http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php Published Article on website. en-us info@nlcnet.org webmaster@nlcnet.org Nlcnet RSS Feed Generator Wednesday, December 05, 2007 This is a rush transcript from "The O'Reilly Factor," December 4, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated. BILL O'REILLY, HOST: "Impact" segment tonight, Victoria's Secret is a huge international corporation that sells women's stuff. The company markets brilliantly, even having a yearly special on CBS in prime time. But now come charges that Victoria's Secret uses sweatshop labor, and brutality is allegedly involved. The company says it will look into the matter. With us now, Charles Kernaghan, director of the National Labor Committee, which has investigated the situation. So, Victoria's Secret isn't denying what you say. And you say what? CHARLES KERNAGHAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LABOR COMMITTEE: Well, in this Factory, called D.K. Garments in Jordan, Victoria's Secret has been in the Factory for four years. The workers are working from 7 a.m. in the morning until 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. at night. So they're going 14 to 15 hours a day, seven days a week. They get one day off every three or four months. They are cheated of about 40 percent of their wages. They get three-and-a-half minutes to make a pair of underwear, for which they're paid 4.5 cents. So it's a real sweatshop that houses miserable conditions. Where right now in Jordan it's freezing. There is no heat or hot water in the dormitories. In fact, there's no water about two or three days a week. O'REILLY: So the country of Jordan — all right. — Arab country has a big assembly line set up to make the garments. KERNAGHAN: Mm-hmm. O'REILLY: Who's doing that work? Who are these people? Jordanians? KERNAGHAN: No. We have a free-trade agreement with Jordan. And under that free-trade agreement Factories have blossomed in Jordan. But they're foreign-owned. They're owned by the Chinese, by United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Dubai, you name it, South Korea. And the workers, the Jordanians won't work in the Factory. So the workers are guest workers, brought in from Bangladesh, India, China, Sri Lanka. When they came into the country, they were stripped of their passports. This was human trafficking. We released a report about a year ago. O'REILLY: Who — who stripped them of their passports? KERNAGHAN: The Factory owners. O'REILLY: Ok. So they come in from, let's say, Bangladesh. KERNAGHAN: Yes. O'REILLY: Very poor country. They come to Jordan. Who pays for that transportation? KERNAGHAN: The workers. O'REILLY: OK. The workers pay their own way to Jordan. They hear about a job. They get in there. The owner of the company, of the Factory takes their passport, forces them to work in all these conditions. They can't leave the company. So far I'm right? This is what you found out? KERNAGHAN: They have the passports returned now after we've released the campaign. O'REILLY: OK. KERNAGHAN: But otherwise conditions... O'REILLY: So it's basically slave labor? KERNAGHAN: It was slave labor. Absolutely. O'REILLY: Now are you saying that the Victoria's Secret headquarters in New York — I believe that's where they are — should know about this? Don't they just buy on consignment? Don't they just buy? KERNAGHAN: No, they are responsible to know what goes on in their Factories. And again, they've been in this factory for... O'REILLY: But they don't own the Factories. KERNAGHAN: No. No company owns the Factories. O'REILLY: These are owned by, you know, sleazy guys who just set it up, right? KERNAGHAN: Yes. And they go there because of the low wages and the lack of... O'REILLY: Well, if I'm the president of Victoria's Secret, I say I don't know anything about this. They bring their wares in. I buy it, and then I market it in the USA. KERNAGHAN: Yes. But then they tell the American people the direct opposite. They say, "You can trust us. We have a corporate code of conduct. We can guarantee you that the rights of workers, anywhere in the world, that make our garments are going to be respected." O'REILLY: When did they say that? Where do they say that? KERNAGHAN: Well, companies have had that ever since Kathie Lee Gifford when we exposed the fact that they were using child labor. O'REILLY: And she had no idea that that was going on. KERNAGHAN: No. But at that point the world knew. So things changed. O'REILLY: That embarrassed her, but she. What I'm trying to say to is, I don't know if Victoria's Secret, these people, care what happens. They just want the stuff. KERNAGHAN: Well, that's the problem. They don't care. So the thing — they'll go for the lowest price they can get. And but when you're in a country like Jordan, which is, of course, not a Democracy. O'REILLY: So you think the CEO has an obligation to go to Jordan and look at the sweatshop and say, "Look, we're not going to do business with you." KERNAGHAN: Yes. Essentially, they do that and they tell that to the American people. They said, "We're going to guarantee you that these garments are made..." O'REILLY: But I never saw them say that. KERNAGHAN: It's in their code of conduct. It's all over their Web sites. O'REILLY: Is it? KERNAGHAN: Sure, every company has this. O'REILLY: All right. Well, now Victoria's Secret certainly knows, and slave labor is unacceptable. And we appreciate you bringing it to everybody's attention. And we'll stay on the story and see if they do anything, Mr. Kernaghan. It's a huge, obviously making billions off the backs of these poor people. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=554 2008-04-22 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=525 2008-03-27 00:00:00 reports http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=527 2008-03-27 00:00:00 reports http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=528 2008-03-27 00:00:00 reports The following letter in support of the workers of Shah Makhdum was circulated and signed by members of Congress and presented during the Disney Corporate Shareholders' Meeting on March 19, 2003 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=529 2008-03-27 00:00:00 reports Shah Makhdum Garments Factory Disney sweatshop in Dhaka, Bangladesh November 2001 The full February 2002 report Link to New York Times coverage Link to Shah Makhdum Tour 2002 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=522 2008-03-25 00:00:00 reports Shah Makhdum Garments Factory Dhaka, Bangladesh Disney · Wal-Mart · Jerry Leigh February 2002 The first research report documenting working conditions at the Shah Makhdum factory was issued in November 2001. For this follow-up study, extensive, in-depth interviews were held with over two dozen Shah Makhdum workers in a safe location on Friday, February 8, 2002. Unfortunately, little has changed at the factory, especially regarding the continuing, systematic gross violation of human and worker rights. Preliminary report Link to New York Times coverage Link To Los Angeles Times coverage Link to Shah Makhdum Tour 2002 Summary / Working Conditions at Shah Makhdum as of February 2002 Mandatory 14-to-15-hour daily shifts, from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. Forced seven-day workweek. Not a single day off in the last two-and-a-half months. Two 20-hour all-night shifts a month, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. At the factory 81 to 102 hours a week. Sewers paid 12 to 19 cents an hour, as little as $5.67 a week. Helpers paid just 8 cents an hour, $3.77 a week. Force to work overtime and then cheated of legal overtime wage. Workers earn 5 cents for each Disney garment they sew. Wages come to 3/10ths of one percent of the garment’s retail price. Constant pressure to reach excessively high production goals. Workers describe treatment as “cruel” --verbal and physical abuse. Talking prohibited. Need permission to use the bathroom. Denial of legal maternity leave and benefits. Factory is crowded, hot and poorly ventilated. Drinking water is unsafe--bacteria levels exceed maximum allowable standards by 72 percent. No sick days, no pension, no religious holiday allowance. No daycare center. Total denial of freedom of association. Workers threatened and instructed to lie to auditors and U.S. buyers. Workers forced to sign two payroll sheets. Supervisors mark down 26 days worked each month, rather than the 30 or 31 days actually worked. ¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ Shah Makhdum Garments, Ltd72/B, Malibagh Chowdhury ParaDhaka-1219, Bangladesh Chairman: Bilkis Jahan Established: April 1, 1992 Workforce: 400 employees (75 percent women; 95 percent 16 to 30 years of age) Production / Labels Shirts and pants-- · Disney · Jerry Leigh of California · Wal-Mart The workers report that Disney’s “Pooh” label has been produced at the factory for at least the last seven to eight years. Further, Disney’s work has consistently accounted for 60 to 70 percent of total factory production. Disney (Jerry Leigh) and Wal-Mart have been the most regular and largest buyers from the Shah Makhdum factory. (The Jerry Leigh Entertainment Apparel Company of California has a licensing agreement with Disney to produce the “Winnie the Pooh,” “Mickey Mouse,” and “Toy Story” labels. Jerry Leigh of California, founded 40 years ago, is a major apparel company in its own right, holding licencing agreements not only with Disney, but also with Warner Bros., Harry Potter, Universal, Pokemon and Hallmark. Jerry Leigh also produces private label goods for Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney and Kmart. The Jerry Leigh company states that: “All factories used must meet a strict standard of quality and social compliance requirments.”) *************************** Disney Must Not Pull Out Disney’s “Winnie the Pooh” label has been sewn at the Shah Makhdum factory for the last seven to eight years, under a licensing agreement with Jerry Leigh Entertainment Apparel. Disney has been Shah Makhdum’s most regular buyer, often accounting for 60 to 70 percent of the factory’s total production. During this entire seven-toeight- year period, despite Disney’s and Jerry Leigh’s Codes of Conduct and monitoring programs, the workers report that not one of their rights have ever been respected at Shah Makhdum. Why would Disney need to pull out just now, after the workers bravely spoke out documenting the systematic daily violation of human and worker rights at the factory? Could this be a mere coincidence? After all these years, Disney and Jerry Leigh owe these hard-working people more than this. Disney and Jerry Leigh should not cut and run--that would be the worst thing they could do. Rather, they should stay and finally take a stand to pressure their contractor, Shah Makhdum, to respect Bangladesh’s laws. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=523 2008-03-25 00:00:00 reports From 5 June 2003To 10 September 2003 DISNEY plays the part of Uncle Scrooge in BANGLADESH "If you're not happy we're leaving". This is the threat brandished by multinationals when workers at their subcontractors in the textile and toy industry make demands. It is a threat that they sometimes carry out, with the pretext of applying their code of conduct. Disney is regularly concerned. The "public friend number 1" is known to relocate its production sites every time workers employed by Disney subcontractors demand their rights. In the most recent known case, Disney broke its contract with a factory in Bangladesh after the workers drew up a list of demands. Since then, all necessary measures have been taken to guarantee workers' rights, but the multinational refuses to return. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=521 2008-03-24 00:00:00 reports http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=517 2008-03-10 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=516 2008-02-29 00:00:00 article Major Improvements at Legumex in Guatemala Following intervention by the NLC and CEADEL in March 2007;--Child workers offered scholarships to return to school;--Minimum and overtime wages paid correctly; all overtime voluntary;--Major health & safety improvements; clinic & doctor at the plant;--Majority—soon to be all—workers inscribed in national Social Security health care. The improvements at the Legumex fruit and vegetable processing plant following March 18, 2007 signing of the agreement between company management, the U.S. buyer, the Center for Education and Support for Local Development (CEADEL) and the National Labor Committee have held strong. The most significant of these have been: All the workers are earning the minimum wage plus overtime or for production, depending on the case. The large majority of workers are now inscribed in the Guatemalan Social Security Institute (IGSS), which is responsible for health and hospital services and worker pensions. (CEADEL and Legumex management are working together to get 100% of the workers inscribed as per Guatemalan law.) The workers are now receiving their Christmas and 14th month bonuses (one month’s wages each, paid in December and July respectively). All the workers in the cutting and packing areas now have protective equipment: boots, hair nets, coats, gloves. Overtime hours have been reduced and are now paid properly. During the high season, overtime is worked until 8:00 at night at the latest. There is no more child labor at Legumex. The company now does not hire anyone under 16 years old. Those under 16 who were working at the plant when the agreement was signed were given proper severance pay and some accepted scholarships to continue their studies in courses run by CEADEL, whose program is certified by the Ministry of Education.The workers now enjoy their right to paid weekend rest days. The weekly shift runs to Saturday at 5:00 p.m. Occasionally over the last year, there has been work on Sundays, but CEADEL is monitoring to assure that the weekly day of rest is respected and that no worker is forced to work on Sunday. Health and safety conditions is one of the areas where there has been greatest progress. The bathrooms have been remodeled and are now clean and well supplied. New bathrooms have been built so there would be a sufficient number for all the workers. A worker cafeteria equipped with tables and chairs has been set up for the workers. Emergency exits are now properly marked. There is now a medical clinic and a doctor comes in once a week to attend the workers. The workers also report that the clinic is well supplied with medicines. In the last year, there have been advances that well deserve to be recognized, but there continue to be some challenges and problems. One of the most serious problems for the workers are the suspensions they face during the off season. According to the workers themselves, they are suspended for one or two months and have to wait for the company to call them back. Some have complained that the company does not call them back, nor gives any explanation. There is also the need to complete the inscription of 100% of the workers in Social Security. Overall, however, conditions at Legumex are vastly impoved and the Legumex is well on the way to becoming a model workplace. