Working Hard or Working Cheap
Another week, another batch of well-intentioned protesters in over their heads in Red Square.
Last Monday, students representing the Georgetown Solidarity Committee assembled to condemn the Russell Corporation, an apparel supplier for the university, because the company closed a factory in Honduras. Reports suggested that the closure was motivated by attempts at unionization by the factory’s employees.
Proving the theory that the only thing that makes a suffocating bureaucracy move is a chance to look good, university administrators terminated the school’s contract with the corporation within only two days of the protest.
Ironically, by relying on the simplistic and dangerous argument that the best way to help the poor is to boycott their livelihood, the GSC and the administrators who bought the committee’s argument actually hurt those they meant to help.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman outlines the explanation: Sweatshops, though they might upset our delicate Georgetown consciousness, are a blessing for the millions living on a dollar per day in developing nations.
The naïve attitude many students have with regard to this issue — “Infringement upon workers’ rights has no place in a modern economy,” The Hoya’s editorial board bizarrely declared last week, ignoring the fact that many poor countries do not have modern economies — reveals a misunderstanding of basic economic principles like comparative advantage and a troubling ignorance of living conditions in the developing world. These nations simply cannot meet our standards of “workers’ rights” and still remain economically competitive.
Sweatshops are terrible environments, but they are better than the alternative. In Honduras, where the Russell Corporation operates factories, the average sweatshop apparel worker earned over $13 per day in 2005, as compared to less than $2 per day for the general population. One-hundred thousand sweatshop workers in Bangladesh who lost their jobs in 2001 immediately petitioned to return to work. Many were forced from the factories into sweltering fields and prostitution houses.
“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” a young Cambodian woman rummaging through garbage told The New York Times. “At least that work is in the shade.”
Boycotting the goods these workers produce is so irresponsible, it is difficult to know where to begin. It amounts to letting a man starve because you are too morally self-righteous to pay him to do a menial job for you.
The prolonged presence of manufacturers like Russell in developing countries improves prospects of economic growth. As Krugman observes, in Taiwan and South Korea, where manufacturers were allowed to operate without interference, mean wages are now identical to American living wages. From Bangladesh to Indonesia, corporations have raised standards of living and reduced starvation rates dramatically.
The best that these protesters can hope for — and this is about as likely as Israel pulling out of Gaza because 30 college students staged a die-in in Red Square — is that thousands of other universities and businesses nationwide will boycott companies like Russell and insist on higher wages for apparel workers.
But such an eventuality would devastate developing countries economically or, at best, increase inequality. Manufacturers would either shift production to industrialized countries with more capital and resources, resulting in economic ruin for many poor nations, or they would create an even more exclusive working class in a handful of developing countries.
The latter development, which would still necessitate dramatically underpaying sweatshop workers so that they could remain competitive with industries in the developed world, would do nothing to help the vast majority of the starving peasants and children in these countries.
But Georgetown students (at least when they shop at the bookstore) are no longer complicit in that suffering, so we can now sleep better at night. And that makes all the difference, right?
It is not surprising that the GSC would prefer to fight Russell rather than the economic realities. College students occupy an often frustrating place in American society — many are too powerless to even take care of themselves, yet all are old enough to understand the horrible realities occurring in the world around them. Advocating for inane causes is an understandable outlet for this apparent helplessness, but it is not a responsible one. In this case, it is morally wrong because it is so actively harmful to the very workers the students hope to protect.
Recall the protesters staging that die-in who harangued passers-by to sign an impotent petition demanding that Israel cease its attack on Gaza, or the hundreds of students who decide to fast once a year for less than twelve hours to “stand in solidarity” with those suffering in Darfur. There is a distinction between working for good and working for what makes you look good. Students at this school — and the administration — would do well to appreciate the difference if they honestly want to help those in need.
Gregg Re is a junior in the College and a staff writer for The Hoya.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
Feb 10 2009 at 3:22 p.m.
Greg -- I find your piece to be stunningly uninformed.
I'm a Georgetown alum and I'm currently on tour across the country with workers from the Russell factory, who are asking universities to end their licensing agreements with Russell until their factory reopens. This is one part of their sophisticated strategy to pressure Russell, who kicked these 1800 workers out on to the street and placed them all on a blacklist simply for standing up for their basic rights.
Your piece here is based on the notion GSC and GU are "boycotting the livelihood" of these--does it make no difference that the workers themselves came to GU personally to demand this "boycott."
Kudos to the Hoya for supporting GSC on this matter-- It is one of the most clear cut cases possible: GU has a licensing contract with Russell that includes worker rights requirements, Russell violated that contract, and GU is cutting the contract to show we're serious about those worker rights requirements.
