University of Wisconsin Terminates Vendor Relationships Based on Anti-Sweatshop Policies
Stuart Nachbar
February 09, 2009
Last week I read in the Chronicle of Higher Education that the University of Wisconsin-Madison has terminated a licensing agreement with Russell Athletic in response to their parent company's decision to close a factory in Honduras. Worker-rights groups had alleged that the closure was in response to union-organizing activity there. See the story at http://chronicle.com/news/article/5931/u-of-wisconsin-flagship-ends-ties-with-apparel-maker?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en.
This was not the first time the university had decided to terminate a licensing agreement. Slightly more than a year ago, Wisconsin canceled an agreement with the New Era Cap company because they had prevented a university-hired labor monitoring group from entering their factory in Mobile, Alabama. That story is at http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=3829.
In both of these cases, the vendors entered into contracts that allowed the university to inspect working conditions at the plants where their licensed products were made. These contracts include a code of conduct requiring apparel manufacturers to allow their workers to unionize and also allow monitoring by a worker rights consortium.
Okay, a contract is a contract and both companies knew the rules. They were expected to abide by the code of conduct and they didn't. In fact, New Era's actions were little different from Saddam Hussein's attempts to keep U.N. inspectors from looking for weapons of mass destruction. If I got the same greeting at the New Era plant I'd cancel my contract too.
But I also have to ask: why do university administrators engage their schools in such contracts? I cannot imagine, for example, that an automobile company would allow the executives from the various car rental firms to inspect its assembly lines. Yes, the car companies want customer satisfaction, but they do not want the customer to set corporate and employment policy.
Aside from the universities, the only other business I can think of that might check out product on the assembly line is the Defense Department. But then there are national security issues at stake. The armed forces would definitely visit the weapons or heavy equipment manufacturer; the assembly line is set-up to their needs. But I doubt that generals or their aides tour the uniform manufacturers and ask about the labor force.
Contracts such as Wisconsin's vendor agreement are also political statements; they are taking a position in opposition to sweatshop labor around the world. If the contracts have the backing of the governor, legislature, trustees and the university community, then fine, they have every right to take their position. That power is reserved to states, as far I know. If a state university administration operates contrary to state politics, that is a different story. If a private school, especially a religiously affiliated one, has a moral issue with doing business with a particular vendor, then of course they should go with their heart.
But maybe someone should ask how much more their school stores and their students are willing to pay to get sweatshirts and caps from vendors that are more to their liking.
This was not the first time the university had decided to terminate a licensing agreement. Slightly more than a year ago, Wisconsin canceled an agreement with the New Era Cap company because they had prevented a university-hired labor monitoring group from entering their factory in Mobile, Alabama. That story is at http://chronicle.com/news/article/?id=3829.
In both of these cases, the vendors entered into contracts that allowed the university to inspect working conditions at the plants where their licensed products were made. These contracts include a code of conduct requiring apparel manufacturers to allow their workers to unionize and also allow monitoring by a worker rights consortium.
Okay, a contract is a contract and both companies knew the rules. They were expected to abide by the code of conduct and they didn't. In fact, New Era's actions were little different from Saddam Hussein's attempts to keep U.N. inspectors from looking for weapons of mass destruction. If I got the same greeting at the New Era plant I'd cancel my contract too.
But I also have to ask: why do university administrators engage their schools in such contracts? I cannot imagine, for example, that an automobile company would allow the executives from the various car rental firms to inspect its assembly lines. Yes, the car companies want customer satisfaction, but they do not want the customer to set corporate and employment policy.
Aside from the universities, the only other business I can think of that might check out product on the assembly line is the Defense Department. But then there are national security issues at stake. The armed forces would definitely visit the weapons or heavy equipment manufacturer; the assembly line is set-up to their needs. But I doubt that generals or their aides tour the uniform manufacturers and ask about the labor force.
Contracts such as Wisconsin's vendor agreement are also political statements; they are taking a position in opposition to sweatshop labor around the world. If the contracts have the backing of the governor, legislature, trustees and the university community, then fine, they have every right to take their position. That power is reserved to states, as far I know. If a state university administration operates contrary to state politics, that is a different story. If a private school, especially a religiously affiliated one, has a moral issue with doing business with a particular vendor, then of course they should go with their heart.
But maybe someone should ask how much more their school stores and their students are willing to pay to get sweatshirts and caps from vendors that are more to their liking.
Print
Email