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=515 2008-02-28 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=514 2008-02-27 00:00:00 article "El Tiempo", Honduras,English Translation November 18, 2003 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=511 2008-02-25 00:00:00 article Workers Bar Way to Free Trade in Central America By Edward Alden December 4, 2003 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=512 2008-02-25 00:00:00 article I. Citizen Suits-General In 1970, when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), it included in this new environmental statute a provision allowing concerned citizens to bring lawsuits against both the EPA and air polluters for violations of the CAA. Specifically, this provision of the CAA allowed citizens to sue polluters who violated certain requirements of the Act and to sue the EPA if it failed to carry out a non-discretionary duty set forth in the Act. This was the first time individual citizen had been empowered by Congress to bring a lawsuit under a federal environmental statute for the purpose of enforcing that statute. Congress chose to grant citizens this right for two primary reasons: Congress anticipated that the federal government, due to limited resources, would need assistance in order to obtain broad enforcement of the CAA. Congress also perceived the necessity of holding the EPA accountable for undertaking the many non-discretionary statutory duties that Congress required the EPA to fulfill. Out of a desire to assure that the environment would be adequately protected, and not merely on paper, congress gave the citizens the powerful tool of the "Citizen's Suit" to ensure both that polluters were brought to justice and that EPA fulfilled its duties. A citizen suit provision has been included in almost every federal environmental statute enacted since 1970, including the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (commonly called "RCRA"), the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Noise Control Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly called "Superfund"), and, most recently, the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under each of these statutes Congress has granted citizens the power to initiate an enforcement action in federal court in order to ensure adequate protection of the environment. Citizen suits have proved to be an important tool for the enforcement of the various environmental statues. EPA and the states, despite limited resources with which to conduct their environmental compliance and enforcement programs, have taken thousands of enforcement action against environmental polluters. Nevertheless, the number of environmental violations often exceeds the federal and state enforcement resources available to prosecute violations. Citizen suits have been important in filling the gap. There are innumerable citizen suit success stories. A brief example of just one of these lawsuits paints a picture of the vital role citizens have played in protecting the environment through the use of citizen suits. In a recent citizen suit, Sierra Club v. Simkins Industries, Inc., [847 F. 2d 2209 (4th Cir. 1988)] a citizen group sued a Maryland paper mill for violating the clean Water Act. The citizen group alleged that Simkins was discharging pollutants into the Patapsco River in violation limitations established in Simkins' permit. The Court first determined that Simkins had, in fact, violated the Clean Water Act and then fined Simkins $977,000. The Court also ordered Simkins to fully comply with the Clean Water Act in the future. The citizen group was successful in remedying the specific pollution problem caused by Simkin's illegal wastewater discharges and also obtained a tough penalty which should help deter other would-be polluters from violating the law and pollution our environment. In sum, Congress established citizen suit provisions under the various environmental statutes in order to help ensure that EPA and the regulated entities actually complied with the requirements of those statutes. As a result of the efforts of those who have brought citizen suits, the state of our environment has been improved. Source: EPA: http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/enforce/citizenf.htm#ENFORCERS II. The Mechanism "Citizen Suits" or "Enforcing Suits" One method of harnessing the energy and commitment of citizens to effectuate public environmental protection goals is to authorize citizens to enforce environmental laws and regulations. In the United States, most environmental statutes contain "citizen suit" provisions enabling citizens to prosecute violators of the statutory regime. (39) Such citizen suit provisions have their roots in over two hundred years of U.S. law. Since 1790, United States citizens have been able in limited cases to sue to vindicate certain public rights -- those granted by statute to the population as a whole. (40) These citizen suits have been used to enforce federal regulations in diverse areas ranging from antitrust to consumer protection. (41) Citizen suit provisions are said to create "private attorneys general," for they confer upon the individual the right to enforce public laws against other citizens. Although the concept of a citizen suit is not new, the statutes permitting citizen enforcement of environmental laws and regulations are unique. In most other areas where citizen suits are permitted, a personal economic interest, such as an interest in correcting unfair competition or preventing fraud, must coincide with the claimed public rights. In citizen suits brought under environmental protection statutes, however, there is no such personal economic stake in the outcome. The environmental statutes truly provide citizens with the authority to represent the interests of the public. Environmental citizen suits, in their strongest form, might even be characterized as permitting citizens to sue on behalf of the environment itself. The United States is almost unique in this grant of power to the private citizen: Few other nations have extended such rights. (42) The U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA), enacted in 1970, was the first federal environmental statute of the modern era with a citizen suit provision. The CAA provision's underlying structure is the basis for citizen suit clauses in almost every other major piece of federal environmental legislation. Today, citizens can bring suit against private parties and government for violations of certain sections of statutes regulating air, water, toxic waste, endangered species, mining, noise, the outer continental shelf, and more. (43) Under many statutes, the remedies available to the citizen are equivalent to those granted to the federal agency charged with administering the statute. (44) The basic citizen suit provision permits any "person" (including an individual, organization, or corporation) to sue any other "person" (including the United States) who is violating the requirements of the given Act. Before filing suit, a citizen must notify state and federal agencies as well as the alleged violator that a lawsuit is impending. This notice provision serves an important purpose, because the threat of a citizen suit often prompts the violator to halt its violations, or at least to negotiate with the potential plaintiff. As long as the violation continues and the state or federal government is not pursuing a "diligent enforcement" action against the alleged violator in court, a lawsuit may be filed. Once the suit is filed, the government has no power to dismiss it, and may affect the outcome only by intervening in the case. If the citizen wins, the court may order the defendant to stop the violating activities. In certain circumstances, the court costs and attorney fees associated with bringing the action may be awarded to the plaintiff. Some statutes allow the plaintiff to ask the court to impose civil penalties upon the violator, payable to the U.S. Treasury. (45) Common Law or Civil Code Suits Even in the absence of mechanisms for enforcing specific environmental controls set forth in a system of statutes and regulations, citizens can still achieve environmental protection objectives in the courts. Both common law systems such as that in the United States and the civil code systems that prevail in many other countries provide latitude for judicially-developed methods of remedying environmental harms. Under these systems, environmental controls are not enshrined in statutory or regulatory standards, but are developed on a case-by-case basis by courts applying general legal principles to the facts of each lawsuit. A receptive judiciary can employ the flexibility inherent in such systems both to offer citizens redress for environmental degradation that injures them individually and to correct harms to public environmental interests. Common Law Suits Prior to the adoption of recent environmental statutes in the United States, the only way in which a private citizen could prevent environmental harm through the courts was by exercising his or her rights under common law. These rights are based on precedents set during centuries of case-by-case adjudication in Great Britain and the U.S. They allow individuals to counteract harms caused by the behavior of others by seeking compensation for those harms and/or obtaining a court order halting the offending behavior. Even with the advent of statutory citizen suit provisions, common law causes of action continue to provide an important mechanism for achieving environmental protection goals. Most common law environmental claims require some injury or threat of injury to the plaintiff's person or property. The most common "environmental" common law action is that of private nuisance. A person suffering a "substantial and unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of an interest in land" can bring a private nuisance suit. For example, a property owner could sue a neighboring factory for emitting dangerous or even annoying fumes that permeated his or her property. Another common law claim for injury to property is trespass, which requires an actual physical invasion of the property's limits. A fuel storage facility whose tanks leaked oil that flowed into a neighbor's fish pond might be liable to the pond-owner in a trespass suit. Common law actions can compensate for injury to one's person as well. For example, someone who lives near a toxic waste dumping site, and who becomes sick from fumes emanating from the site, may be able to sue the owner of the site on the basis of that injury. If the plaintiff joins together in one lawsuit with other citizens living near the site who have suffered the same damage, the resulting "class action" lawsuit can have a significant effect on the polluter's behavior. The potential strength of such common law suits as a weapon in the environmental enforcement arsenal stems from the financial costs they can impose on a violator. Common law claims are the only avenues through which individuals can recover for damage to themselves or their personal property. And damages awarded in such suits in the U.S. can be substantial. For example, a potential court judgment for personal injury resulting from toxic pollution could include compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and diminished earning capacity. Damages in a common law suit involving a newborn baby who will be permanently disabled by injuries caused by the defendant's polluting activities could easily amount to millions of dollars. (46) The threat of a sizeable award of damages can substantially strengthen a citizen's power to trigger compliance -- it can deter potentially polluting activities and force industry to pay attention to citizens' claims. The common law actions described are aimed primarily at correcting violations of individual rights. By fining a defendant for such violations, or by ordering a halt to the offending activity, they can lead to broader environmental benefits as well. The common law also provides mechanisms through which citizens can vindicate public, rather than private, rights. These doctrines generally require that the plaintiff share some personal stake in the "public" goal pursued in the suit; moreover, they do not allow the plaintiff to recover money damages from the defendant unless the plaintiff has suffered injury to his or her person or property. Nonetheless, the doctrines of public nuisance, public trust, and certain broad statutory mandates reveal some of the possibilities inherent in the flexibility of judge-made law. Public nuisance involves interference with public rights such as the right to health, safety, or comfort. Traditionally, only the government could sue to protect these rights. Recent developments, however, allow suits by individuals who suffer "special injury" different in kind from that suffered by the rest of the public. (47) A second common law action that recognizes communal rights is known as the "public trust" doctrine. This doctrine posits that the government must hold public lands and natural resources in trust for the use and enjoyment of the citizens. If the government fails to consider this trust in its management and maintenance of resources like navigable waters, fisheries, or parklands, individual citizens may sue those in control of the lands. (48) While the doctrine is, at first glance, not applicable to privately-owned land, some state and federal courts have hinted that a regulatory or contractual link between the landowner and the government may be enough to bring the doctrine into play and to render the landowner liable for environmental harms. (49) Finally, some U.S. states have explicitly recognized public rights to environmental quality in their statutes and constitutions. Most constitutional provisions have been ineffective, because they do not permit citizens to sue for the violation of their constitutional environmental rights. Michigan's unique Environmental Protection Act, adopted in 1970, has been more successful. The Act permits any person to sue any other person "for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources and the public trust therein from pollution, impairment or destruction." (50) It grants courts broad powers of review of both individual and agency actions, and permits orders altering or halting the harmful activities unless there is no "feasible and prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the public health, safety, and welfare." Michigan courts have interpreted