After Bangladesh, labor unions can save lives

LANCE COMPA

The factory collapse in Bangladesh that killed more than 1,100 workers should be a pivot point for the global apparel industry, moving consumers to demand more accountability from brand-name companies that subcontract production to supply-chain factories around the world. Sadly, the history of workplace tragedies in so many of these factories suggests that after consumers in rich countries express horror and call for reforms, the demands for better worker protections die down and the marketplace for cheap apparel abides. But this cycle can finally be broken if demands for change start to focus on workers’ right to form trade unions.

In the wake of labor abuses and workplace tragedies exposed in the 1990s, many apparel brands created in-house social compliance functions and joined “multi-stakeholder groups” with detailed monitoring and certification programs. But the one-day visits and checklist-style monitoring routine in such efforts have not worked.

This is where workers’ organizing comes in. Social compliance monitors might visit once a year. Government inspectors might come once in 10 years from understaffed and underfunded labor ministries common to most developing countries. But a real trade union can provide the vigilance and voice that workers need for sustained decency at their place of employment, including a workplace that is not a death trap.

In Bangladesh and many other countries, the challenge is getting real unions. Factory managers routinely fire and blacklist workers thought to be union sympathizers. And sometimes worse: In April 2012, apparel union organizer Aminul Islam was found tortured and killed after meeting with workers near a garment manufacturing center outside Dhaka. The crime remains unsolved.

In China and Vietnam, the official labor movement is a branch of government. Unions exist, but the plant personnel director is often the union president, and the unions’ role is to boost production, not to defend workers. Widespread phony unions in Mexico insulate factory owners against the few authentic unions that manage to survive. In many countries, owners often shut down newly organized factories to warn workers away from unions.

Despite these challenges, apparel unions have a toehold in Central America and in other regions and countries, including Bangladesh. But a toehold is not enough to shift the balance of power. Without effective unions, trying to tackle fire safety, living wages, child labor and other problems is a Sisyphean job.

To change the balance of power, consumer pressure, government policies, international labor solidarity, new management policies and other support mechanisms must focus on workers’ organizing and bargaining rights.

One model is taking shape in Honduras. In 2009, responding to U.S. student protests of the closure of newly organized plant, allegedly for anti-union reasons, Fruit of the Loom’s top management committed to honoring workers’ organizing rights. The Kentucky-based company reopened the factory where the union dispute arose, rehired all employees, recognized the union and entered into good-faith bargaining. Now the renamed “New Day” facility has a collective bargaining agreement with higher wages, better conditions, and a strong health and safety committee. Workers have maintained high productivity levels, and the company has added employees.

Fruit of the Loom management told workers in other Honduran factories that they too have a right to organize and that the company will respect their choices. An innovative nonprofit oversight committee coordinated by the nonprofit Global Works Foundation — which asked me to join as ombudsman — is helping nurture positive labor relations in plants. The committee, whose members are chosen by management and the union, provides training programs on freedom of association and collective bargaining. It also helps mediate workplace grievances.

Since the oversight committee established its program, workers have formed genuine unions with the General Confederation of Labour — known as CGT — in other Fruit of the Loom factories with almost 5,000 employees overall. It is the world’s first sustained, companywide independent union organizing in the apparel manufacturing sector.

A stereotype holds that young workers desperate for jobs at any salary will never turn to unions. Some also peddle the “sweatshops are good” argument, saying that they are better than any alternative and that unions would only make factories uncompetitive. But workers belie such typecasting. In China and Vietnam, shop-floor leaders organize strikes and other actions by going around clueless official unions. Given a fair chance, independent unions in Mexico supplant “protection unions” previously chosen by management. The CGT’s success in Fruit of the Loom plants has led to a coordinating group of unions throughout Central America aiming to persuade more firms to respect their organizing rights.

Another stereotype — in many cases all too accurate — has apparel factory owners and managers demonizing unions and taking unbridled reprisals when workers try to organize. The Fruit of the Loom-CGT model in Honduras sends a strong signal to apparel brands and factory owners that companies and real unions can not just coexist but thrive in a globally competitive environment. More important, in light of the recent tragedies in Bangladesh, real unions defending employees inside the workplace can save lives.