On a more general note, I think it's terribly sad that Georgetown economics classes teach this Krugman-esque logic without making any space for discussion, disagreement, etc. I assume Gregg Re took one of those SFS required Econ courses, and his disturbingly over-simplified arguments are based on those over-simplified GU classes. I encourage folks to bring up this case in your Econ classes--but beware: it is outrageously difficult in a GU classroom to bring up challenges to the narrow-minded notion that "free trade is always the best for everyone!" (GU's Econ department is agressively pro-neoliberalism.)
Feb 10 2009 at 4:46 p.m.
I encourage students to check out this blog:
http://reininrussell.blogspot.com/
It is following the Russell workers as they make their way across the country.
In regards to the quote:
"“I’d love to get a job in a factory,” a young Cambodian woman rummaging through garbage told The New York Times. “At least that work is in the shade.”
Re lifted a quote out of context from one Cambodian worker from a NyTimes Krugman article. One person in one terrible workplace situation cannot possibly speak for all others in terrible workplace situations worldwide.
Feb 10 2009 at 4:51 p.m.
How is it out of context? It's in a Kristof column arguing the same thing I am.
Feb 10 2009 at 4:53 p.m.
From 2004 through 2006, I sat with Jack Mahoney on the Licensing Oversight Committee through lengthy policy discussions about the production standards of Georgetown apparel.
Gregg got one thing right. Georgetown is a bureaucracy. With extensive research from the Workers Rights Consortium -- our monitoring agency -- and in consultation with dozens of other universities across the country, every decision had to pass through the hands of social justice professors, a team of lawyers, administrators, students, athletics directors and free market economists. As you can imagine, our discussions were lively.
But there were a few principles upon which we all agreed. On the question of morality, we all felt that our university’s name and image should always strive to stand for justice. Jack the Bulldog represents something more than Wal-Mart’s big yellow smiley face.
Furthermore, we all acknowledged that our apparel products are being produced according to a fundamental rule of globalized free trade – when it comes to workers’ rights, this is a race to the bottom.
The question, then, is where does it stop? When do you hit bottom? Should we wait until some of the workers are actually killed? As in many countries, Honduran workers are routinely murdered for trying to organize themselves and bargain collectively, oftentimes by paramilitary groups with ties to the government.
Anyone who is truly familiar with our nation’s foreign policy knows that some of these paramilitary personnel have received training on United States soil. But you won’t read that in your ECON 243 class.
On behalf of hundreds of workers who were fired and received death threats for forming a union at a Russell factory, these workers came to Red Square to ask Georgetown to hold Russell accountable for its violations of the law.
Gregg reflected the outdated and miserly belief that workers and students are powerless to act in such a situation. Quoting a passage from the Gospel according to Paul Krugman, he argued that companies should be “allowed to operate without interference.”
Let’s not let those laws get in the way of a quick buck, he says. In his phantasmagorical free market free-for-all, companies like Russell don’t even need to honor contractual agreements on labor standards with institutions like Georgetown.
Russell is trying to cheat the system, and now it is facing consequences. We do have power to enforce the rules. Other universities have already begun to sever lucrative contracts with Russell. This coordinated strategy has proven effective many times in recent years, as companies have been pressured to reopen unionized factories, rehire fired workers, and repay illegally withheld wages. Other companies profit from the increased productivity of unionized facilities, so why can’t Russell?
Instead of sitting on the sidelines of the debate, Paul Krugman’s disciples need to take a position on where to draw the line. Georgetown has sent a clear message that its business partners must abide by the basic requirements of internationally recognized laws concerning minimum wages, working conditions and the freedom of association.
Zack Pesavento (SFS 08)
Feb 10 2009 at 5:01 p.m.
Re argues that a sweatshop job is better than no job at all - but the workers from the Russell factory who came to Georgetown were trying to get the factory re-opened. They had already lost their jobs thanks to the Russell company itself. The strategy isn't to cut ties with Russell so that the factories will close and Russell will fire all of its workers - the strategy is to fight alongside workers from the factory to hold Russell accountable so that workers will gain their old jobs back.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:05 p.m.
They don't just want the jobs, they want unionization.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:14 p.m.
And they should be allowed to form a union if that's their choice. That's what the freedom of association and the right to speak freely is all about. Or should we just go ahead and do away with documents like the Bill of Rights? Your choice.
And a union is just that -- an association of workers who can bargain collectively with their employer. Then they can sit down at the bargaining table and negotiate a contract. Maybe it'll be a good contract. Hopefully it won't be a bad contract. Probably, it'll be a lukewarm contract.
But at least they would have a legal document that spells out the conditions of their employment.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:19 p.m.
Bill of rights is an American document. Incidentally it does not guarantee unionization rights anyway.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:26 p.m.