the Act as conferring upon them the responsibility of creating "the equivalent of an environmental common law." (51) Civil Law Suits Civil code countries also offer judicially developed remedies for environmental harms. In civil code countries, standards governing environmental quality are codified, and judicial precedent is not as important as it is in common law systems. At the same time, however, code provisions relevant to environmental quality are usually general in nature, and thus are open to interpretation by judges applying the provisions in particular cases. Most civil code standards that can protect environmental quality are similar to those available under common law, especially those actions preventing or recovering for harm to property or person. (52) Many civil codes also contain provisions that appear to go further than the common law in granting individuals the right to enforce public environmental interests. For example, Hungary's code allows individuals to sue others for violating an obligation not to behave so as to disturb others needlessly, "especially neighbors." The "neighborhood" encompassed by this provision is not restricted to property immediately adjoining the site of the polluting activity, but includes anyone affected by the pollution. (53) In Colombia, the civil code provides for "popular actions," which permit citizens to sue for damages to communal environmental rights. (54) And in Argentina, courts have made use of a constitutional guarantee called amparo, which can be loosely translated as "protection," to defend individual or collective environmental rights derived from statutes, international treaties, or the constitution itself. (55) Source: The Role of the Citizen In Environmental Enforcement [see separate attachment] III. Supreme Court Case In Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Enviromental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), the Supreme Court upheld that in order to bring a citizen suit under the Clear Water Act, i.e., “to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements, a plaintiff must show ‘injury in fact,’ causation, and redressability”, which was satisfied by plaintiff FOE members’ reasonable concerns about the effects of defendant Laidlaw’s pollutant discharges. Laidlaw (defendant) argues that FOE lacked standing to seek civil penalties payable to the Government, because such penalties offer no redress to citizen plaintiffs. For a plaintiff who is injured or threatened with injury due to illegal conduct ongoing at the time of suit, a sanction that effectively abates that conduct and prevents its recurrence provides a form of redress. Civil penalties can fit that description. Insofar as they encourage defendants to discontinue current violations and deter future ones, they afford redress to citizen plaintiffs injured or threatened with injury as a result of ongoing unlawful conduct. The Court need not explore the outer limits of the principle that civil penalties provide sufficient deterrence to support redressability, because the civil penalties sought here carried a deterrent effect that made it likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the penalties would redress FOE’s injuries—as the District Court reasonably found when it assessed a penalty of $405,800. Source: Friends of Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Enviromental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) [see separate attachment] IV. OTHER: International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) This report may be of some value for reference. However, the scope of the Covenant does not (explicitly) cover non-national workers or territories outside the corporation’s home State’ jurisdiction. The Committee’s views in this area are only explored to the extent that they shed light on protection against corporate abuse of individuals’ rights where those individuals are outside a State Party’s national territory through still within its effective control. Given the SRSG’s mandate looks specifically at the acts of transnational businesses, an important question is whether a State Party has any duties under the Covenant to regulate or at least influence corporate actors abroad, whose activities affect individuals who are both outside the State’s national territory and effective control. In other words, has the Committee interpreted the Covenant as requiring States Parties to regulate the overseas actions of corporations incorporated in them, otherwise linked to them or even those without any real connection where particular abuses have been committed? Such regulation is generally labeled “prescriptive extraterritorial jurisdiction”—i.e. the regulation of persons or activities outside a State’s territory, usually through legislation. A related question is whether the Committee has encouraged or indicated that such regulation is at least permissible under the Covenant. As noted in the SRSG’s March 2007 report to the Human Rights Council, prescriptive extraterritorial jurisdiction is generally permissible under international law provided there is a recognized basis of jurisdiction: where the perpetrator or victim is a national; where the acts have substantial adverse effects on the State; or where specific international crimes are involved. An overall reasonableness test must also be met, which includes non-intervention in other States’ internal affairs. General Comment 14 provides similar, though less detailed, remarks about preventing abuse abroad, once again within a section titled “International Obligations” which first discusses the important of international cooperation. It says that “to comply with their international obligations in relation to article 12, States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right to health in other countries, and to prevent third parties from violating the right in other countries, if they are able to influence these third parties by way of legal or political means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and applicable international law.” At the very least, the Committee’s comments indicates that it considers that the Covenant permits regulation or other acts to influence corporate acts abroad, though the Committee suggests that any action to influence third parties’ acts abroad should accord with the UN Charter and other relevant principles of international law. While the Covenant does not mention a general duty to protect, the Committee has expressed the view that the Covenant imposes three types of obligations on States: the duties to respect, protect and fulfill. Business enterprises—similarly not mentioned in the Covenant—have been referred to by CESCR mostly in relation to the duty to protect. There is no doubt that the Committee considers States Parties to have obligations to regulate and adjudicate private corporate acts in order to protect rights under the Covenant. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how far States should go in protecting and punishing abuse before they are considered to have fulfilled the duty—namely, are they required to act with “due diligence” and what does this concept mean in relation to violations other than those concerning domestic violence? If CESCR considers that the concept has wider application, more elaboration should be helpful on the extent of due diligence required for a State Party to fulfill its duty, bearing in mind States Parties’ discretion in terms of implementation. The Committee has also said that States Parties could violate the duty to respect if they fail to consider human rights in their agreements with “multinational entities.” It would be helpful if the Committee could elaborate on this discussion, including whether the term “multinational entities” includes corporations and assuming this is the case, the types of steps a State Party could or should take in order to discover human rights impacts of agreements as well as desired or required actions if it learns of such impacts. According to the Committee, States must take legislative or other administrative measures to regulate acts by business enterprises. It also considers that States must ensure that regulations are enforced by adjudicating acts by private actors, notably through the provision of effective remedies, in particular judicial remedies. CESCR calls for States to monitor the application of regulatory measures in order to protect rights and prevent any infringement upon them. The Committee also increasingly recommends promotional measures, such as human rights awareness raising and incentives to prevent violations. Thus, while it is clear that the Committee supports measures to regulate and adjudicate private corporate acts, some issues, such as the sanctioning of legal persons (as opposed to individuals) or compensation could benefit from further elaboration. Future discussion could consider what the remedial options of victims should be, and what liabilities State Parties should impose on business enterprises, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation left to States with respect to implementation. According to CESCR (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), States should establish effective monitoring mechanisms in order to ensure the enforcement of any regulation and prevent third party interference with rights. The Committee [what committee?] further requires States to adjudicate abuse by third parties. While the Covenant does not expressly require States to provide an effective remedy for violations in the same way as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Committee has stressed that providing an effective remedy is part of the State’s duty to take steps to progressively achieve the full realization of Covenant rights. CESCR particularly encourages judicial remedies. The Committee considers that provision of an effective remedy includes a right to reparation, which the Committee defines as including compensation, restitution, satisfaction or guarantees of non-repetition. CESCR stresses that national laws should be based on accountability and transparency, and should ensure equal access to protection measures. The Committee has also suggested that civil society and the private sector (among others) should be involved in the adoption of legislation which establishes national mechanisms to monitor implementation of rights. CESCR has stressed in four General Comments, including the two most recent ones, that while States are “ultimately accountable” for compliance with the Covenant, other actors, including private enterprises, also have responsibilities regarding the realization and/or respect of rights even though they are “not bound by the Covenant.” It is important to note that the Committee alternates between speaking of corporate responsibilities regarding the “realization” of rights and the “respect” of rights. The Committee has gone further in three general comments (discussing the right to work, the right to health and the right to food” and has used the term “realize rights” in the context of business responsibilities. For example, in General Comment 14, the Committee says that the “private business sector” has “responsibilities regarding the realization of the right to health.” The Committee has also mentioned the roles corporations may play in relation to rights—roles which seem to go beyond respecting rights. For instance in relation to the right to work, CESCR recognized that private enterprises “have a particular role to play in job creation, hiring policies and non-discriminatory access to work.” Art. 10(3) provides that children and young persons “should be protected from economic and social exploitation” and that “their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law.” In addition, States should “set age limits below which the paid employment of child labor should be prohibited and punishable by law.” This provision has been interpreted by the Committee as requiring regulation of employers. General Comment 18 in particular says that children should be protected from harmful work and economic exploitation. Further, in Concluding Observations, the Committee regularly expresses concern at the minimum age set for child labor and at working conditions for child workers. The most common recommendation is a change to regulate employers in some way to enforce the new minimum age. Issues covered in General Comments and Concluding Observations include wage discrimination; women’s participation in the labor market, especially decision-making positions; parental leave practices; racial discrimination and discrimination against other minorities, including migrant worker, older persons and persons with disabilities; and sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The Committee commonly addresses the regulation and adjudication of employers in relation to various aspects of working conditions, including the payment of wages in line with minimum wage requirements and guaranteeing safe working conditions, especially in relation to the informal sector, children and migrant workers. In particular, the Committee advises the establishment and enforcement of minimum wage regulation, and for action to be taken against employers who fail to pay workers on time. In its Concluding Observations on China, CESCR urged the State to continue to take necessary measures to ensure that the wage standard is effectively enforced, especially in rural areas, which is “aggravated by the persistent problem of wage arrears, especially in the construction sector.” The Committee further encouraged the State party to “establish a wage enforcement mechanism that periodically adjusts minimum wages to the cost of living, facilitate the redress of wage claims, and take sanctions against employers who owe wages and overtime pay and impose fines and penalties on their workers.” In the Concluding Observations for Guatemala, the Committee recommended that the State Party “ensure that the minimum wage is increased regularly in proportion to the cost of living so as to guarantee an adequate standard of living for workers and their families and to ensure that the rules regarding the minimum wage are respected in practice.” In relation to safe and healthy working conditions, the Committee clearly supports strict regulation and monitoring of employers, including labor inspection terms with the power to enforce legislation and mechanisms to sanction employers who fail to abide by safety regulations. As discussed throughout this report, the Committee has shown particular concern at conditions in particular sectors in some States, such as the mining sector, and at the working conditions of migrant workers. In the Concluding Observations for China, the Committee was “deeply concerned” that insufficient implementation” of existing labor legislation had led to “generally poor conditions of work, including