First appeared in The Washington Post, May 27, 2013

Lance Compa teaches international labor law at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations

Bangladesh building collapse: How many still missing? Who knows?

Photo: Relatives search for names of missing garments worker

Photo: Still missing

SABIR MUSTAFA

Numbers have always been a tricky issue in Bangladesh, so much so that there is disagreement over even the total population of the country.

There is always someone ready to raise questions about any "official figure" , whether it is the voter list or death figures from a road accident.

Not surprisingly then, when the eight-storey Rana Plaza collapsed on 24 April with thousands of people working in five garment factories, numbers became a hotly contested issue.

Two sets of figures are now accepted as accurate. Firstly, the number of people rescued alive, which stands at 2,438 and secondly, the number of bodies recovered from the rubble, which stands at more than 1,000 and keeps rising every day.

Calculating in the dark

But there is disagreement over how many are still missing - and hence, the total number likely to have died.

Nearly 3,500 people have already been accounted for, with unknown numbers still buried under the rubble”

More than two weeks after collapse, there is still no agreement on exactly how many workers and staff were present in the building. This has left officials calculating in darkness.

The Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), initially said that 3,200 people may have been employed by the five factories located on the upper floors of the building.

But that figure now looks unrealistic. Nearly 3,500 people have already been accounted for, with unknown numbers still buried under the rubble.

Distrust

Five days after the collapse a woman named Shahina was found alive.

But Shahina could not be rescued, as a fire sparked by metal cutting machines killed her on 28 April. One of the rescuers later died in hospital from burns sustained during the abortive rescue.

It was not expected that more survivors would be found, and rescuers switched their focus to recovering bodies.

Then another round of distrust about numbers was kicked off by none other than Maj Gen Hasan Suhrawardy, the man in charge of the recovery operation at the site.

On 1 May, he told journalists that only 149 people were missing, raising heckles across the social landscape. Even senior government officials expressed doubts about the figure.

Fake names?

Workers rescued from the site said many people had tried to escape down a stairway at the back of the building. They insisted that many bodies lay in that part of the building.

It appeared the general had used a list which local administration officials had stopped using. The police had their own, much larger list, based on people registering names of their missing relatives.

Officials worried that many names were appearing several times in different lists. They also worried that fraudsters might be at work, registering fake names to get compensation.

As a result of the confusion, all lists were taken down and officials stopped talking about the number missing.

'Disappearing' bodies

But more fuel was added to the fire by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, leader of the main opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

Addressing a big rally in Dhaka on 4 May, Mrs Zia accused the government of ''disappearing'' 900 bodies.

The opposition leader did not quote any source, but it reflected a sense of frustration and distrust among relatives of those missing.

Hundreds of relatives of the missing waited at the site everyday, desperate to ensure they at least got the body of their loved one so they could be buried properly.

But rumours soon spread that the army was about to bulldoze the site. Rumours were also spread that trucks removing debris from the site were being used to take away dead bodies.

Anger and frustration spilled over on one or two occasions and relatives, aided by locals, blocked army vehicles carrying debris.

Painstaking work by officials finally calmed the situation. The army made it clear there would be no bulldozing and that every effort would be made to recover any remaining bodies.

The military and fire brigade decided to use heavy equipment sparingly, only after ensuring that no body was left to be recovered.

It is perhaps this painstaking, time-consuming, brick-by-brick search for bodies that has allowed the rescuers to find a woman alive in the rubble on Friday, 12 days after the last survivor was found and 17 days after the building went down.

First appeared in BBC online, 10 May 2013

Sabir Mustafa, Editor, BBC Bengali service

The bloodshed behind our cheap clothes

Photo: labels of brand trousers found among the debris

KALPONA AKTER, Special to CNN

For workers of Bangladesh, the worst kind of tragedy imaginable struck last week when the Rana Plaza garment factory building -- just outside my home city of Dhaka -- collapsed, killing more than 500 workers. Despite the many warnings of dangerous cracks in the walls reported to supervisors, police and the media earlier in the week, thousands were still sent to work on Wednesday to proceed with business as usual.