Sure, it's an American document. But in your view, companies should be allowed to do whatever they need to maximize profits, regardless of any laws to the contrary. So, by that logic, companies should never be required to honor the freedom of association, here or anywhere.
But let's get back to the point at hand. Honduran law, consistent with international legal norms and Georgetown's code of conduct, says that it's illegal to violate the right to organize. Do you think companies should be allowed to break that law? Do you think that companies should be allowed to wantonly violate their own business agreements? Answer those questions, Greg.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:38 p.m.
Assuming that's even true, Why should georgetown students be enforcing honduran law? Is it because the government doesn't? If so, think about why they don't enforce it.If georgetown insists on unionization rights in contracts, they should also think about the effects of that policy on developing country workers
Feb 10 2009 at 5:41 p.m.
Gregg - Who are you to say that if the workers "want" unionization they shouldn't have it? Isn't making quality of life at least sustainable what we all want in the end?
Your article argues that GSC would "rather fight Russell than economic realities." Because (making the oldest, tiredest argument out there) that "college students are helpless."
If you're so "helpless" as a college student why write an article opposing GSC? Why open your mouth at all?
Further towards the accusation that GSC is engaging these issues as just a publicity stunt or a way to make ourselves feel good - well it seems that GSC can never win. When we don't let campus know what we're up to we're seen as ineffective, and when we work with workers themselves to make change, we're equally ill-informed.
When Georgetown conservatives get bored they write negative opinion articles in the Hoya against the GSC. Pretty simple.
Feb 10 2009 at 5:43 p.m.
I'm helpless to change the global economy but I can hopefully convince some protesters to not choke up red square every week
Feb 10 2009 at 7:01 p.m.
If Russell didn't want to respect the freedom of association, then they didn't need to sign an agreement with Georgetown stating as such.
Let's get your argument straight: companies can violate contractual labor standards in the name of some vague grand economic theory that ultimately would end up protecting those workers' rights.
What if Russell wanted to enslave the workers? Can they break that law too?
I dare you to stand on a milk crate in Red Square and try to make the case that any company can break any law at any time.
In fact, if GSC is so wrong, why don't you organize a group of neoliberal economics students to persuade Georgetown to reverse their unfortunate decision? Go ahead, it'll be fun to watch.
But so long as you go on quoting your econ book, you are pretty much helpless.
Feb 10 2009 at 7:11 p.m.
"When Georgetown conservatives get bored they write negative opinion articles in the Hoya against the GSC. Pretty simple."
And what do you when you are bored? Write negative reviews of the authors of opinion articles?
"Why open your mouth at all?"
Seriously, Gregg is a fool who does not agree with you so should stay quiet.
"I find your piece to be stunningly uninformed." + "...disturbingly over-simplified arguments"
Flying dogs are stunning. Flying headless dogs are disturbing. His article was an opposing viewpoint. Take some Zantax.
In the immortal words of Eric Cartman, there is only thing worse than normal hippies:
"The college know-it-all hippy."
Begin timer for someone calling me out for citing South Park now....
Feb 10 2009 at 7:26 p.m.
Actually, I thought your post did a good job conjuring up the image of Cartman's "Whateva, I can do what I want" complete with a little bit of the crack showing.
Are you calling the workers "know-it-all hippies" too? Because they were right there in Red Square too. In fact, next time why don't you come up and insult them to their faces?
You're a P.O.S. Those people have faced more real life than you ever will.
Have you ever had to make sure to take a different path to work everyday so that you don't get shot? Yeah, neither has Paul Krugman.
Feb 10 2009 at 7:28 p.m.
The rhetoric in this debate ignores one basic fact: efforts to unionize resulted in a loss of jobs. In truth, one seemingly always follows the other. Indeed, where this is not the case, interminably unprofitable businesses inevitably result (see, e.g., all of Detroit).
The question, therefore, is not, and should not be, whether workers should be allowed to unionize but rather whether it is ever in their long-term interest to do so.
I'm momentarily agnostic on this point, but would love to hear something persuasive in either direction.
Feb 10 2009 at 9:17 p.m.
"Have you ever had to make sure to take a different path to work everyday so that you don't get shot? Yeah, neither has Paul Krugman."
Krugman never stated the working conditions were desirable. He does make a persuasive argument that they can get a lot worse, though, if we start demanding better rights in developing countries as a condition of doing business with them. Such as for example a move by these critical corporations to more capital-rich nations. He and Kristof would agree that unions would demand these rights, so they're not a good idea by extension in this case.
Feb 10 2009 at 10:14 p.m.
Greg, I still don't get what your issue is. First of all, you've got to acknowledge the blatant double standard in your argument, which basically amounts to:
1) The company can break the law because it has a right to maximize profit through all means necessary.