excessive working hours, lack of sufficient rest breaks and hazardous working conditions.” It noted with concern that this problem was “especially acute for migrant workers.” The Committee was also “alarmed” by the “high incidence of serious occupational accidents in the State party, particularly in the mining sector.” Art. 8 concerns the right to form and join trade unions, and unions’ abilities to function freely. The Committee’s commentary indicates it believes that States have a duty to ensure that trade union rights are enjoyed by all workers, regardless of whether they work in the public or private sector. For example, the Concluding Observations for Canada recommended the State to take measures to ensure that workers in “precarious, part-time and temporary low wage jobs” enjoy their trade union rights. This implies that States should regulate employers to prevent interferences with these rights. Source: State Responsibilities to Regulate and Adjudicate Corporate Activities under the United Nations’ core Human Rights Treaties, United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, May 2007. http://www.reports-and-materials.org/Ruggie-report-ICESCR-May-2007.pdf http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=510 2008-02-15 00:00:00 article June 2005 Jim Bill worked for Wal-Mart for 8 ½ years before he was fired in May 2002. In 1993, Jim Bill was actually recruited by Wal-Mart while he was working for a supermarket chain in Memphis. On November 6, 1993, Jim Bill went to work for Wal-Mart as an area manager in a large distribution center in Arkansas. While working full time and raising a family of three children, Jim Bill went back to school and completed his college degree. (Jim Bill’s wife is from Costa Rica and he met her at college—where she was studying on a Walton Scholarship. Jim Bill was a leader of the Young Republicans on his campus and campaigned for Dan Quail, George Bush, Reagan, etc.) The distribution center in Arkansas was one of Wal-Mart’s most productive in the entire country, and Jim Bill’s area was always top ranked. In 1999, Jim Bill’s boss, the general manager, recommended him for an advancement and a job at Wal-Mart’s Bentonville headquarters as a regional operations trainer. He quickly advanced from a regional to a divisional warehouse trainer. His job was really that of trouble shooter. For example, a regional vice-president would call saying they needed him to go to South Carolina. The distribution center was not getting its productivity in line, was taking too many hours, missing shipment deadlines and labels going out late. If a new distribution center was built, Jim Bill would go to help get it organized. He also did seminars and three-day trainings. If he went to a distribution center in Texas, 11 other distribution centers would send their representatives for his three day training. During his career at Wal-Mart, Jim Bill led hundreds of Wal-Mart cheers. When he went to the distribution centers, they always asked the visitor to lead the cheers. Sometimes, he says, he could really get people fired up. When I asked him if Wal-Mart required long hours, Jim Bill said, “Not really. But then he explained he would generally arrive at work at 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. and leave at 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. On Saturdays, it was expected you come into the office for a half day a couple of times a month. There were weeks when he was on the road and worked on Sunday as well. In 2001, there was a meeting in Bentonville with Wal-Mart managers from China. Evidently the issue of distribution centers came up and Jim Bill was asked to stop by to be introduced to his Chinese colleagues. He offered his help should they ever need it. Not long after that, Jim Bill was called in for an interview with a Mr. Dennis Anderson, who was Vice-President for Global Procurement for People. Wal-Mart had just taken over PREL—Pacific Rim Export Limited—which had acted as Wal-Mart’s supplier. To cut costs, Wal-Mart was doing away with the “middleman” and would now do its own direct contracting. Jim Bill was informed that Wal-Mart was opening a new office in Costa Rica and that there was a job opening. He was encouraged to apply. His new job description would make him responsible for all of Wal-Mart’s factory certifications, as well as for Quality Control and the export of all goods from Wal-Mart supplier factories in Mexico, Central and South America. (At the time there were over 100 factories in the region which operated under direct contract with Wal-Mart. The majority of these factories were in Honduras and Guatemala, which had around twenty factories each directly supplying Wal-Mart.) Jim Bill accepted the job in November 21, 2001. He quickly went down to Costa Rica to familiarize himself with the operations and moved there in January 2002. Jim Bill was working hard, and felt he was moving up. He saw his new assignment as another step on his career track. After a stint in Costa Rica, he would probably be made an assistant general manager at a distribution center at $65,000 a year and then quickly move up to a general manager’s position at $100,000 a year, where he could actually receive twice as much in bonus and stock options. Jim Bill bought into the Wal-Mart culture. When the Kathie Lee Gifford story broke—and everyone at Wal-Mart was discussing it—he believed that Wal-Mart was committed to seeing this sort of thing would never happen again. Jim Bill believed that was part of Wal-Mart’s culture. He believed that the company would never accept abuse. Lowering prices is one thing, tolerating abuse is another. Yes, Wal-Mart was tight and had high expectations and demands, but Jim Bill believed Wal-Mart was fair, consistent and supported an open-door policy: If there is a problem, let’s get it out in the open; let’s talk it through; let’s document the allegations and investigate what really happened. This was the Wal-Mart culture Jim Bill carried with him to Cost Rica. Almost immediately he found out how wrong he was. There were 22 people in the Costa Rica office, and he was the only American. The general manager was a guy called Odair Violim, and Moon Chung reported directly to him. In turn, Jim Bill reported to Moon Chung. Prior to working on compliance and other issues for Wal-Mart, Moon Chung was a manager of a South Korean-owned maquila garment factory in Honduras. Jim Bill quickly went into 15 to 17 factories, participating in seven certifications. He was shocked to document the same violations repeated in factory after factory: Mandatory pregnancy tests: Management said these were blood tests to check for diseases. But the tests were never given to men. Everyone knew what this was really about. Women were tested within the first 90 days of employment, and if they tested positive, they were fired. Fire exits were padlocked: Management said they were afraid of theft. Jim Bill explained it was illegal and suggested they use plastic trailer seals, which could be broken open in times of emergency. Extreme heat: Many of the factories were old warehouses which lacked proper ventilation. Accounts of workers passing out from the extreme heat were very credible. Workers had to get permission to use the toilets, which were filthy and often lacked even toilet paper. Supervisors monitored and timed bathroom visits. Drinking water was not potable, and was unsafe to drink. Pat-downs were common, when workers were entering and leaving the plants, and even before bathroom visits. Overtime was mandatory and excessive—even including all-night, 24-hour shifts. Docking of wages: It was routine that workers taking a sick day would have their wages docked two days. Coming to work one hour late would result in two hours wages being docked as punishment. Locked in factory compound: Many times workers were locked into the factory compound and not permitted to leave, even during the lunch break. In such cases the workers had no access to the local food stands and often had to buy their lunch at the company cafeteria, where the food was frequently not only unsafe but also very expensive. Where local laws called for factory clinics staffed with a doctor and daycare facilities, the factories rarely complied. All Wal-Mart factory certification visits had to be announced at least three days in advance, and often the factories were alerted weeks in advance as travel plans had to be made and confirmed. This did not make sense to Jim Bill. With such advance notice, it was clear that the monitors would never find child labor or other extreme violations. So Wal-Mart supplier factories were monitored for one day, once a year and the visits were known in advance. This was very different from how things were done with regard to Quality Control. Quality Control monitors could go in and out of a factory without a minute’s notice to carry out spot checks, and do it almost on a daily basis. Further, it was common knowledge that Quality Control staff were not to discuss, review or document anything that had to do with compliance certification issues. Certification monitors had to follow a series of scripted questions, from which they were not permitted to deviate. Union rights issues never came up, as they were not in the script, and if it wasn’t in the script, you could not ask or pursue it. (However, Jim Bill believes that Wal-Mart’s position is to pull its work from any factory subject to a union strike, and not to return.) The certification script called for a minimum of 10 workers and never more than 30 workers to be interviewed. The interviews were done inside the factory, though the monitors could randomly select which workers they wanted to speak with. The interviews were done in a conference room, and not in the presence of management. The interviews took about 15 minutes each. Jim Bill realized that the workers were often afraid, and many explained that they had been warned beforehand not to say anything negative about the factory or they would be fired. Jim Bill also reviewed time cards and pay stubs, but admits there was no way to tell if the company was keeping two sets of books. All he could look for were the most obvious things—such as hours whited out and redone. I asked Jim Bill if he ever returned at night to see if the factories were still open and running, and he replied: “No. It wasn’t part of the deal or expected.” Wal-Mart auditors never visited workers in their homes, and there was never any discussion regarding whether or not factory wages came close to providing even the most minimal basket of necessities. However, it was clear to Jim Bill as they drove past workers neighborhoods to get to the factories that the workers were living in hovels, and that they were living well below poverty level. Jim Bill alerted Wal-Mart headquarters to the problems he was finding. For example, one monitor working out of Honduras, Robert Jones, was being pressured by Moon Chung to alter his monitoring reports. He explained this in an email to Jim Bill, which Jim Bill forwarded to Denise Fenton, who was head of factory certification for Wal-Mart in Bentonville. Jim Bill also informed Denise that he was sure that Moon Chung was involved in corruption. Surprisingly, Denise Fenton responded that she was aware of these same rumors. In April 2002, Mike Duke-—now President of Wal-Mart Stores U.S.A. and 2nd in command after CEO Lee Scott-—visited Costa Rica to plan for the coming year. Two executive vice presidents joined him. (At that time, Mike Duke was Vice President for Legal, Real Estate and Global Procurement.) Toward the end of a day-long meeting, Jim Bill was called upon to discuss the factory certification program. Duke asked Jim Bill: “What grade would you give us” on these certifications?, and Jim Bill replied, “A ‘C-’ or a ‘D+’” At which point everyone started looking at him with expressions of, as Jim Bill describes, “what are you doing. You are making us look bad.” At that point, Peter Allison, a former GAP manger, who was now head of Wal-Mart’s Global Procurement for America and Europe said to Jim Bill, “Are you sure about that?” Jim Bill responded that, yes, he saw the same violations in factory after factory, but that these violations could be quickly corrected if there was proper support. The meeting ended. That night, Duke and his entourage left for Honduras, while Jim Bill went to Guatemala. The following day, Duke and company hooked up with Jim Bill in Guatemala to do a round of factory visits. Again, Jim Bill was shocked. These were dog-and-pony shows. Duke would walk into a factory and say to the local manager, “How can we help you be better?” Duke never raised a single human rights issue. It was a scripted stroll around the factory with Duke asking such questions as “How much of your production is for us?” (This struck Jim Bill as odd, since if this were a U.S. store, Duke would have all the specs and would know more than the store manager. He would have studied all the specs ahead of time. This factory visit was quite the opposite. It lacked any seriousness.) Contrary to the myth, Duke and the others stayed in the most expensive hotels in Costa Rica (Marriott) and in the other places they visited, and they didn’t share rooms. Only when Jim Bill traveled alone did they encourage him to stay in cheaper hotels. On May 7, 2002, shortly after Duke’s visit, Jim Bill was fired, supposedly for fraternizing with another Wal-Mart employee—i.e. having an affair with a woman employee. Jim Bill denies this and so does the woman, despite the fact that she was taken to an undisclosed location and grilled by Wal-Mart staff, sometimes banging their fists on the table, with security guards posted outside the door. The gist was: she wouldn’t be allowed to leave until she said what they wanted to hear. Still, both Jim Bill and the woman denied the allegations as untrue. For months Jim Bill tried to reverse his unjust firing and explain what he thought really happened and why he was fired—for telling the truth. After weeks of trying, Jim Bill finally got an 11-minute meeting with Duke, who told him, “You didn’t stick with our culture.” Three years after James Lynn was fired for telling the truth about abusive conditions in Wal-Mart's suppliers' plants, the same abuses and monitoring cover-ups continue in plants producing goods for Wal-Mart hidden all over the developing world. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=509 2008-02-05 00:00:00 article Philippines: No More Workers to Jordan January 23, 2008 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=508 2008-01-28 09:52:02 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=507 2008-01-09 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=506 2008-01-08 00:00:00 article Who did the Worker Center Cross? Huang Qingnan Suffers Serious Injury in Attack Story by Fu Ke, from the Southern Metropolis Daily 2007/11/28 A citizen worker organization publicizes the China’s new labor contract law to much acclaim from workers, but suffers two attacks from unidentified persons smashing their office and seriously injuring the organization’s leader with a knife. Four Hong Kong NGO groups release a letter of protest that severely condemns the illegal violence and appeals to related government departments in Shenzhen to severely punish the offenders. Images of the Wounded Huang Qingnan (left) and the Smashed Worker Center Office (right) from the Apple Daily. The headline reads "Mainland Labor Organization Financially Supported by Hong Kong Groups Suffers Disturbance" http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=505 2007-12-20 00:00:00 article Another Wal-Mart BargainMade In China December 18, 2007 Some pictures speak a thousand words. The women in this photograph make goods for Wal-Mart at the Zhifeng factory in China. There is no factory cafeteria or any proper place for the women to eat, so they take their lunch sitting on the ground by the side of the highway in front of the plant. All the workers can afford to spend is 33 to 46 cents per meal, but some of the women try to get by eating just two steamed buns, which cost just 13 cents but have little nutritional value. The workers purchase their food at informal fast-food stalls that line the highway. They are cheap, but lack even the most rudimentary hygiene standards. Working seven days a week, the women are so exhausted by the grueling hours that after eating, they sleep sitting crouched along the highway, resting their heads on their knees or in their hands. It is a sad and disturbing sight. Imagine working a seven-day, 68 ½ hour week, including 28 ½ hours of overtime, while earning as little as 54 cents an hour and $36.73 for the entire week. Exhausted workers sleep on the side of the highway during their lunch hour. Such dismal conditions for the workers do not end there. For housing, all the workers can afford are primitive, tiny one-room apartments, which still cost $48.10 a month including water and electricity. This means that even half-starving themselves, the workers must spend $1.25 a day to eat, which comes to $38.13 a month. The combined cost to eat and house themselves poorly still amounts to $86.23 a month, which consumes 93 percent of their base wage of just $92.84 a month. Of course, workers cannot afford carfare, so they walk to work, with the fortunate ones riding on bikes. And these expenses do not even begin to account for other necessary purchases, such as toilet articles, medical care, clothing, shoes and phone calls to their families in the North…let alone sending money home. This is the flip side of the bargain Wal-Mart is pitching to the American people. This is the reality they do not want us to see. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=503 2007-12-17 00:00:00 reports URGENT ACTION ALERT Workers Beaten by Police December 14, 2007 (Updated December 20) http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=502 2007-12-14 00:00:00 article Links to Television Coverage: CNN, December 13, 2007. "Sweatshop Christmas Ornaments." ABC News, December 12, 2007. "Sweatshop Ornaments on your tree?" AP Video, December 12, 2007. "Christmas Caution: Ornaments from China." Links to Print Coverage: New York Times, January 5, 2008. "Reform Stalls in Chinese Factories." By David Barboza New York Times, December 12, 2007. "Report Cites Labor Infractions by Wal-Mart Supplier in China." By Jennifer Lee Reuters, December 12, 2007. "Christmas Ornaments Made in China Sweatshop-Report." By Karey Wutlowski ABC News, December 12, 2007. "Report Cites Holiday Abuse in Chinese Factory." By Tom Shine and Z. Byron Wolf Bloomberg News, December 13, 2007. "Chinese Christmas Ornaments Made in Sweatshop, Labor Group Says." Mark Drajem http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=501 2007-12-13 00:00:00 article FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 12, 2007 Contact: Barbara Briggsoffice: (212) 242-3002cell: (412) 417-9384 Wal-Mart Christmas Ornaments Made UnderIllegal Sweatshop Conditions in China Wal-Mart Christmas ornament workers toil 10 to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, going for months without a day off. Many workers earn as little as 26 cents an hour—just half of China’s legal minimum wage. Workers handle toxic chemicals without protective gear. Some children as young as 12 worked in the factory. Senator Byron Dorgan holds a simultaneous press conference in the Senate Gallery in Washington, DC. At a press conference at Rockefeller Center in New York City, in the shadow of the Christmas Tree, the country’s leading labor rights activist, National Labor Committee director Charles Kernaghan, released a 58-page report, documenting the horrific conditions under which Wal-Mart’s Christmas ornaments are made in China. The release includes unprecedented photographs and video footage of child laborers and workers in the Spray Painting department handling potentially dangerous chemicals without the most rudimentary safety gear. The National Labor Committee’s report, “A Wal-Mart Christmas Brought to You from a Sweatshop in China” provides a rare inside view of the giant Guanzhou Huanya ornaments factory in Guangdong, where every single labor law, not to mention internationally recognized worker rights standards, are being grossly violated on a daily basis. The report can be accessed on the NLC’s website: www.nlcnet.org Among the abusive conditions documented in the report are: Five hundred to 600 16-year-old high school students were employed last summer, along with some children as young as 12 years of age, toiling 10 to 12 to 15 hours a day, seven days a week, and going for months on end without receiving a single day off. Wal-Mart Christmas ornament workers are at the factory a minimum of 84 hours a week, while at least half the workers are at the factory 105 hours a week. Anyone daring to take a Sunday off will be docked 2 ½ days’ wages. Some workers earned as little as 26 cents an hour, just half China’s legal minimum wage of 55 cents an hour, which itself is not close to a subsistence level wage. Pay sheets smuggled out of the factory show workers earning a median wage of 49 cents an hour, including overtime, and $42.29 for 110 hours of work, while they should have earned $74.77. Workers were cheated of one-third of the wages legally due them. Factory pay sheets showed just eight percent of the workers earning the legal minimum wage, while 92 percent fell below that. Workers in the Spray Paint department who develop skin rashes and sores while handling potentially dangerous chemicals have no choice but to leave the factory, as management does not pay medical bills or sick days. For quitting on short notice, workers are docked one month’s pay. By July, the high school students were so exhausted from the grueling 12 to 14-hour shifts, seven days a week that they went on strike and brought a legal suit against the factory, denouncing the grueling, illegal hours and seven day workweeks for which they were paid below the legal minimum. The students also reported to the Labor Bureau that some 12-year-olds worked at the factory. “With its expensive PR campaign, and masquerading as Tiny Tim, Wal-Mart is glorifying the virtue of buying cheap goods in its stores, claiming this is the real holiday spirit,” said Charles Kernaghan, “But, especially at this time of year, no American would knowingly purchase a product in Wal-Mart if they knew that bargain was based on the exploitation of children and teenagers forced to work grueling hours, seven days a week, who are stripped of their rights and paid pennies an hour. Wal-Mart will remain a Scrooge, so long as its bargains are based on the cheapening and immiseration of the lives of the young workers in China who make 70 percent of the goods sold in Wal-Mart.” U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said in a statement released in Washington, D.C., “Chinese sweatshops now produce not only the toys under our Christmas trees, but even the ornaments that hang on those trees. It is completely against the spirit of Christmas to produce ornaments in sweatshop factories where the workers are physically abused and financially cheated. We need to get serious about keeping the products of foreign sweatshops off American shelves. And we shouldn’t wait until next year’s holiday season rolls around before we take action.” http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=499 2007-12-12 00:00:00 article National Labor Committee, 2007 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=500 2007-12-12 00:00:00 video Brought to you from a Sweatshop in China National Labor Committee December 2007 www.nlcnet.org Click here for a printable version of this report Click Here to Read the December 12th Wal-Mart Christmas Press Release Click here to watch video shot secretly from inside the factory Click here to read press coverage of the 2007 Wal-Mart Christmas Report http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=498 2007-12-11 00:00:00 reports VIOLACIONES A DERECHOS DE LOS/ LAS TRABAJADORES/AS Y ABUSOS EN LA FABRICA STAR EN HONDURAS QUE PRODUCE PARA NIKE, NFL Y ANVIL. STAR S.A.ZIP El PorvenirEl Progreso, Yoro, Honduras Teléfonos: (504) 648 2256 / 57 / 58 / 60 Fax: (504) 648 2259 Correo electrónico: dalel@anvilknitwear.com Sitio web: www.anvilknitwear.com Gerente: Dale Lockamy Propietario: Propiedad de Anvil. La fabrica Star inició operaciones en Febrero 2000. Tamaño: 2,000 trabajadores, 800 maquinas Producción: T-shirts. Actualmente produciendo mayoritariamente para Nike y Anvil También NFL, Reel Legends Gerencias: Carlos Humberto Zelaya, Administrador de planta Wendy Aguirre, Jefe de recursos rumanos Tomas Machado, Ingeniero de producción Jaime Ramírez, Gerente de entrenamiento. Principales problemas de acuerdo a los trabajadores: Abuso verbal y hostigamiento Violación del derecho a organizarse Líderes sindicales y simpatizantes ilegalmente despedidos Los trabajadores que apoyan al sindicato son despedidos, amenazados, e intimidados La gerencia de la compañía no ha cumplido los acuerdos realizados en reuniones con el Ministerio de Trabajo y los trabajadores. Las horas extras no son pagadas apropiadamente. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=497 2007-12-04 00:00:00 reports November 26, 2007 Mr. Leslie Wexner, CEOLimited Brands/Victoria's Secret3 Limited Parkway Columbus, Ohio 43230 Dear Mr. Wexler: I write to urge your immediate intervention to help resolve a crisis at the D.K. Garments factory in Irbid, Jordan, where Victoria’s Secret garments are sewn. Apparently, the D.K. Garments factory, located in the Al Hasan Industrial City is a subcontract plant, but it has been producing for Victoria’s Secret since November 2006. Conditions in the factory violate every single Jordanian law, with mandatory 14 to 15-hour shifts, seven days a week. Workers also report being routinely shortchanged of the overtime pay legally due them. The company dorm is also primitive and unacceptable, lacking hot water and heat. For daring to peaceably question management regarding a sudden and arbitrary 43 percent increase in the production goal for Victoria’s Secret bikinis, six foreign guest workers have been arrested and imprisoned—apparently on trumped-up charges—since November 11. After repeated but unsuccessful attempts to implore management to free their co-workers, who had done nothing wrong, the workers walked off the shop floor. Conditions are now deteriorating. Management is threatening to forcibly deport all the foreign guest workers. Management also says they will soon block the supply of food and water to the workers’ dorm. Can you please intervene immediately to help resolve this worsening crisis? We do not want you to pull Victoria’s Secret production from the factory—where it has been produced for the last year—since this would only further punish the workers, who have already suffered enough. Rather, we ask that you work with your contractor to clean up the factory and to quickly implement concrete steps to guarantee that the legal rights of the workers will finally be respected. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you posted on any new developments. Thank you. Sincerely, Charles KernaghanDirector http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=495 2007-11-29 02:56:32 article 11/29/2007 Under enormous pressure, the workers had to call off their strike and return to work. They have been back at work for about a week now. The hours have not significantly changed. The workers are now working from 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 or 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. The six workers remain imprisoned. One of the workers, (Mr. Mostafa, card# 544) is seriously ill, apparently with acute liver problems or appendicitis, and has been hospitalized. The workers are extremely anxious regarding his condition and the quality of care he is receiving. It appears that the factory owner has now also confiscated the workers passports, which is illegal and possibly a first step to forcible deportation. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=494 2007-11-29 02:45:01 article Worker Rights Violations and MistreatmentAt the Star Factory in HondurasProducing for Nike, NFL and Anvil "End the disrespect for our labor rights. Compañeros join our struggle. Let's defend our rights as the workers we are. We have been fired for having organized ourselves. No More Violations. Everyone unite." --SITRASTAR Union http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=496 2007-11-29 00:00:00 reports Fox News / The O'Reilly Factor, December 4, 2007: Director of the National Labor Committee on Investigation Into the Lingerie Giant's Manufacturing Standards The Columbus Dispatch, November 28, 2007: "Link to Victoria's Secret.: Group Alleges Abuses at Apparel Factory." By Amy Saunders Women's Wear Daily, November 28, 2007: "NLC: Striking Jordanian Workers Threatened." By Verena Dobnik The Huffington Post, November 28, 2007: "Victoria's Secret, Slave Labor And So-Called 'Free Trade'" By Jonathan Tasini http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=492 2007-11-28 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=493 2007-11-28 00:00:00 article Nike, NFL and Anvil Workers in HondurasFired for Organizing a Legal UnionAt the U.S.