There's no question that this building collapse is tragic, but for garment workers, it's not surprising.

I began working in Bangladesh's garment industry at the age of 12, making just $3 a month. I went to work because my father had a stroke and the family needed money to cover basic living expenses. I worked 23 days in a row, sleeping on the shop floor, taking showers in the factory restroom, drinking unsafe water and being slapped by the supervisor.

By the time I was a young woman working at a factory that made clothing for a big U.S. retailer, I knew the time had come for change.

The factory owed my coworkers and me overtime wages, but it wanted to pay us only half of what we had earned, making it even harder for us to support our families. So I helped lead a strike to hold our manager accountable.

I was fired and blacklisted, but my work was far from over. I later learned labor law, English and computer skills so that I could help win justice for garment workers. Today I lead a worker education and advocacy nonprofit that counts tens of thousands of garment workers as members.

The sad reality is that tragedies like this have become business as usual, advanced by some of the most highly profitable American and international corporations in the world.

Last November, 112 workers lost their lives when the Tazreen Fashions factory, which produced garments sold by Wal-mart, Sears and other retailers, caught fire. Much like New York's infamous Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire more than 100 years ago, the workers at Tazreen were trapped inside, with many jumping from upper story windows to try to save themselves. The death toll at Bangladeshi factories stands at nearly 1,000 since 2006, based on estimates by the Bangladeshi government and an advocacy organization.

In the case of these two recent tragedies, there is plenty of blame to go around -- from the Bangladeshi government for looking the other way at safety violations, to the incredibly dangerous circumstances workers face when they try to unionize, to the pressure factory owners and managers are under to turn out high product volume at low prices no matter what.

It is the responsibility of the government of Bangladesh to make a sustained, concerted effort to rectify the dire situation. Strict, well-enforced factory codes and clear support for workers' rights are paramount to protecting Bangladesh's garment workforce.

But more tragedies can be prevented only if the multinational corporations and retailers whose goods are produced at these factories are willing to stand up and do what is right.

A coalition of labor and non-governmental organizations in Bangladesh, Europe and the United States has developed a protocol for an innovative two-year inspection and renovation program to finally make these factories safe -- the Bangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement.

In addition to facilitating government-supported employer-labor relations and stringent oversight of factory safety management, this protocol focuses on the responsibility of brand owners and retailers to support safety standards.

If Wal-mart and its fellow retailers that count on Bangladeshi labor demand change, we can be sure it will happen. As the protocol states, these corporations must verify that the factories they use comply with applicable safety standards. They must ensure that their pricing of garments makes it feasible for the factories to stick to standards. No longer should a Bangladeshi factory manager feel forced to pressure his employees to work in a deadly environment to meet a corporation's bottom line.

As for the tragedies that have already taken place, these brands should contribute to worker compensation funds for victims and victims' families, including those in the fire at Tazreen. To date, Wal-mart and Sears have refused to contribute. Both companies maintain that subcontractors had used the factory without their authorization, so they are not responsible. I single out Walmart because its past actions have been painfully inadequate. Walmart has refused to sign onto the protocol designed to enhance fire safety and improve factory structures, saying it is putting its own standards in place, which are perfectly adequate. Yet those are Band-Aid measures that are woefully insufficient.

Last fall, Wal-mart refused to admit its connection to the Tazreen factory until my colleagues and I went there the day after the fire and photographed products with Wal-mart's labels in the wreckage. We must no longer tolerate this willful ignorance on the part of multinational corporations about where their goods are produced.

It's high time that companies like Wal-mart, The Gap, and others step up and demand the safety of Bangladesh's garment workers. Too many Bangladeshi workers live and work in fear for their lives each day. The fire safety protocol is a critical first step to making real change, and I urge Wal-mart to become a leader in the fight to save Bangladeshi lives.