2) The workers cannot exercise their existing legal right to form a union because they don't what's good for them "in the long run."
The thing is, the freedom of association is an international law, in addition to being a Honduran law. Now, I know that different countries interpret and enforce that to different degrees, and sure, companies exploit the heck out of those differences.
But to argue that the workers should not have been allowed to form a union at all, simply because they don't fit into your particular economic model (and come on, if you've seen the news, you know we're "reviewing" our approach to economic policy just about every day) is just ludicrous.
Read the workers' story in their own words here:
http://reininrussell.blogspot.com/2009/01/worker-testimony.html
I think some people have a hard time understanding that working people are capable of organizing themselves. This isn't about "self-righteous students" or some phantom "union bosses" trying to confuse the poor workers into joining a union.
They did this because they had no other choice. Even once they formed a union, they weren't going to negotiate themselves out of a job. They're not stupid. They came in before and after their scheduled hours to make sure work orders got filled, unpaid (even though they knew they should have been getting overtime, according to the law), just to make sure the orders kept coming to their factory. They know what they need to do to keep the factory open, just like in other successfully unionized facilities in developing countries.
Take this issue for example: The workers were tired of being verbally assaulted by their managers. Now, how much does it hurt Honduras' "comparative advantage" for the Russell managers to stop threatening their employees?
Feb 10 2009 at 10:24 p.m.
"In the long run, we're all dead."
- John Keynes
"In the long run, we're all the Grateful Dead."
- Paul Krugman
Feb 10 2009 at 10:29 p.m.
No one ever said companies should raise a profit by any means necessary, or that harassment of workers needs to happen for the country to run a successful export industry. I wasn't aware that the workers simply wanted a union so that they could not be threatened, and I'm wondering where you get that -- my understanding is that they wanted to unionize in ways that would more directly affect their output production. If not, I can still see why Russel would not want to allow it, because they'd probably move on to those demands eventually.
A better protest would have been directed at the US government to send more aid to these countries. Instead of bailing out some of our industries we could send hundreds of billions to help workers in developing countries. This is just a bandaid, obviously, and I wouldn't recommend it because it a) makes the nation dependent on the US and b) hurts the US, but it's at least not harmful to Honduras or to its export industry.
Feb 10 2009 at 10:54 p.m.
Wow. Well, I'm glad you've finally moved on to offering your alternative idea on how to remedy the situation.
Do you understand what "leverage" is in terms of social change? It's the idea that, where you have a lever to pull, you should pull it. In this case, we have a mechanism (Georgetown's contract with Russell, its reputation for upholding Jesuit values, working in tandem with other universities ... Duke just announced it would cut the contract, etc).
Now, standing in Red Square and yelling for Barack Obama to increase aid to developing countries is obviously not going to make a change. I know some people like to "raise awareness" of various issues of which we should be aware.
But, inviting the workers to speak in Red Square and marching with them to DeGioia's office.. that resulted in an actual lever being pulled, so to speak.
I won't get into my issues with foreign aid, other than to point you to this lovely US Gov't issue film showing how to deal with "internal defense." http://www.archive.org/details/Psycholo1968>
And you should Google the School of the Americas.
Back to your point that "No one ever said companies should raise a profit by any means necessary..."
I'm referring to your (or Greg Re's) article where the case is made that Taiwan and South Korea developed successfully because companies were allowed "to operate without interference." I can only assume this interference refers to the presence of any unions (which do exist in these countries, and have secured better wages and benefits for workers), or interference in terms of the law somehow interfering with corporations' right to make money.
Either way, if your argument is that Russell should not be held accountable to one law, then why should they be held to any law? If, under your rules, they don't have to honor their agreement with Georgetown, then who do they have to honor agreements with?
They could probably make more money if they didn't pay taxes, for example, so can they break that law too? Or is the government "interfering" with their business by levying a tax?
These are all gaping holes left open in your argument, and you need to address them.
Feb 10 2009 at 10:59 p.m.
And no, I'm not saying that stopping harrassment was the workers' only issue. I'm only using that to illustrate that unions can play a role in protecting workers rights in areas that have no direct bearing on a nation's long term comparative advantage.
Furthermore, there are plenty of economic studies which show union facilities to be more productive. When you can have a sense of pride in your work, don't have to face routine threats, eat at least one square meal a day and god forbid, have the right to at least go to the hospital if its absolutely necessary without risking your livelihood, you're going to be more productive. That increases profits in a good way.
To further prove that point, other Georgetown contractors are capable of profitably sourcing from facilities where workers enjoy the freedom to associate, so why can't Russell do that?
Feb 11 2009 at 12:03 a.m.