-owned Star, S.A.,El Porvenir Free Trade Zone More than 70 workers fired to date. Workers smuggled these clothing labels out of the Star factory En Español Click Here for More Information on the Star, S.A. Sweatshop in Honduras (Updated: 12/21/2007) On Wednesday, November 7, workers at Star informed the Honduran Ministry of Labor of their intention to form a legal union. On Saturday, November, the firings began. To date, Star management has fired over 70 union leaders, founding members and supporters. On Monday, November 12, 500 workers blocked the entrance to the El Porvenir Free Trade Zone. Star management called in the National Police and military, who fired teargas and assaulted the workers. On Saturday and Sunday, November 24 and 25, hundreds of workers blocked the entrance to the El Porvenir Zone. In solidarity with fired unionists, workers on the weekend shift refused to cross the picketline. On Monday morning, November 26, military occupied the entrance gate. Tension is running high--the unionists are facing increasing intimidation, including surveilance and being followed by undercover police who are armed but dressed in civilian clothing. The workers are urgently requesting our help. They feel that pressure in the United States may be their only hope. PLEASE WRITE NIKE, ANVIL & NFL, URGING THEM TO INTERVENE TO ASSURE THAT THESE WORKERS' FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL RIGHTS ARE RESPECTED. NIKE Mark G. ParkerPresident, CEO & DirectorNIKE, Inc.1 Bowerman Dr. Beaverton, OR 97005-6453 TELEPHONE: 800-344-6543 FAX: 503-671-6300 NFL Roger Goodell, CommissionerNational Football League280 Park Ave., 15th Fl. New York, NY 10017 TELEPHONE: 212-450-2000 FAX: 212-681-7599 Anvil Bernard Geller, Chair & CEOAnvil Holdings, Inc.228 E. 45th St. New York, NY 10017 TELEPHONE: 800-223-0332 FAX: 212-476-0323 EMAIL: info@anvilknitwear.com Dear **: Please intervene immediately to end the crisis at your contractor's plant, Star, S.A. in the El Porvenir Free Trade Zone in Honduras. More than 70 workers have been illegally fired for exercising their legal right to organize a union to improve conditions and help end violations at the plant. Protests, which have including hundreds of workers, have been violently broken up by police and the military. Please move to assure that the legal rights of workers sewing your garments are respected. Sincerely "End the disrespect for our labor rights. Compañeros join our struggle. Let's defend our rights as the workers we are. We have been fired for having organized ourselves. No More Violations. Everyone unite." SITRASTAR Union http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=491 2007-11-27 00:00:00 article THIS HOLIDAY SEASON ASK VICTORIA'S SECRETTO STOP ITS ABUSE OF FOREIGN GUEST WORKERS IN JORDANAND TO IMMEDIATELY FREE SIX VICTORIA'S SECRET WORKERS IMPRISONEDUNDER TRUMPED-UP CHARGES November 26, 2007 Update 12/20/2007: Six workers beaten, imprisoned, and deported Urgent Update on the Situation at DK Garments (November 29) Read NLC Director Charles Kernaghan's Letter to the CEO of Victoria's Secret/The Limited Click here to read press coverage of the NLC`s 2007 Victoria`s Secret Sweatshop Report Jordan Campaign Page D.K. GarmentsAl Hasan Industrial CityIrbid, Jordan D.K. Garments is a subcontract factory with 150 foreign guest workers (135 from Bangladesh and 15 from Sri Lanka), which has been producing Victoria's Secret garments for the last year. None of the workers have been provided their necessary residency permits, without which they cannot venture outside the industrial park without fear of being stopped by the police and perhaps imprisoned for lack of proper documents. The Victoria's Secret workers toil 14 to 15 hours a day, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, receiving on average one day off every three or four months. All overtime is mandatory, and workers are routinely at the factory 98 to 105 hours a week while toiling 89 to 96 hours. Treatment is very rough, as managers and supervisors scream at the foreign guest workers to move faster to complete their high production goals. Workers who fall behind on their production goals, or who make even a minor error, can be slapped and beaten. Despite being forced to work five or more overtime hours a day, the workers are routinely shortchanged on their legal overtime pay, being cheated of up to $18.48 each week in wages due them. While this might not seem like a great deal of money, to these poor workers it is the equivalent of losing three regular days' wages each week. Workers are allowed just 3.3 minutes to sew each $14 Victoria's Secret women's bikini, for which they are paid four cents. The workers' wages amount to less than 3/10ths of one percent of the $14 retail price of the Victoria's Secret bikini. The workers are housed in primitive dorms which have only irregular access to water. During winter months, when the temperatures can drop to freezing, the workers' dorms have neither heat nor hot water. Many workers fall ill from the constant cold. SIX WORKERS IMPRISONED ON TRUMPED UP CHARGES In early November 2007, when a new style of Victoria's Secrets women's underwear arrived, management set a mandatory production goal of 2,800 pieces per 10-hour shift for each assembly line of 22 sewers. It was almost impossible to reach this goal, as the workers were allowed just five minutes to sew each garment. Then on November 11, management suddenly increased the production goal to 4,000 pieces in 10 hours, an increase of 1,200 garments--or 43 percent more--with no increase in wages. Now, in effect, each worker would have to sew 18.2 garments an hour, or one every 3.3 minutes, which was impossible. The workers protested the sudden, arbitrary increase. They wanted to speak with management, to explain how such an extreme production goal was not only unjust, but impossible to achieve. Management responded by having six of the most outspoken workers protesting the sudden production goal increase imprisoned--apparently on trumped-up charges. The Following Workers Have Been Imprisoned Since November 11, 2007 Mr. Kamal Factory ID # 467Mr. Farook Factory ID # 553Mr. Motin Factory ID # 589Mr. Delwar Factory ID # 563Mr. Mostafa Factory ID # 544Mr. Shohel Factory ID # 505 The workers begged management to free their unjustly imprisoned friends and co-workers. Management refused and the workers stopped working at 10:30 a.m. on November 12. The strike continues. The owner of the factory is now threatening to have all the guest workers forcibly deported back to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The owner says food and water will be cut off and following that, the workers will be forcibly removed from the dorms. The workers paid anywhere from $1,500 to over $3,000 to purchase three-year work contracts in Jordan--an enormous amount of money in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Workers had to go deeply into debt, borrowing the money on the informal market, often at five to ten percent interest per month, If the workers are deported, they will never be able to pay off their debts, and they and their families will be ruined. BACKGROUND: I. 14 to 15 Hour Shifts / Seven Days a Week(Workers at the factory 98 to 105 hours a week) 7:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. (Work, 5 1/2 hours) 12:30 p.m. - 1:30 p.m. (Lunch, 1 hour) 1:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m. (Work, 5 hours) 6:30 p.m. - 6:45 p.m. (Break, 15 minutes) 6:45 p.m. - 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. (Work, 2 1/4 to 3 1/4 hours) II. 75 Cent-an-hour Minimum Wage 75 cents an hour $5.97 a day (8 hours) $35.84 a week (48 hours) $155.30 a month $1,863.62 a year III. The legal regular work week is eight hours a day, six days a week, for a total of 48 hours. All weekday overtime must be paid at a 25 percent premium, or 93 cents an hour. Work on Friday's--the Muslim holiday--must be paid at a 50 percent premium, or $1.12 an hour. On average D.K. Garments foreign guest workers are forced to work 5 1/4 overtime hours each weekday in addition to 13 1/4 overtime hours on Friday, the weekly day off. Each day the workers are being shortchanged of 2 3/4 hours' overtime pay legally due them, or $18.48 a week. In effect, this is the equivalent of losing three days' regular pay each week, which is an enormous amount of money for these poor workers. UPDATE 12/20/2007: After spending over a month in prison, where they were beaten, the six imprisoned Victoria’s Secret workers were forcibly deported and returned to Bangladesh on December 16. More updates will follow. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=490 2007-11-26 00:00:00 reports FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASETUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2007, 10:30 A.M. CONTACT: Barbara Briggs 212-242-3002 (NLC office) 412-417-9384 (cell) http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=481 2007-11-21 00:00:00 pressrelease By JOHN SULLIVANNovember 21, 2007 A workers’ rights group yesterday accused St. Patrick’s Cathedral of selling religious items made under terrible conditions in sweatshop factories in China. The group, the National Labor Committee, which has unearthed past examples of abusive work conditions, said it had bought crucifixes in the Roman Catholic cathedral that had been assembled by workers toiling under deplorable conditions. At a morning news conference outside St. Patrick’s, Charles Kernaghan, the group’s executive director, brandished one of the crucifixes from the shop. “It is immoral, it is unjust and it has to change,” he said. Mr. Kernaghan, a veteran of battles with industries over the treatment of foreign workers, said the six-inch wooden crucifix and other religious articles were frequently made by women who toiled for pennies an hour in an unrelenting grind of assembly work. Joseph Zwilling, the spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said yesterday that the archdiocese would investigate the charges. He said that Mr. Kernaghan’s news conference was the first time he had heard of the claim, adding that the gift shop buys its items from a variety of religious dealers. “I am sure the cathedral gift shop directors will look into this now that it has been raised,” Mr. Zweilling said. “I don’t know at this point what the facts are.” Mr. Kernaghan listed his charges of labor abuse: He said the women work seven days a week, 100 hours per week, with no days off, adding that they get meager soup to eat while staying in primitive dormitories with filthy walls and moss on the floor. “I believe that St. Patrick’s Cathedral has no idea about the conditions under which these crucifixes are made,” he said. “I think now that they do, they will act immediately, decisively and with compassion to clean up these factories.” A spokeswoman for the United Nations mission for the People’s Republic of China referred questions to the country’s embassy in Washington. The embassy did not respond to a voice-mail message left yesterday. Mr. Kernaghan acknowledged that information on the factories was sketchy, particularly when it comes to matching particular products with specific factories. The only proof he had regarding the crucifix at St. Patrick’s is a serial number that matches a factory work order, and a picture that looks similar to the crucifix he held at the news conference. “This stuff is all anecdotal,” he said. “It comes to us from the workers.” Bill Anderson, president of the Association for Christian Retail, a trade group, said in a statement yesterday that Mr. Kernaghan’s claims about manufacture of religious items overseas were “unfounded and irresponsible.” He said the group has never received concrete proof that items sold by its members were manufactured in sweatshops. In fact, he said, the organization’s members make regular trips to overseas factories to “ensure quality control as well as inspect working conditions.” Mr. Kernaghan said the crucifix from the cathedral’s gift shop appeared to have been sold by the Singer Company of Mount Vernon, N.Y. Gerald Singer, whose family has owned the business since 1940, said that about 25 percent of his company’s items were made in China, and that the company had worked with a manufacturer there for the past seven years without any problems. He said the manufacturer was having trouble meeting an order earlier this year and might have sent out the work for another company to do. Although Mr. Singer said there was no proof that the item had been made under poor conditions, he said, “We don’t condone nor would we allow any of our products to be made in a sweatshop.” http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=482 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article By SARAH GARLANDStaff Reporter of the SunNovember 21, 2007 Crucifixes sold by some of New York's most prominent churches may have been made by children slaving in Chinese sweatshops, a new report by the National Labor Committee says. The report accuses a manufacturer of religious goods, the Singer Co., of outsourcing production to China, where it says young women making the wooden crosses were forced to toil under harsh conditions for 100 hours a week. They were paid 26 cents an hour, according to the report, which is based on production orders and pictures smuggled out of factories gathered by an anonymous third party that the advocacy group declined to identify, citing human rights conditions in China. "It's ironic these crosses are made by workers in China who have no religious freedom," the director of the National Labor Committee, Charles Kernaghan, said. The report also accuses a major trade association for purveyors of religious goods, the Association for Christian Retail, of knowing about the practice. The president and CEO of the trade group, Bill Anderson, called the report's accusations "irresponsible and unfounded." "Most of our suppliers as well as many of our retailers make regular visits to the Orient to ensure quality control as well as inspect working conditions. While they cannot be 100% certain, our suppliers are confident they are offering products made in factories where workers are treated fairly," he said. A woman who answered the phone at the Singer Co., who did not identify herself, said, "We do not deal with any sweatshops in China." St. Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity Church both sell crucifixes made by the company, according to the National Labor Committee. The labor group said it did not contact the churches ahead of releasing the report. A spokeswoman for Trinity Church, Diane Reed, said the church had been told by Singer that the crucifixes were made in Italy. "We're very selective about the products that we carry. We don't associate with sweatshops," she said, adding: "We're pulling the products from the shelves until we can determine the source of origin." St. Patrick's Cathedral directed requests for comment to the Archdiocese of New York. A spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said he believed the report "was an attempt to exploit the Cathedral." "This is something that he did not attempt to discuss with us beforehand. At this point, it's not something we can say anything about," he said. St. Patrick's gift shop has removed the crucifixes while it checks into the allegations. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=483 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article By VERENA DOBNIK NEW YORK (AP) — A labor rights group alleged Tuesday that crucifixes sold in religious gift shops in the U.S. are produced under "horrific" conditions in a Chinese factory with more than 15-hour work days and inadequate food. "It's a throwback to the worst of the garment sweatshops 10, 20 years ago," said Charles Kernaghan, director of the National Labor Committee. Kernaghan held a news conference in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral to call attention to conditions at a factory in Dongguan, a southern Chinese city near Hong Kong, where he said crosses sold at the historic church and elsewhere are made. Spokespeople for St. Patrick's and another New York landmark, the Episcopal Trinity Church at Wall Street, said the churches had removed dozens of crucifixes from their shops while they investigate the claims. "I don't think they have a clue where these crucifixes were made — in horrific work conditions," Kernaghan said. Kernaghan said the factory's mostly young, female employees work from 8 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. seven days a week and are paid 26 cents an hour with no sick days or vacation. Workers live in filthy dormitories and are fed a watery "slop." Kernaghan said factory workers took photos and smuggled out documents detailing practices there. While none of the crucifixes sold in New York were identified as made in China, they bore serial numbers matching products made at the factory in question, Kernaghan said. Joe Zwilling, a spokesman for St. Patrick's, said church officials had not heard about the issue before Tuesday. Trinity spokeswoman Diane Reed said her church had been "under the impression that these were mass-produced in Italy." St. Patrick's and Trinity bought the crosses from the Singer Co., a religious goods company based in suburban Mount Vernon. Co-owner Gerald Singer said the religious objects were made in China and purchased through a Chinese manufacturer called Full Start. "Whether they came out of a sweatshop, we do not know," Singer said. "We asked Full Start to sign off that there are no sweatshop conditions involved, and no children and that they abide by Chinese law. This is a black eye for us." An after-hours call to a U.S. office of Full Start Ltd. in East Providence, R.I., was not immediately returned Tuesday. A man at the Full Start factory in Dongguan said the allegations were "totally incorrect." The working conditions at the factory were "fine," said the man, who refused to give his name. The 200-plus employees work from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day, with an hour and a half break for lunch, he said. The employees were rarely asked to work overtime, but were compensated when they did, he said. When pressed for more details, the man said he wasn't in charge of those issues and hung up the phone. Kernaghan said the crosses were exhibited at an annual trade show organized by the Association for Christian Retail, a Colorado-based trade association that works with thousands of religious stores across the country. Bill Anderson, president and chief executive of the Christian trade association, issued a statement saying: "While we occasionally hear this issue raised, and believe there are factories in China where human rights are violated, we believe claims that products sold through CBA member stores are made in these shops are irresponsible and unfounded." Dongguan lies at the center of China's export manufacturing industry, which relies heavily on low wages to remain competitive. Factories there have been accused in the past of labor abuses, including those making products for McDonald's, Disney, Mattel and the Beijing Olympics. Associated Press Writer Anita Chang in Beijing contributed to this report. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=484 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article ST. PAT'S, TRINITY PULL ITEMS FROM 'SWEATSHOP' By JOHN MAZOR and ANDY SOLTIS November 21, 2007 -- St. Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity Church pulled crucifixes from their gift shops yesterday after an activist group charged the crosses were made in appalling Chinese sweatshops. The National Labor Committee said girls as young as 15 made the wooden crosses, working up to 15½ hours a day - for 26.5 cents an hour - at the Junxingye factory in southern China. The group's director, Charles Kernaghan, accused a Queens distributor of "sneaking these things into the United States." He also charged that St. Patrick's and Trinity, two of the city's most prestigious churches, had failed to detect the "abusive and illegal conditions under which their crucifixes were made." "If they can't get it right, who is going to get it right?" Kernaghan said. Church officials said they were checking into the allegations. Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the New York Archdiocese, said officials at St. Patrick's gift shop have "removed the crucifixes while they try to gather facts." Trinity Church also pulled the crucifixes. "We don't associate with sweatshops," said Diane Reed, a spokesman for the Episcopal church. "We're very selective about the products that we carry." The church's supplier, the Singer Co. of Long Island City, said it had been dealing for seven years with a Chinese firm, Full Start Ltd., and not with the Junxingye factory. "We told them from the beginning that we don't tolerate sweatshops," said the company's president, Gerald Singer. The firm is contacting Full Start's office in Hong Kong to determine where the crucifixes came from, he said. Reed said Trinity Church officials believed the crucifixes were made in Italy. Singer officials said they didn't know how the church came to that conclusion. "We know they're made in China," Singer said. "As far as we know, it is not in a sweatshop and has never been one." Singer and church officials said they knew nothing about the charges until Kernaghan held a press conference in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral yesterday. "It seems to me as if this individual was trying to exploit the cathedral as way of calling attention to himself and his cause," Zwilling said. The National Labor Committee issued a 73-page report describing how the factory workers live on "awful" company food and sleep in primitive dorms. After being charged for the food and dorms, their take-home pay is nine cents an hour, the report said. Kernaghan said the crucifixes were sold at markups of up to 1,000 percent. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=485 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article BY EDGAR SANDOVAL and BILL HUTCHINSONDAILY NEWS WRITERS Wednesday, November 21st 2007 Two of the city's iconic religious institutions - St. Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity Church - were slammed Tuesday for selling crucifixes allegedly manufactured in Chinese sweatshops. The National Labor Committee claimed crosses sold in the churches' gift shops were made by women and children working under deplorable conditions for as little as 26 cents an hour. Outside St. Pat's, the committee's director Charles Kernaghan held up a crucifixand said it was made by a girl forced to work 151/2 hours a day, seven days a week for 9 cents an hour. Officials at St. Patrick's and Trinity Church said they were unaware of the allegations and removed the items from the gift shops. Joe Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said an investigation is underway but blasted Kernaghan for not contacting the archdiocese before using St. Patrick's "as a prop." "He's trying to exploit the cathedral, quite frankly," he said. The crucifixes for both gift shops were supplied by the Singer Co. of Long Island City, Queens. Owner Gerald Singer said the items were manufactured by Full Start Ltd., a Chinese company that promised not to use child labor. "If it turns out that they were made in a sweatshop then that's the end of our relationship," he told The News. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=486 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article By David Freedlander, amNewYork Staff Writer November 21, 2007 St. Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity Church pulled crucifixes from their gift shops Tuesday after stunning allegations that the items are produced in Chinese sweatshops. Church officials vowed to keep the crucifixes off the shelves while they investigate as the faithful expressed chagrin. Charles Kernaghan, the executive director of the National Labor Committee, the advocacy group that released a report on the crosses, called on St. Patrick's "to move immediately, decisively and with compassion to clean up the factories and to guarantee that the rights of workers are firmly respected." The report alleged that the crucifixes come from a factory in Guangdong, China, where women, some as young as 15, work more than 90 hours a week for about 26 cents an hour, less than half of China's minimum wage. Kernaghan said workers snuck out evidence and gave it to the labor group. Kernaghan added that the crucifixes, which cost as little as $1.40 to produce, are sold in church gift shops for $17.95. "That's a markup that would make even Nike blush," Kernaghan said in a news conference outside St. Patrick's Cathedral Tuesday. The archdiocese said that it was investigating the matter, but accused the labor group of trying to embarrass the church. "This individual did not contact us prior to using the cathedral as a stage for a press conference," said Joe Zwilling, spokesman for the archdiocese. Trinity Church, of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, said in a statement it would "look into this situation," adding: "We are selective in the products we carry and do not support manufacturers who are associated with sweatshop labor." The report accuses a trade group, the Association for Christian Retail, of knowing about the sweatshops but looking the other way. The group dismissed the allegations as "unfounded and irresponsible." The crosses are supplied by the Singer Co., a Mount Vernon-based "inspirational jewelry" concern. "We are not a Nike or a big corporation that can inspect every single factory," said company president Gerald Singer, who vowed to investigate the matter. "My God, making religious objects in a sweatshop, that's the last thing we need." Visitors to St. Patrick's Tuesday were distressed to hear the news. "I'm kind of shocked," said Angie Huntz, 35, of Louisiana. "I think my mom would love to have one of these crosses, but I wouldn't buy one knowing this information." Chris Malagan, 28, of Ireland, agreed. "A church, well, you'd think they'd be upholding the basic principles of human rights." http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=487 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article New York Times, November 21, 2007: "Labor Group Says St. Patrick’s Sells Sweatshop Goods." By John Sullivan Associated Press, November 20, 2007: "Group: Churches Sell Sweatshop Crosses." By Verena Dobnik New York Post, November 21, 2007: "TERRIBLE CROSSES TO BEAR." By John Mazor and Andy Soltis New York Daily News, November 21, 2007: "St. Patrick`s, Trinity Church sell sweatshop crucifixes, group claims." By Edgar Sandoval and Bill Hutchinson New York Sun, November 21, 2007: "Report: China Makes Crucifixes Sold in N.Y." By Sarah Garland amNew York, November 21, 2007: "St. Patrick`s pulls crucifixes after sweatshop claims." By David Freedlander Democracy Now!, November 21, 2007: "'Workers Bear the Cross': Retailers, Churches Accused of Selling Sweatshop-Made Crucifixes." --Click here to read the transcript of Democracy Now's interview with NLC Director Charles Kernaghan--Click here to watch the video interview http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=488 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article Sweatshop Crucifixes Pulled from Saint Patrick’s Cathedral and Trinity Church Update and Response From Charles Kernaghan, director, National Labor Committee Wednesday, November 21, 2007 While it was an excellent first step for Saint Patrick’s Cathedral and Trinity Church to pull the sweatshop crucifixes from their gift shops, their responsibility does not end there. Following a thorough investigation, Saint Patrick’s and Trinity should work together with the Association for Christian Retail to clean up the Junxingye factory in China and implement concrete steps to guarantee that the legal rights of the young workers will finally be respected. Pulling production from the factory would only further punish these young women workers, who have suffered enough already. I am aware that Joseph Zwilling, a spokesperson for Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, believes that the National Labor Committee “exploited” the Cathedral. I beg to differ. It was the young women at the Junxingye factory in China, forced to work 15 ½ hour days, seven days a week for a take-home wage of just nine cents an hour while making crucifixes for sale at Saint Patrick’s, who were the ones being tragically exploited. The Singer Company says that when they asked their longstanding contractor in China, Full Start Ltd., whether or not they used child workers or workers employed under sweatshop conditions, the company responded, no. This would be the equivalent of asking Jack the Ripper if he respects young women. In other words, the company’s effort to monitor factory conditions has been ridiculous. And, if the Singer Company did not have some concern about its crucifixes being made in China, why did they strip the crosses of the country of origin, “Made in China” labeling that is required by law? The Association for Christian Retail claims that the in-depth 74-page research report issued by the National Labor Committee is “unfounded and irresponsible.” We have a single question for the Association: If you have nothing to hide, will you immediately release the names and addresses of the factories in China that produce religious products for your 2,055 member stores and suppliers? Production is outsourced to China precisely because workers have no rights, can be paid pennies an hour and have no freedom of association. Nor—we should remind the Association for Christian Retail—do these workers enjoy freedom of religion. Some have questioned why the National Labor Committee cannot reveal our sources in China—as if this somehow undermines the credibility of the research, documentation, photos, etc. I would ask those people to recall the recent case of Mr. Shi Tao, who has just begun a ten year prison sentence for daring to write three emails on the subject of press restrictions. (Yahoo turned him in to the Chinese authorities.) It is a miracle that any research at all on factory conditions in China reaches the U.S., and that is does is also a testament to the dignity and courage of the Chinese workers. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=489 2007-11-21 00:00:00 article Workers toil in misery at the Junxingye Factory in Dongguan, China producing crosses for Saint Patrick's Cathedral and Trinity Church. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=480 2007-11-20 00:00:00 slideshow Crucifixes Made Under Horrific Sweatshop Conditions in China “Jesus, take pity on me! I’m going to die of exhaustion.”--Chinese worker after 19-hour shift Sweatshop Crucifixes Sold at Saint Patrick’s Cathedral, Trinity Church, and Nationally by the Association for Christian Retail November 2007 Click Here for a Printable Version of this Report Click Here to a View a List of Recent Articles and Reports from China Click Here to Read the November 20th Press Release on the Sweatshop Crosses Press Coverage of the Sweatshop Crucifixes NLC Response/Update (November 21, 2007) Read Archdiocese's Letter to the National Labor Committee and NLC Director Charles Kernaghan's Response (12/16/2007) http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=479 2007-11-18 00:00:00 reports Ten-year-olds sewing Gap Kids clothing:Unfortunately, It will happen again. By Charles Kernaghan http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=477 2007-11-05 00:00:00 article http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=478 2007-11-05 00:00:00 slideshow (Also: Read about recent CAFTA disasters in El Salvador and at the Fribo and Sam Bridge factories in Honduras) IS THERE EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL LABOR LAWS?THE CASE OF HERMOSA MANUFACTURING In May 2005, Hermosa Manufacturing, a garment factory located in Apopa, El Salvador, closed down suddenly, leaving some 250 workers without jobs. At the time the factory closed, workers were owed wages and overtime for work already performed. To date, workers have not received compensation for these wages and overtime owed them. Moreover, workers have not been paid legally due severance pay. Although it is now two years later, the plight of the former workers has not been resolved, nor the issues contributing to the regulatory failure of national labor laws. Adidas Group was a customer of the Hermosa factory from 2000 until mid 2002 and while we were not a customer when the factory closed in 2005, we remain concerned about the workers and the consequences to the entire textile and apparel industry from this closure. Adidas Group is writing this open letter to the El Salvador government because officials from the ministries regulating labor law no longer communicate with us and other stakeholders concerned with a fair and equitable solution to this case. After an active dialogue between November 2005 and June 2006, the sudden shutdown in our communications is incomprehensible, and we hope that this open letter not only gains their attention, but reopens discussions that lead to real solutions. The Adidas Group has contracted with El Salvadoran apparel factories since 1999, and we care about the employees who produce our products in those factories. Our apparel production programmes support the employment of more than 2,000 El Salvadoran workers. However, the Hermosa case has caused serious concern about regulatory safeguards for workers which we consider as the elementary foundation to continue business operations in this country. After Hermosa’s closure , companies sourcing from the plant and the workers learned that Hermosa management had taken deductions from workers paychecks for social security, and pension funding but had not transferred these payments to the appropriate agencies (deductions and employer contributions were not paid). As a result, the former Hermosa workers found themselves without access to medical services available to workers under the social security system. Representatives of the Adidas Group met with government agencies on numerous occasions between October 2005 and May 2006. At every meeting, the government representatives said they would not pay workers for their unpaid compensation outside the precedence of the labor tribunal. Additionally, the government could not definitively state the workers contractual and employment status unless they were re-employed or pressed a claim in the courts. However, the officials said that by March 2006, they assumed Hermosa was no longer legally viable so practically, the employment contracts for all workers were terminated. This was 10 months after the factory closed, and for many workers, the first news about their official employment termination. On April 3, 2006, senior officials in the El Salvador government met with representatives of the Adidas Group to offer a partial resolution for the workers. This included basic medical coverage through the Ministry of Health and extraordinary health care coverage through the Social Security Institute. Coverage would be for up to 12 months (or until reemployment). The government never fulfilled this commitment. The government also scheduled a jobs fair on May 12-13 that would introduce x-Hermosa workers to potential new employers. The fair happened as scheduled although the engagement between former workers, government and Fair officials was poorly executed and ineffective. During the weeks subsequent to the April 3 meeting, adidas attempted to contact government officials and monitor the progress of these commitments. There was no response to numerous calls and emails. As per the Government’s directive in April 2006, Adidas Group’s main point of contact for the Hermosa case was reassigned to the Ministry of Economy. The lack of engagement has contributed to not only the diminished economic status of former workers, but an insufficient redress of gaps in the regulatory system. With respect to the regulatory framework and the workers of Hermosa Manufacturing, the Government of El Salvador has not lived up to its commitments to protect, enhance, and enforce basic workers’ rights. In particular, the Government of El Salvador has failed to effectively enforce its labor laws with respect to the workers of Hermosa Manufacturing at least in the following ways: 1. The Ministry of Labor granted Hermosa management permission to suspend commercial activities even after the factory was physically closed, keeping the workers’ employment contracts active and therefore (1) preventing them from seeking or taking new employment (if the workers took employment elsewhere they would forfeit their claim for severance compensation); and (2) delaying the workers in formally claiming indemnization due to them under Salvadoran law. 2. Government regulatory agencies were aware that Hermosa was not making retirement and social security contributions during the period 1996-2005, but did not take steps to demand payment of the shortfalls, and in fact, continued to issue Instituto Salvadoreño del Seguro Social certificates to workers without advising them of the limitations of those certificates. There are records showing that the agencies did negotiate rescheduled payments but ultimately, Hermosa paid little or nothing against the revised schedules. 3. Although the Constitution of El Salvador gives precedence to employee claims in bankruptcy situations, the rights of other Hermosa creditors such as a prominent local bank were recognized first and workers were not able to benefit from the liquidation of assets of Hermosa Manufacturing. The Adidas Group has contracted with El Salvadoran apparel factories since 1999 and we continue to regard the Salvadoran apparel sector as an important part of our sourcing plan. Our apparel production programmes support the employment of many El Salvadoran workers. However, the Hermosa case has caused serious concern about regulatory safeguards for workers, a fundamental point for continuing our business operations in this country. We feel that the Hermosa case is a clear sign of systemic issues in the regulatory mechanisms, with the recently reported case about Just Garment a current example. Since the government is not communicating with the Adidas Group, this open letter to the government asks consideration of the following steps. to implement a commitment made in April 2006 for the basic and extraordinary health care coverage of unemployed Hermosa workers. to fund the former Hermosa workers Social Security accounts with the 145,000 usd penalty collected from Hermosa’s owner in the Spring of 2007. to pursue the repatriation to the workers of Hermosa assets that were repossessed before their constitutional right of compensation precedence was executed. to resolve the regulatory gaps identified in this letter’s points 1-3. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=475 2007-11-02 00:00:00 article Korean Garment Owner Flees El SalvadorLeaving 1,884 workers out on the street, owed $1.5 million in back wages! Sweatshop abuses also continue in Guatemala and Honduras November 2007 http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=476 2007-11-02 00:00:00 article Disney's Children's Books Made with the Blood, Sweat and Tears of Young Workers in China A report by Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior (Sacom)Room 1204, Wing Lee Industrial Building54-58 Tong Mi Road, Mangkok, KowloonHONG KONG www.sacom.org.hkTel: 852-6726-7342sacom@sacom.org.hk National Labor Committee75 Varick Street, Ste. 1500New York, NY 10013Tel: 212-242-3002Fax: 212-242-3821www.nlcnet.org August 18, 2005 One would hardly associate Disney’s children’s books with crushed and broken fingers, lacerated hands, broken legs and even deaths. But disturbingly, that is the case at the Hung Hing plant in China—where Disney is the major client—and where serious work injuries are almost a daily occurrence. In China, young women and men are forced to work 10 to 13 hours a day producing Disney’s children’s books six and seven days a week, working a grueling 60 to 90 hours a week. The workers are paid just 33 to 41 cents an hour, trapping them in misery. It is common for the workers to be cheated of their overtime pay. In some factories, women are denied their legal maternity rights. Eight to 12 workers are housed in primitive dorm rooms sleeping on double level bunk beds and fed horrible food at the factory canteen. Workers often faint from exhaustion and the unbearably stifling heat in the factories. Workers have no health insurance, no pension, no rights. They have no right to freedom of association or to organize. But the workers are fighting back in search of basic justice. And—in what is a hugely important development—students and scholars in Hong Kong (formed as SACOM—Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior) are joining their sisters and brothers in China in this struggle. The National Labor Committee, together with SACOM and our NGO partners in Hong Kong, intend to launch an international campaign to shame Disney into doing the right thing. The demands of the Chinese workers are simple and doable. Disney must release the names and addresses of the factories they use across China to make their goods. Disney must allow SACOM and other human, women’s and worker rights NGOs access to these plants to train the workers so they can play the key role in monitoring these factories. This will bring an end to the violations. Please join the campaign and spread the word. http://www.nlcnet.org/article.php?id=474 2007-10-29 00:00:00 reports Foreign Corporations’ Opposition to the New Chinese Labor Contract Law and Their Impact September 2007 I. Overview On March 20, 2006, the Chinese legislature launched the public consultation period for its draft Labor Contract Law. By April 20, the legislators received 191,849 responses, a majority of them from workers. Meanwhile, foreign investors and commercial groups also studied the draft law and submitted their comments. According to a May 11, 2006 report in 21st Century Economic Report magazine, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China (EUCCC) and the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai (ACCS) —the two largest foreign investors organizations in China—each submitted recommendations and opinion papers on the Draft Labor Contract Law to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. The submission by the EUCCC included 11 items, while the papers submitted by the ACCS was 42 pages long, covering almost every chapter and provision in the Labor Contract Law. In the EUCCC recommendations, it read: “The labor laws currently adopted in several European countries have led to the increase in labor costs, resulting in many European countries having to move their production lines to countries outside Europe or to other European countries with less strict labor laws. Therefore, if China chooses to implement the draft law on labor contracts, it will undoubtedly face a similar challenge.” The recommendation made by the American Chamber of Commerce was even more direct: “We believe it [the draft on labor contracts] might have negative effects on China’s investment environment.” The law may “reduce employment opportunities for PRC workers.” The American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai represents over 1,300 corporations, including 150 Fortune 500 companies, such as Dell, Ford, General Electric, Microsoft and Nike. The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China represents more than 860 members. The U.S.-China Business Council represents 250 U.S. companies doing business across all sectors in China. During a seminar on the Draft Labor Contract Law held in Shanghai, a representative of the Shanghai Association of Human Resources Management in Multinational Companies said, “If this kind of law is going to be implemented, we will withdraw our investments.” Dr. Keyong Wu, an expert for British Chambers of Commerce, stated, “Business is attracted to China not only because of its labor costs but also because of its efficiency. If regulation starts to affect that and flexibility, then companies could turn to India, Pakistan and South East Asia.” Such blatant opposition to stronger labor laws outraged both rights advocates and the public. “You have big corporations opposing basically modest reforms,” said Tim Costello, an official at Global Labor Strategies and a longtime union advocate. “This flies in the face of the idea that globalization and corporations will raise standards around the world.” The corporate campaign to blunt the effectiveness of China’s Labor Contract Law contradicted the justification that corporations have often given for their support of public policies that encourage them to invest in China. U.S.-based corporations have repeatedly argued that they are raising human and labor rights standards abroad. For example, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong lists among its “universal principles” that “