase brand name apparel and cannot be swayed by such statistics. Often times persons who succumb to this pressure are victims of inadequate resources themselves, relative to others in their country (Air Jordan’s by Nike are disproportionately marketed and sold to inner city youth – in my opinion, another socially irresponsible “crime” by Nike).
By allowing the consumer to have convenient access to reliable information, he/she becomes an important agent in the was against unfair labor practices by allowing for a shift of the some of the burden of campaigns off over-worked and under staffed unions and labor activists as well as becoming living, vocal symbols (and indicators) of how the companies bottom line can be affected by disgruntled customers, forcing companies to adhere more strictly to their code of conduct and allowing for more transparency of its supply chain and labor practices - leading the general public, unions, and activist community to have the information they need to accurately and confidently identify initiatives to improve labor standards.