There's no leverage here. You cut the contracts, you just increase inequality in these countries and slow growth at best, or ruin the export industry at worst. You're bringing about only a minute amount of "social change." The aid is a better idea. It's not one that college students can impact.
I'm sure unions help productivity in areas where there are higher workers rights standards in Honduras. I have to imagine productivity in Honduran factories is extremely high given the conditions there, as compared to the US. I mean they work ridiculously long hours in huge numbers, how could it not be?
Russel should be held accountable to enforced Honduran laws. If Honduras doesn't want an abusive industry in its country, it can regulate it or force it out. This is the last thing they would want economically, but whatever.
Feb 11 2009 at 1:12 a.m.
We're making some progress. I'm glad that you think there are some laws to which companies should be held accountable -- only those that are enforced by the developing nation's government. Now you're at least in the debate, because you are willing to draw a line somewhere.
Now, are there laws that governments might not enforce, to which companies should be held accountable? We wouldn't want to source our products from slave labor, and of course I assume you would agree.
Most developing nations want to at least maintain the appearance of respecting the rule of law, so they might want to support at least a few workers to have examples of their normalcy.
But, you're right, many of these governments don't enforce labor laws that they might have on the books. Why would they do that?
Well let's go back to your point that we don't want to restrict "growth." We all know that in many countries, you have a huge gap between the wealthy leadership and the impoverished people. So, it is possible that these countries are "growing" without people gaining their fair share of that growth. In the United States, for example, worker productivity has soared over the last 25 years, but wages are pretty much stagnant. Wonder where all that money went?
And this is where we get into aid.
Development Aid : Carrot :: Military Aid : Stick
You're a smart guy. You know that we -- and I mean that in a very familiar sense -- train a lot of these "foreign leaders" here in the United States? Whether it's government officials or military officers, a lot of them have been here to our colleges and universities and military installations. It's part of a coordinated strategy.
Take Colombia for example. Here's some unrelated facts:
Colombia receives the highest level of US military aid in the Western Hemisphere.
Colombia is the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists.
Colombian trade unionists have been killed inside Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia by paramilitaries.
Colombian paramilitary forces have been openly acknowledged to have trained at Fort Benning, Georgia.
Coca-Cola, based in Atlanta, regularly enjoys an 80% profit margin from its activities in Colombia.
And I should probably draw the line there.
Feb 11 2009 at 2:09 a.m.
Amen to that SFS 08. Amen.
Feb 11 2009 at 2:42 a.m.
Honduras doesn't enforce the laws because they need to protect their export industry. I'm not sure what you're talking about after that. Seems you are saying the US, controlled by Coca Cola and their dastardly Atlanta headquarters, is funneling money into busting Columbian unions rather than paying its workers (??)
Feb 11 2009 at 4:05 a.m.
"Take this issue for example: The workers were tired of being verbally assaulted by their managers."
+
"You're a P.O.S. Those people have faced more real life than you ever will."
So if I go stand on a "milk crate" in Red Square protesting your verbal assault will you help me make signs?
When someone (who actually sympathizes with the workers to some extent) makes a light-hearted point unrelated to the issue but rather the fact people were attacking the author and writing in an extremely condescending fashion the best way to refute their point is probably not to condescendingly attack that author with expletives.
P.S. A "college know-it-all hippy" would be someone recently in college who turns around and takes everything they have just read or heard, takes it as gospel, and contemptly spits it in the face of everyone with different viewpoints. More importantly, it is just a cartoon character kind of like Marmaduke except less adorable.
P.P.S. No-one is saying you can't be passionate about and support whatever it is that you want to support. Remember not everyone who disagrees with you is Satan incarnate with the brain of a rock on the payroll of Cheney. Sometimes may be best to take a deep breath first (I'd say smoke a cigarette outside Lauinger but then we would have a whole different angry mob here).
P.P.P.S. You're a doody pants.
Feb 11 2009 at 5:31 a.m.
LOL mike
Feb 11 2009 at 7:09 a.m.
Greg - why shouldn't Georgetown have cut ties with Russel?
You're argument is essentially (if I'm getting it correctly) that if we forced Russel to pay their workers a decent wage and not abuse their workers, Russel would simply go elsewhere that allowed such standards, and therefore the original workers would be in a worse off position than before.
But you ignore the fundamental point SFS '08 is getting at - we're pulling the lever. Companies exist to make profit. If we - and other universities and businesses - do not patronize Russel because of its labor practices, they lose money. So them 'saving' money by transferring their work elsewhere for even worse conditions would be futile because we would continue to boycott their services. Therefore, if we agree to buy Russel clothing only if they respect workers' rights, Russel will make more money than they would otherwise.
That's just economics.
Feb 11 2009 at 5:25 p.m.
