A few days ago, Chancellor Biddy Martin announced the University of Wisconsin's intent to end business relations in March with Russell Athletics, a clothing manufacturing company contracted to supply apparel donning UW-Madison logos.
The reasoning behind the termination of this relationship was the company's aggressive action against workers' movements to unionize, particularly shutting down a plant in Choloma, Honduras, where workers were beginning to form a union. Russell Athletics claimed that this was due to the current recession and were forced to close the plant due to economic reasons. However, looking at Russell Athletics' past track record of hostile anti-union activity, one must question whether there actually was an ulterior motive behind their decisions. Thus, UW-Madison and Chancellor Martin should be commended for taking such action, but even more can be done for workers' rights.
According to the Workers Rights Consortium, an independent workers' rights group committed to monitoring working conditions in factories around the world, management at the Choloma plant threatened workers before the closure that the factory would be shut down if they continued to unionize. In addition, after the closing, some of the management actually admitted that the workers' attempts to form an association factored heavily into the plant being shut down. Furthermore, Russell Athletics has fired union leaders from their various factories in the past, often with a poor, if any, explanation for the termination.
What sort of message would this behavior send about UW-Madison if we were to tolerate it? That we're okay with our suppliers acting aggressively against unions? That we don't mind if workers are stripped of their rights, so long as we can get our fleece sweatshirts cheap? Not taking action on UW-Madison's part would have been wholly irresponsible, however, there is still more to be done in the battle over workers' rights.
Although ending relations with a company such as Russell Athletics shows that UW-Madison is willing to take a strong stance on workers' rights and that more can and should be done about the issue. The Designated Suppliers Program, which was originally proposed by the activist group United Students Against Sweatshops, is meant to help obtain and keep apparel workers' rights. It is a program intended to force UW-Madison apparel suppliers to adhere to UW-Madison's code of conduct, as well as to prove that they are doing so.
The Designated Suppliers Program is actually quite feasible for apparel manufacturers to adhere to and is not unreasonable. It states factories must demonstrate that they follow international labor standards, that the factory employees are represented by a legitimate labor union or other body and that all workers are paid a minimum livable wage"" - or one that allows workers to provide themselves and their family with all basic needs. Also, it falls on the university supplied by these factories to pay enough for the goods they purchase so that factories can implement these sorts of changes. Lastly, the factory must also manufacture primarily university logo goods, so that the university using such factories does also end up covering these sorts of costs to make other non-university goods. This is a fairly simple plan with reasonable expectations from both the university as well as suppliers. Committing to such a program will make an example of UW-Madison, showing that we care for the rights of workers and do not tolerate the mistreatment of factory laborers.
The closing of the Choloma plant sends a message to workers in Central America, that trying to form an association to stand up for their rights is pointless, and this simply cannot be acceptable. That is why UW-Madison needs to take a stand, as it has done, and why we need to continue to show that we believe in the fair treatment of workers. Fully implementing the Designated Suppliers Program would show such a commitment as well as illustrate UW-Madison's intolerance against the exploitation of workers.
Ryan Dashek is a junior majoring in biology. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