First appeared in CNN.com, May 3, 2013

Kalpona Akter, a former child laborer, is executive director of the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity, a garments workers rights group

Fast, Cheap, Dead: Shopping and the Bangladesh Factory Collapse

Photo: Wong Maye-E, AP

BRYAN WALSH

The collapse of a factory building near Dhaka, Bangladesh, which killed at least 362 people, is almost certainly the worst accident in the history of the garment industry. It’s worse than the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 that you learned about in American history class and which helped lead to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards. It’s worse than the 1993 Kader Toy Factory fire in Bangkok, which killed 188 people, nearly all of them women and teenage girls. It’s worse than the Ali Enterprises Factory fire in Karachi, which killed at least 262 people — and which I’m guessing nearly all of us had forgotten about, or never knew it occurred, even though the disaster happened only eight months ago.

Bangladeshi officials are still investigating the causes behind the factory’s collapse on April 24, although Sohel Rana, the building’s owner, was arrested over the weekend as he attempted to flee the country. There’s no shortage of possible reasons — building codes in Bangladesh are too rarely enforced and corruption in the country is rampant. Nor, sadly, are such disasters rare. A major fire in a textile factory in Dhaka killed over 100 people just last November. While thousands of Bangladeshi protesters have taken to the streets in the wake of the building collapse, and the political opposition has called for a national strike on May 2, there’s little hope that the catastrophe will be the last that the country’s garment workers suffer.

The clothes that the doomed workers in Dhaka were laboring over when their factory collapsed include some Western brands, like Primark and Joe Fresh. Is there anything we as clothing consumers can or should do about these deaths? In a post written last week as the dead were still being tallied in the building collapse, Slate’s economics blogger Matthew Yglesias suggests, not really:

Bangladesh is a lot poorer than the United States, and there are very good reasons for Bangladeshi people to make different choices in this regard than Americans. That’s true whether you’re talking about an individual calculus or a collective calculus. Safety rules that are appropriate for the United States would be unnecessarily immiserating in much poorer Bangladesh. Rules that are appropriate in Bangladesh would be far too flimsy for the richer and more risk-averse United States. Split the difference and you’ll get rules that are appropriate for nobody. The current system of letting different countries have different rules is working fine. American jobs have gotten much safer over the past 20 years, and Bangladesh has gotten a lot richer.

Yglesias was raked over the coals by, as he put it in a later piece, just about the entire Internet. (This one was particularly good.) Yglesias was guilty of, at the very least, bad taste — the economic wonkery can wait until the dead have been counted. He makes the neoliberal point, just as the sweatshop defenders did during the Nike Wars of the 1990s, that Bangladesh’s low, low cost of doing business has helped the country take needed textile jobs — including from China — and build an $18 billion manufacturing industry. But there’s a difference between accepting that workers are being paid sweatshop wages to make our incredibly inexpensive clothes — the minimum wage is $36.50 a month — and accepting that they must labor in deathtraps. And they do: according to the International Labor Rights Forum, an advocacy group in Washington, more than 1,000 Bangladeshi garment workers have died in fires and other disasters.

Even Yglesias backtracked later, emphasizing that there are on-the-ground improvements that can be made to labor standards in Bangladesh that could mean the difference between life and death. (See this interview with Kimberly Ann Elliott of the Center for Global Development for a few ideas.) And those improvements shouldn’t drastically increase the cost of clothes made in Bangladesh — which is a good thing, given our addiction to cheap and fast-changing fashion:

“It bothers me, but a lot of retailers are getting their clothes from these places and I can’t see how I can change anything,” 21-year-old university student Elizabeth McNail said, clutching a brown paper bag from clothier Primark the day after a building collapse in Savar, Bangladesh, killed at least 362 people. “They definitely need to improve, but I’ll still shop here. It’s so cheap.”

International retailers can do more to advocate safer standards at textile factories that manufacture their wares, in Bangladesh and elsewhere. Customers can do their part by putting a little pressure on their favorite brands, though that would require placing as much value on the cost of a life as you might on the cost of a T-shirt.

First appeared in the TIME magazine, April 29, 2013