'So them 'saving' money by transferring their work elsewhere for even worse conditions would be futile because we would continue to boycott their services.'
then they will transfer to capital rich countries and close honduran factories entirely. why stay in poor countries if you need to treat workers well?
Feb 11 2009 at 5:36 p.m.
m please reread this part, I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from
But such an eventuality would devastate developing countries economically or, at best, increase inequality. Manufacturers would either shift production to industrialized countries with more capital and resources, resulting in economic ruin for many poor nations, or they would create an even more exclusive working class in a handful of developing countries.
The latter development, which would still necessitate dramatically underpaying sweatshop workers so that they could remain competitive with industries in the developed world, would do nothing to help the vast majority of the starving peasants and children in these countries.
Feb 11 2009 at 6:36 p.m.
They would not necessarily fly to other countries, Greg.
A decent wage varies from country to country; humane treatment is, also, a bedrock, below which a company may not go. The laws of each country may permit additional safeguards, but it's not necessary.
But again, let's say they close down the factory in Honduras because the workers wanted to unionize. They could move to somewhere else - but Georgetown would still require baseline guarantees of no sweatshop conditions. If, all other things being equal, unionized workers are cheaper in Malaysia than unionized workers in Honduras because of living conditions, then they will move to Malaysia. Okay - I don't think anyone's necessarily disputing that.
But whoever ends up working for Russel will have a decent wage (in regards to their country) and not be mistreated. Honduras may look to Malaysia and say, hm, how can we get back jobs? Lower taxes, tax breaks, easier capital flow, better infrastructure, etc. That's fine.
It's the free market with a bottom-line guarantee that workers won't have their human rights violated.
Feb 11 2009 at 6:38 p.m.
"Why stay in poor countries if you need to treat workers well?"
Because it's still dramatically cheaper than industrialized countries. Unionized Honduran workers are not unionized GM workers in Detroit.
Feb 11 2009 at 7:50 p.m.
why talk of corporations as violating human rights? these workers had few human rights before these corporations came. they rummage through scraps making under a dollar a day. then a big business comes and many make $13 a day -- and they are suddenly evil, only because we profit from the corporations. it is truly bizarre logic.
these sweatshop jobs are the best thing to happen to their countries. if you force corporations to scale back work hours and increase pay further, you will cost these companies money. they will have to start cutting jobs, factories and production. this is bad.
Feb 11 2009 at 9:51 p.m.
I'm glad the three articles appearing in The Hoya over the past two weeks on this topic have spurred so many people to make the same two points in so many variations: 1) Russell broke the law and exploited labor; 2) Though distasteful, sweatshops and anti-organization behavior promote business and higher wages in the long run.
This, then, is a question and not an argument. Let's say it's a given that Georgetown is within its rights to cancel its contract with Russell on purely legal grounds. (After all, Russell violated its agreement with Georgetown. I'm making no judgments on what Georgetown should or should not do here, just what is within its rights.) Let's also say that it's within the rights of labor to organize. (Individual laws may or may not be just, but that's not the point here. Organization may or may not be in the long term interests of workers, but the point is irrelevant here.) Given all of this, is it within Russell's rights to fire employees who organize and to close shop in union factories? For example, let's say Russell opens a shop in Small Town. Some Small Towners apply for and work at the Russell Factory. A group of Small Towners convinces the factory workers to unionize. There's no law against it, after all. They press for higher wages (perfectly rational). Given that Russell can hire cheaper labor elsewhere and maximize profits, does it not have the right to do so? Put another way, does Russell have the same rights to do what is best for its business as labor has to do what is best for itself? I'd be interested in hearing from Gregg, SFS 08 and Sarah on this one. Please no arguments about Russell's moral obligations or why workers should or should not try to organize. I simply want to know if the same standards that apply to Georgetown and to labor might also apply to Russell.
Feb 12 2009 at 3:13 p.m.
COL 07, I think you're wrong to assume that the relationship between business and organized labor is a zero-sum game. As I've made the point earlier, unionized facilities are, on the whole, more productive than non-unionized ones. That's a plus for both the workers and management, for example. In the U.S., that 'union difference' in productivity has been measured at various levels by various researchers. But, a recent study commissioned by the New York Federal Reserve Bank and Tufts, published in Scientific America, put that figure at a 27% increase in productivity. That's money in the bank.
Secondly, let's remember what a union is. It's a formal association of employees that has the ability to bargain collectively as a unit. That's it. In and of itself, the presence of a union doesn't imply that workers will be paid X, or receive benefit Y or enjoy civil right Z.
All it does is allow workers to negotiate with their employers to put down, in a legal document, the terms of their employment. The terms might be good, bad or ugly depending on each side's relative bargaining power (and yes, the employer would still have a strong hand to play with), but at least the terms of employment will be written down. No CEO would work without a contract, so why shouldn't the workers?
[In a larger sense, if capital is allowed to organize itself, then why shouldn't labor? For those of you who detest "big government," perhaps the answer really is to take government out of the equation and simply set up a free market where pools of organized capital negotiate contracts with pools of organized labor? Not saying that's my position, but maybe something for Ron Paul Republicans to consider.]
In the U.S., about 44% of newly formed unions don't ever even receive a first contract to begin with (Source: MIT). And that's here, where we have *some* respect for labor rights.
Finally, there are plenty of major institutions (a huge bulk of the lucrative college apparel market, for instance) that are working together to seek ways to source an increased percentage of their apparel from ethical contractors. It's a challenge, to be sure, but it has worked in the past to remedy situations such as these. Again, we're not flying blind here. I wouldn't be surprised to see the factory reopened.
And, at the end of the day, the law does matter. I'm sure soccer would be a much different game if the home team could use their hands while the challengers had to stick with their feet. That's why we set up rules.. it creates a level playing field. Thank God someone's willing to blow the whistle.
Russell is a cheat, just like Madoff or A Rod, plain and simple.
Feb 12 2009 at 3:36 p.m.
SFS08 - This doesn't answer the question. The question is simply this: Regardless of whether it's in Russell's best interest to operate union shops, should they have the right to close shop, when they want, if labor organizes? (If you look at my earlier post, I don't assume whether it's good or bad for labor to organize, only that they should have the right to do so in a free market. So the question is, should Russell have its own rights here. The fact that it's Russell doesn't really matter; any import/export manufacturer will do.)
Feb 12 2009 at 3:38 p.m.
"A group of Small Towners convinces the factory workers to unionize. "
Correction: A group of workers decides to organize themselves.
That's what the Russell workers did.
I find it curious that so many Georgetown kids are willing to give agency to the management, to Georgetown, to students, to union leaders, etc, but can't seem to comprehend that workers would actually decide to form a union amongst themselves. They are thinking human beings, just like everyone else. They live through this stuff every day, and no one is going to "convince" them to do something they don't want to do. They live in countries where workers are killed for organizing unions, so believe me, it's not a decision they make haphazardly.
Feb 12 2009 at 3:51 p.m.
"should they have the right to close shop, when they want, if labor organizes?"
The answer, COL 07, is no. I don't have the right to drive down the left side of the street, even if it would get me to work faster. I don't have the right to stop paying taxes to the government, even if it would give me more money.
There is an international legal norm, reflected in most countries (including Honduras) which makes it clear that one cannot close a factory *for the reason* of unionization. Beyond that, it doesn't really matter what you think.
As I've said, unionization, in and of itself, means only that a union exists. It has no direct bearing on the operation of the company. It's when you get a contract that the terms may change. And, again, in most cases, there's no one really there to hold the employer to actually sign a contract anyways. Even here in the US, as I said before, you only get a contract (ever, at all, and sometimes this goes on for decades), about 60% of the time.
The key thing here, and this is really my playing the devil's advocate, would be for Russell (or whomever) to "respect the freedom of association." You don't tell all the workers that you're firing all of them for union activity, but you could probably get away with firing a good number of the leaders, saying it was "insubordination." It's almost impossible to hold them accountable on that, especially in a developing country. Happens every day. (If it didn't, there would most certainly be more union workers)
But Russell was so particularly egregious in this situation, that it's basically a no-brainer for GU to do what it did.
If this were a baseball game, I'd liken it to the difference between a pitcher hitting a batter with the ball (maybe it was intentional, maybe it wasn't) and a batter running out to the mound and whacking the pitcher over the head with the bat.
Don't be surprised when the ump throws you out of the game.
Feb 12 2009 at 7:15 p.m.
I think you're missing the point of my question. Let's say the law says it's illegal to unionize, then by your standards the workers were in the wrong here, and not Russell. Which I don't think is a path you want to go down. The law, you might say, would be unjust. So let's forget about the law for a moment, and say this instead (I think I've said it already): Irrespective of laws, which can be changed, if employees SHOULD have the right to unionize, SHOULD Russell have the right to close down union shops. It's a very simple question. It's a thought experiment. I don't see why it's so hard to answer (firing a few leaders isn't an answer, it's an alternative). An answer might be: Human dignity (however defined)implies the right to associate freely and collectively, even when on another's property. Another answer might be: Labor or capital owners, regardless of relationship, have the same right of mastery of themselves, their associations and property. Labor has the right to associate freely, and owners of capital have the right to expel those associates from their property. A third answer might be: There are no owners of capital, and in so far as labor organizes collectively, they are acting justly with regard resources that should already belong to the collective. So again, I don't care what your answer is (mine is the second one, and I already know we disagree on it), I just want you to give me one.
Feb 12 2009 at 8:38 p.m.
This would be the point at which Alice falls down the rabbit hole, but if you're wanting to move into the realm of a thought experiment, I'll try to engage further. And I think I've already laid out a few points above.
Overall, I'm in favor of the principles of balance and fairness, and I mean that more in terms of power (political, social, economic) than I do in terms of rights. You've set up a number of scenarios concerning "rights," (incidentally, so do many in the labor movement) but, I don't think that this gets to the heart of the issue.
For example, when a labor person says, "Workers should have the right to organize" then a fat cat comes along and says, "Well, what about the right not to organize?" and then you just end up in this little never ending back and forth.
That being said, the freedom of association is and ought to be one of the foundational principles of a just society. Whether we're talking about investors, environmentalists, consumers or workers, you should have the right to associate freely. If you want to join the PTA, the NRA, the Chamber of Commerce, or your local Consolidated Biscuit Workers Union, you have the right to associate freely without harassment.
Now, if I understand basic economics right, we have three big players out there: Land, Labor and Capital. Land (resources) are just sort of there, but we do have organized groups of environmentalists to advocate on the behalf of those interests, whatever they may be. Capital certainly has organizations, locally, nationally and globally, that advocate on their behalf. By extension, therefore, labor should have the power to organize itself because we should treat each of these elements as equal and necessary elements of the international system. You can't do anything without Workers + Dollars + Stuff. (Arguably, you could do without the dollars, because how else did people survive before money? How do other animal species survive? Just saying..)
But, what Neoliberal free market types always seem to forget is that they're nothing without the people who do the work. [And, although attitudes are changing, even "green" people used to think that we could somehow magically "green" the economy without realizing that you need an army of workers to make that happen. Now Obama is focusing on the need for green jobs, etc.. and that's progress]
Now, I may be a bit "unorthodox" here, but I don't think in the truest sense of the word, that capitalists can claim the factory and all of its products as "their property." That may be the law, but as you say, we're going without laws here for the moment. The workers produce those clothes, they operate the machines. Workers are the ones who take Input Stuff and turn it into Output Stuff. Sure, the capitalists provide the money, but does that make all of that Stuff 100% theirs? I've never seen a dollar bill actually do anything other than sit there on the table and stare back at me.
So, what I'm saying by all this, is that as stakeholders in the most intimate operations of the business, workers have a right to a seat at the bargaining table. And, really, I think somehow the environment should have a seat at that table, but I think that gets tricky when you come back down out of the thought experiment.
Fundamentally, this is about POWER more than it is about RIGHTS.
As it stands right now, you seem to think that the owners of capital should have 100% of the power, almost like mini dictators. They decide whether or not labor can organize, they decide whether or not they screw the local environment. They get to hold you as an "at will" employee that can be discarded for any reason from legitimate ones (the cashier spit in my hamburger) to illegitimate ones (the cashier needs to take a day off from work because she's about to give birth).
Now, I understand there's a grey area in there. But, when the boss is the only one determining how to sift that grey into black and white, he's going to only represent his interests. When workers have at least some input, you can reach a more equitable agreement that benefits all parties.
As I've said, workers and management are not fundamentally opposed. Workers know that they need to stay competitive and productive to keep the plant open. But to close the place down just because they decided to create a formal association of workers? That has no bearing on the operation of the factory.
It conjures up the image of a dictator who panics at the first sight of democracy.
So, my answer is still NO, management does not have the right (though it obviously currently has the power) to shut down a factory because a union has formed.
Look at how the international system is set up. Capital can move to the other side of the planet by dawn. Some (mostly white collar) workers can go just about anywhere, but most workers are restricted in their movements. I think that's a fundamental imbalance, which workers are up against. It makes organizing very very hard, for sure. But to say that, because the system is stacked against them, therefore they can't do anything at all.. I think that undermines the whole idea of "freedom and democracy."
Never forget that corporations are, in a literal sense, some of the most fascist entities in the whole world. And if you think I'm being hyperbolic, look at the definition of fascism:
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
Remember, these workers who came to GU are facing death threats. They're risking their lives by speaking out against this injustice.
That's why I'm so fascinated by this "economic crisis." It's so funny to watch, because the "captains of industry" seem to be the last ones to realize that the party's over. A year ago, they looked like they had everything under control. Now they look like a bunch of coke fiends who wonder why we're not giving them more free 8 balls.
The house of cards that my ECON professors so furiously constructed for me just a few years ago is now falling apart. And I would laugh at them if the implications weren't so serious.
A new order is coming into being, and I fully expect that working people, globally, are prepared to force a more equitable distribution of power, regardless of whether or not the capitalists give it to them.